Maura Murray

Judged:

2

2

2

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenkins,
This is one of your arguments that I don't quite grasp. Why is it that you think she wasn't intoxicated? I'm not saying I know conclusively either way - I simply don't. But I would hazard a guess that she was, given the limited information that we have on the issue. Do you acknowledge that it's more likely than not, that she was intoxicated, or, given that no empirical evidence can be ascertained regarding this, do you discard it as a likelyhood, out of hand?
I think an a priori argument could be made regarding her ingesting alcohol, but that's just me. And, of course,up for debate.

Judged:

5

4

4

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
**I'm wearing Manolo's at work right now, Findmaura. I could be wearing Payless but, I like these shoes. I worked hard for them. Why shouldn't I wear precisely what I want, when I can afford it? That does no compute.**

Judged:

2

2

2

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
...
...
...Dammmmmmmit Snowy, you must wear SOLELY cotton/poly blends because there are COLD AND HUNGRY PEOPLE. How gauche of you to work for your money, and spend that money on the very items you want. I mean, the nerve!
**I'm wearing Manolo's at work right now, Findmaura. I could be wearing Payless but, I like these shoes. I worked hard for them. Why shouldn't I wear precisely what I want, when I can afford it? That does no compute.**

Judged:

2

2

2

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
I acknowledge that more likely than not she was had a drink or two, but there is damn good reasons to think she was NOT intoxicated.
First of all we have the sbd, who spoke to her face to face and said she was NOT intoxicated. We also have the other witnesses who's statements seems to support this assertion by the sbd. There is not one witness who reported her as staggering, tripping, falling or doing any of the classic things you would expect from someone who is intoxicated. She was walking on the side of the road in the snow, which was probably rather slippery, and she was walking around her car just fine.
She also was at her car for an easy 15 mins after the crash, not exactly the actions of someone who is soooo scared of a DUI that they're literally about to walk miles into the woods to her death to just avoid LE. Someone who is drunk, and trying to avoid LE, like some people would like to make others believe, I would expect them to get their stuff together and be out of there in like under 30 seconds flat, and that is NOT what happened here.
FW called 911 within a minute of the crash, it then took Smith 119 minutes to arrive on scene. She was seen at the car within minutes of when smith arrived. That means she had to have been at that car for a solid 15 minutes, maybe even a little more, a few of those mins were spent with her sitting there on the side of the road with her door open trying to use her phone, or smoke a cig. Who sits there doing anythng when they're so scared of the cops that they're about to run into the woods to their death?
The whole thing makes no sense.
How many drinks do you really think she had on her drive up? Do you think she was pounding drinks or something? Personally I think she drank 1-2. I think she probably drank one on her way up and then refilled another when she stopped. Smith noticed a pink stain on the snow so that means that the bottle had to have been somewhate full, just a few oz's of liquid isn't going to make a noticable stain.
So in reality, she probably drank a drink or 2, that does not make you intoxicated. If you read the witness statements she didn't sound very scared of LE, she sat there for 15 mins when she could've left i 30 seconds, which is what you would expect of someone who's trying to avoid a DUI charge.
There is empirical evidence that she drank a drink, there is absoutely nothing that indicates she was actually intoxicated and all of the witness statements make it sound like she wasn't intoxicated.
So what evidence is that that she was actually drunk?? I see none, remember there's a big difference between having a drink or 2 and being intoxicated. I believe she was NOT intoxicated, and there's obviously a lot of good reasons for me to think that. If anyone can point to anything supporting that she was actually drunk, I would love to hear it, just bc there was an empty bottle next to her car does not mean she was drunk, it means she had an open container, big difference...

Judged:

2

2

2

Major Do-Do wrote:

<quoted text>
manolo knockoffs = boring story.
fall on your patootie in your manolos and r inextricably wedged in a snowbank = worth a post.
or call your local GOP hotline for assistance.

Judged:

2

2

2

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Lordy! Another highly professional post by our PI.

Judged:

2

2

1

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry but having an open container in the car is
Not an arrestable offense, that's called open container, which is a ticket, not an arrest.
They would give the person a field sobriety test sure but it looks like she would've had no problem passing it, remember that she wasn't stumbling, tripping, staggering or any of the classic signs of an intoxicated person from the witness statements. Then we also have the sbd who specifically said she was NOT intoxicated.
So idk what you mean when you say they would not have 'taken it lightly' lol, but if someone's BAC is below .08 and they have an open container in the car they get a ticket, That's it. There's no taking it lightly or not taking it lightly, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. There's the law and they have to follow it, at least that's what they've sworn to do, even though many cops don't do that and many don't know the laws they've sworn to uphold. But you'd be hard pressed to find a cop that doesn't know drinking while driving laws, in which an open container is an infraction.'they don't take too kindly to that around here' LOL, yea, they give out tickets.
Smith didn't even notice the coke container until after the car was towed away anyways.

Judged:

2

2

1

oo00oo wrote:

Only a drunk would disagree with me and feed me peanuts.

Judged:

3

3

2

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds more like granny-bag.

Judged:

3

1

1

oo00oo wrote:

Only a drunk would disagree with me and feed me peanuts.

Judged:

3

3

3

Tang Zoi wrote:

Good evening all.........

Judged:

2

2

2

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Tang you seem to just ignore everyone's questions that they ask concerning your puzzle pieces that you throw out here and there to keep everyone guessing. You act more like a child playing a game than a real professional PI.
I guess you skipped over my question again so I'll post it again although I won't hold my breath waiting for you to answer.
Tang Zoi wrote:
The red truck that was seen in Amherst with NH plates is the same red truck that has a connection to the accident scene.
Wowzer asked:So are you saying that RO was lying about the MA plates? She was quite sure about that.

Judged:

2

1

1

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
you think? i agree with you.
a shower of peanuts are in defense of the drinky poo.

Judged:

2

2

2

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds like it but I have doubts. Tang as far as I know is Columbo who is also Tang who admitted to being Do-Do.
Why posters have to use several monikers I'll never know.

Judged:

3

3

3

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
Seriously Jenkins, how many people feel the need to have a drink while driving? Most people wait until they get to their destination and I don't know many that would leave a party and take a traveler. In my opinion, the fact that she had an open container of alcohol, shows she was lacking in judgement, which in my opinion again means she was probably half in the wrapper.