Maura Murray

This quote from Lt Scarinza came from his interview with James Renner on Renner's blog.

Whatif,

I'm no forensic scientist by any stretch, but, it would be easy for any laymen to tell if the rag was placed there after the wreck. If the rag was there while the vehicle was running, it would be saturated with exhaust, full of burnt off oil, particularly if the car was really only running on three cylinders. If it was placed there after the wreck, it would be minimal.

Was there no testing done on the rag to determine when it was placed in the exhaust? Seems like a simple, common sense thing to do...

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
why, ever, do you suppose strangers would flock to write so many posts, with limited knowledge, about an individual they have never met?
seems to be a good question for pop psychologists.

Snowy,
Their flocking behavior may be an attempt to protect the individual.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Noooo it can't be possible that you are a teacher.

OOOOH !I hope not.

Advocator wrote:

The only reason that *I* can think of why Maura herself would have put the rag in the tailpipe, is that she knew she had to leave the vicinity of the Saturn (find better cellphone signal? catch ride with someone she knew? take a ride from someone else?), and she stuffed the rag into the tailpipe maybe thinking that would keep the car from being stolen. She could reasonably assume the car would get towed and that she could recover it and possessions she left in it at a later time (if that was what she intended to do). But if it was stolen, that wouldn't have been an option.

Advocator,
I totally agree with your thoughts about the rag in the tailpipe. Also many on this forum had previously debated whether a rag in the tailpipe would prevent a vehicle from starting. The point to consider is that if Maura had been told the rag in tailpipe would prevent vehicle from starting and she had believed this to be true, she may have place the rag in the tailpiple of the Saturn. It appeared that people were arguing the point about whether a vehicle would start or not.......when it was not important. What would be important is what Maura believed to be true. If she believed a rag in tailpipe would prevent the car from starting, there is a good chance she may have placed it there. Point is....no one knows exactly who placed the rag in the tailpipe.

Rag*In*The*Tailpipe

Advocator wrote:

The only reason that *I* can think of why Maura herself would have put the rag in the tailpipe, is that she knew she had to leave the vicinity of the Saturn (find better cellphone signal? catch ride with someone she knew? take a ride from someone else?), and she stuffed the rag into the tailpipe maybe thinking that would keep the car from being stolen. She could reasonably assume the car would get towed and that she could recover it and possessions she left in it at a later time (if that was what she intended to do). But if it was stolen, that wouldn't have been an option.

Quite seriously, no one would steal that car, especially damaged, and a rag-in-tailpipe would not protect it from theft.

That was some manic all night rant a few days ago. Crazy talk.

Aftermath wrote:

<quoted text>
Snowy,
Their flocking behavior may be an attempt to protect the individual.

how so?

Ridiculous wrote:

Whatif,
I'm no forensic scientist by any stretch, but, it would be easy for any laymen to tell if the rag was placed there after the wreck. If the rag was there while the vehicle was running, it would be saturated with exhaust, full of burnt off oil, particularly if the car was really only running on three cylinders. If it was placed there after the wreck, it would be minimal.

i like this point. it certainly stands to reason. i can't be sure from the various accounts i've read if officer smith and the tow truck operator were the only individuals to actually handle the rag during the initial investigation in the days following or if others did also. without specific testing, it would seem these two individuals would be the most likely to know the condition of the rag at the scene and shortly thereafter.

regarding maura's backpack, is it believed that they were able to know she left with her backpack because she was seen wearing it in the video from the atm and the unknown liquor store on the day she disappeared? knowing that no one other than law enforcement has seen the video, i'm wondering how people know she had a backpack with her and took it with her when she left the accident scene. i'm guessing she was seen with it on the video recovered during the investigation.

and i'm still so incredibly curious about both the atm and liquor store video. why won't law enforcement let the public see it? i simply have to believe there is something incriminating about or around maura in the video that makes law enforcement want to keep it on such a tight leash.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>To my knowledge the backpack was never seen by SBD. No family member has ever seen the ATM video. The backpack is missing and has never been located. I honestly dont know who determined she took the backpack with her.

it is worth following up to my own question about maura's backpack with this reply by citigirl to amy researches on the same question back in august in this forum.

whatif wrote:

regarding maura's backpack, is it believed that they were able to know she left with her backpack because she was seen wearing it in the video from the atm and the unknown liquor store on the day she disappeared? knowing that no one other than law enforcement has seen the video, i'm wondering how people know she had a backpack with her and took it with her when she left the accident scene. i'm guessing she was seen with it on the video recovered during the investigation.
and i'm still so incredibly curious about both the atm and liquor store video. why won't law enforcement let the public see it? i simply have to believe there is something incriminating about or around maura in the video that makes law enforcement want to keep it on such a tight leash.

two words: active investigation

four more: none of our business

watching one of the wmurtv youtube video uploads, the one-year anniversary video, the reporter midway through the segment states in that matter-of-fact intonation that a witness reported seeing maura walking away from the vehicle. first time i recall reading or hearing about a witness who actually saw her walking away. or is this another example of news reporting embellishment, finessing known information for a more dramatic effect? or is it common knowledge to many of the long-timers that a witness had actually watched Maura walk away from the vehicle?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

This Christmas let's put any differences aside and enjoy this holiday season. There's been so much tragedy lately and I feel so blessed to have my family happy and healthy this Christmas.
For any of you that are traveling have a safe trip and for everyone I wish you a very Merry Christmas.

whatif wrote:

watching one of the wmurtv youtube video uploads, the one-year anniversary video, the reporter midway through the segment states in that matter-of-fact intonation that a witness reported seeing maura walking away from the vehicle. first time i recall reading or hearing about a witness who actually saw her walking away. or is this another example of news reporting embellishment, finessing known information for a more dramatic effect? or is it common knowledge to many of the long-timers that a witness had actually watched Maura walk away from the vehicle?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Never heard of it before. I have however both heard and read several other people besides SBD talked to Maura at the accident site. Wouldn´t surprise me if info about witnesses have been kept secret. Remember how many years it took until they released info on the orange peeling witness. I´m convinced one or more of the known witnesses, or possible other witnesses, saw something besides what´s been released to the public. Maybe we should bear in mind MM case was chosen for the cold case unit over many other cases because it seems "solvable". With the info available to the public it´s not, so surely they have a lot more that´s not been released.

whatif wrote:

regarding maura's backpack, is it believed that they were able to know she left with her backpack because she was seen wearing it in the video from the atm and the unknown liquor store on the day she disappeared? knowing that no one other than law enforcement has seen the video, i'm wondering how people know she had a backpack with her and took it with her when she left the accident scene. i'm guessing she was seen with it on the video recovered during the investigation.
and i'm still so incredibly curious about both the atm and liquor store video. why won't law enforcement let the public see it? i simply have to believe there is something incriminating about or around maura in the video that makes law enforcement want to keep it on such a tight leash.

I´m thinking not nexessarily incriminating but maybe distinguishing marker. Something about her that could differentiate true sightings from false ones.

Something I would love to know more about is the LE statement they have evidence of MM at some location away from the accident site after the accident. When? Where? I don´t believe it´s the CW sighting, because they were using the word "evidence".

On the Montel Williams show(interview w/Fred) Montel also states that a witness saw her walking away from the car.