Maura Murray

Yeah, you really need to also read the report. He reports the accident at 500 feet west of Bradley Hill rd. If you go the other way that is about 200 feet from the corner. You say 180ft, from where the corner? Sounds like the same location to me. So again, the question is, what nits are you trying to pick?

Bill

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi McsMom
The saturn was found directly in front of the Marrottes house facing westbound in the eastbound lane. This is in front of the 7 small balsams right next to the road.
This might have made it a little easier for them to see the scene.

You are right. I was there in the summer, the growth and foliage may be the difference.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
So Yes the acc. report is correct. I am just trying to stress the point that the car was down the rd. approx 180' to 200' in front of Marrottes house.

I must have totally misunderstood you when you said the car damage wasn't caused by hitting the trees, as it is reported in the official report. Because the officer clearly believes that is what happened, when he states the vehicle: "struck some trees". Would you please elaborate more on your theory.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I must have totally misunderstood you when you said the car damage wasn't caused by hitting the trees, as it is reported in the official report. Because the officer clearly believes that is what happened, when he states the vehicle: "struck some trees". Would you please elaborate more on your theory.
Bill

The saturn did not strike any trees. In my opinion this has been stated since the beginning by Myself and then later confirmed by a member of the NHLI. This person is a certified accident reconstructionist. These are the facts and known by NHLI. You will have to ask them if You want the official report.

The car was in front of marrottes house. This would change the view of those who were watching the scene that evening.

So Yes the drawing looks correct on the acc. report but the car did not hit the trees at the scene or any trees anywhere. That did not happen.

I have been there hundreds of times over the last nine years. I know the area pretty well.

Google earth shows the street view pretty well.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I must have totally misunderstood you when you said the car damage wasn't caused by hitting the trees, as it is reported in the official report. Because the officer clearly believes that is what happened, when he states the vehicle: "struck some trees". Would you please elaborate more on your theory.
Bill

oh, fun!!! i can snooze through this rewind...dragging a dead horse to water is no guarantee that it can be made to drink.
but they keep trying, don't they?

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
The saturn did not strike any trees. In my opinion this has been stated since the beginning by Myself and then later confirmed by a member of the NHLI. This person is a certified accident reconstructionist. These are the facts and known by NHLI. You will have to ask them if You want the official report.
The car was in front of marrottes house. This would change the view of those who were watching the scene that evening.
So Yes the drawing looks correct on the acc. report but the car did not hit the trees at the scene or any trees anywhere. That did not happen.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. So the officer on the scene, has everything correct. According to you. Including the diagram of the car going into and reflecting off of the trees. But according to some unknown expert. The car never actually contacted the trees. the abrupt change in the direction of the car, according to accurately represented diagram was by something other than that trees. But everything else about the diagram and written report is correct?

Interesting......

I should point out a well know principal in physics that has been in use, very effectively for several hundreds of years. Even helped with that whole silly man on the moon thing. It is known as Newtons first law of motion. It goes something like this: An object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an unbalanced force acts upon it. Now in a nutshell, this means that a body, such as a car, that is moving in a certain direction, will continue in that direction until and unless it has another force that makes it go in another direction. So bearing in mind that lots of scientists and engineers put a lot of stock in this "magic". I can only wonder what force caused Maura's car to take such an abrupt change in direction when headed to towards those trees? I mean, the officer, and he stands on some pretty solid physics ground, seems to think it might have been the trees. Now, I would argue that there is someone else who says no, that isn't what caused it. But, I am kind of a physics guy. Kind have based my life around it. So while I would like to believe it was a magical force field or a black hole or the mystery trailer hitch (by the way, I do have several trailer hitches). The only thing I see that makes total sense to me, ARE THE TREES. So until the mystery expert, whose report or information or qualifications have never been shown. I really believe it was the trees and until or unless someone can show some compelling magic method that caused the damage. Occam and my buddy Newton rules, it was the trees.

I expect some witty, well thought out, intelligent retort such as. "It wasn't the trees".

Bill

retort....

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

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. So the officer on the scene, has everything correct. According to you. Including the diagram of the car going into and reflecting off of the trees. But according to some unknown expert. The car never actually contacted the trees. the abrupt change in the direction of the car, according to accurately represented diagram was by something other than that trees. But everything else about the diagram and written report is correct?
Interesting......
I should point out a well know principal in physics that has been in use, very effectively for several hundreds of years. Even helped with that whole silly man on the moon thing. It is known as Newtons first law of motion. It goes something like this: An object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an unbalanced force acts upon it. Now in a nutshell, this means that a body, such as a car, that is moving in a certain direction, will continue in that direction until and unless it has another force that makes it go in another direction. So bearing in mind that lots of scientists and engineers put a lot of stock in this "magic". I can only wonder what force caused Maura's car to take such an abrupt change in direction when headed to towards those trees? I mean, the officer, and he stands on some pretty solid physics ground, seems to think it might have been the trees. Now, I would argue that there is someone else who says no, that isn't what caused it. But, I am kind of a physics guy. Kind have based my life around it. So while I would like to believe it was a magical force field or a black hole or the mystery trailer hitch (by the way, I do have several trailer hitches). The only thing I see that makes total sense to me, ARE THE TREES. So until the mystery expert, whose report or information or qualifications have never been shown. I really believe it was the trees and until or unless someone can show some compelling magic method that caused the damage. Occam and my buddy Newton rules, it was the trees.
I expect some witty, well thought out, intelligent retort such as. "It wasn't the trees".
Bill

NO

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
NO

Well. I guess I've been spanked.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

Typically, and . They would likely be around 20% effective in the terrain where Maura might have been found and that is with a spotter, not just the pilot and that is looking for a body, certainly not footprints. This would likely drop to probably 5% or less if the helicopter was used between 10am and 1pm because of the high angle of the light source if the sun was even out. Diffuse lighting (as in a cloudy day) makes it even harder to see prints no matter what the time.
Bill

This is one of these posts where bill is just pulling numbers out of his ass and making is sound like he REALLY knows what he's talking about, when in reality he only KINDA knows what he's talking about.
He's talkin about desert and mountain terrain, the mountain terrain he is referring to is mountainous terrain with thick forests where there's only 20% visibility, about. You have to remember that every case is different, every terrain is different and even that varies with light levels, time of year, etc, that 20% obviously jumps way higher when you're talking a helicopter at tree-top level, in the middle of winter where the sun is very low in the sky; the winter sun in feb is Never high in the sky even at noon, and they were up there at about 9am.
So, according to te actual Leo that was flyin in the helicopter, not some anonymous weirdo posting on the Internet 9 years later, the conditions were perfect for viewing tracks. In fact scarinza said the conditions "couldn't be better" for tracking. They also had the added benefit of a FLIR camera to aid on their search.
They specifically state they could see animal tracks large and small, game trails and human footprints clearly, but saw absolutely no evidence that anyone entered the woods anywhere along that route. They even went out and did it again a few days later, it still hadn't snowed, the conditions were still perfect, according to the Leo who was actually in the helicopter and again found nothing.
You have to remember that they had an absolute clear advantage during this search, this was NOT a normal wilderness search. They had fresh snowfall that was perfect for trackIng and they didn't need to search the entire woods, they only needed to check the sides of the roads. Of there was no trail leading into the woods then it is not possible that someone entered the woods.
Now this helicopter search is not 100% perfect, it's possible they missed something but when you also consider the fact that the dog lost her scent 100yds up the road both of those facts combine together to make a very strong argument that she is not in the woods.
This is probably why the NHSP has stated they believe she caught a ride from the area, unless they know even more than that but aren't sharing, which is very possible too.
To any logical, objective person who is not lookin at this with preconceived notions it is pretty obvious that the most likely scenario is that she caught a ride, that is just the truth. Considering the conditions, what she was wearing, what we know about her personally, the results of the ground searches, helicopter searches and the tracking dog's nose, one would have to say it is VERY unlikely that she is in the woods.
Honestly IMO saying that she ran into the woods to escape LE is just ridiculous. She wasn't stupid, she would've known that she would've left a huge trail and that the woods would've been the absolute worst spot to hide. They would've been able to follow the huge trail she would've left. Also considering what she was wearing why wouldn't she just hop in the car of a seamingly friendly passerby? That would've been the quickest, easiest, most effective & comfortable way to get away from LE at that point, plain and simple.

WTH-the-original wrote:

Typically, and this is difficult to do because it depends so much on how it being deployed and IN PARTICULAR the terrain, height, speed, WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, the contrast and size of the object, etc. But typically, helicopters being used in a desert environment are 53-78% effective in finding bodies. They would likely be around 20% effective in the terrain where Maura might have been found and that is with a spotter, not just the pilot and that is looking for a body, certainly not footprints. This would likely drop to probably 5% or less if the helicopter was used between 10am and 1pm because of the high angle of the light source if the sun was even out. Diffuse lighting (as in a cloudy day) makes it even harder to see prints no matter what the time.
Bill

This is one of these posts where bill is just pulling numbers out of his ass and making is sound like he REALLY knows what he's talking about, when in reality he only KINDA knows what he's talking about.
He's talkin about desert and mountain terrain, the mountain terrain he is referring to is mountainous terrain with thick forests where there's only 20% visibility, about. You have to remember that every case is different, every terrain is different and even that varies with light levels, time of year, etc, that 20% obviously jumps way higher when you're talking a helicopter at tree-top level, in the middle of winter where the sun is very low in the sky; the winter sun in feb is Never high in the sky even at noon, and they were up there at about 9am.
So, according to te actual Leo that was flyin in the helicopter, not some anonymous weirdo posting on the Internet 9 years later, the conditions were perfect for viewing tracks. In fact scarinza said the conditions "couldn't be better" for tracking. They also had the added benefit of a FLIR camera to aid on their search.
They specifically state they could see animal tracks large and small, game trails and human footprints clearly, but saw absolutely no evidence that anyone entered the woods anywhere along that route. They even went out and did it again a few days later, it still hadn't snowed, the conditions were still perfect, according to the Leo who was actually in the helicopter and again found nothing.
You have to remember that they had an absolute clear advantage during this search, this was NOT a normal wilderness search. They had fresh snowfall that was perfect for trackIng and they didn't need to search the entire woods, they only needed to check the sides of the roads. Of there was no trail leading into the woods then it is not possible that someone entered the woods.
Now this helicopter search is not 100% perfect, it's possible they missed something but when you also consider the fact that the dog lost her scent 100yds up the road both of those facts combine together to make a very strong argument that she is not in the woods.
This is probably why the NHSP has stated they believe she caught a ride from the area, unless they know even more than that but aren't sharing, which is very possible too.
To any logical, objective person who is not lookin at this with preconceived notions it is pretty obvious that the most likely scenario is that she caught a ride, that is just the truth. Considering the conditions, what she was wearing, what we know about her personally, the results of the ground searches, helicopter searches and the tracking dog's nose, one would have to say it is VERY unlikely that she is in the woods.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not trying to sell anything. These are things I have seen personally over the years, many times. It is one of several possibilities. And I don't believe that Maura was fall down drunk. But drunk enough to effect her thought process, probably, scared enough that she knew that she would have been arrested, definitely. Knowing how that would affect her life, absolutely.
Bill

I have absolutely respected reading your opinions. I'm not selling anything either. I know I have said in the past I was convinced she was abducted by a predator. I have kept following and thinking. Reading JR's blog.
I just feel ever so strongly about her leaving that scene in another vehicle.
But instead of a predator it just might have been the person she was going to meet. And at that moment...when she got in the car.... it was hasta luego...leave my troubles behind me time.

Something I would like to add to that last post is whole I'm sure the pilot and the spotters were looking for a body too they were out there specifically looking for FOOTPRINTS, well a trail leading into the woods actually. They were looking for any evidence or indication that any human had actually entered the woods along that road, and found nothing.

Maybe Sasquatch was hiding among the trees and the Saturn hit him, which made him very angry.
Please, anything, anything but the tow hitch theory!

hannah_b wrote:

Maybe Sasquatch was hiding among the trees and the Saturn hit him, which made him very angry.
Please, anything, anything but the tow hitch theory!

He has an alibi for that evening.

Wondering where the Beagle has been. Maybe in jail.

Tang Zoi, are you Det. C?

backspace4me wrote:

Tang Zoi, are you Det. C?

Yes......Seems as though I have been outed. That happened the first time I posted.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes......Seems as though I have been outed. That happened the first time I posted.

Thank You. I heard awhile back you were not feeling well and I hope you will feel well again soon.