Maura Murray

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
NO.....I am not saying that at all. The truck in amherst has the local connection. NEVER said it was the same truck RO saw.
Stop making things sound the way you want.

If you didn't write in riddles I wouldn't have even had to ask. I should have known better that to play your little game.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess you missed my question when I asked who the witnesses were that didn't see any classic signs of her being intoxicated. Are you saying there were witnesses that saw her walking away without tripping, stumbling or staggering? This is news to me. I didn't realize there were witnesses that saw her walking down the road because that's the only way they could know that she wasn't staggering, stumbling or tripping. Kind of is the opposite of what Hannah posted. I'll refresh your memory.
hannah_b wrote:
There were witness/es at the accident scene who stated Maura appeared to be intoxicated. Conway article, part 3:
"The press release also stated that "witnesses at the scene reported seeing a lone female with no apparent injuries who appeared impaired due to alcohol consumption." It still remains unclear who the witnesses were that said Maura appeared to be intoxicated. The release was not dated, but a time stamp shows it was faxed to the Hanson, Mass. police department at 3:05 p.m. Thursday."

My god wowzer, you can't be serious can you?
I'm talking about the REAL witnesses, not the ones made up by the HPD in the days following her dissapearanceas we know no there was only one witness who stopped and spke with her. If you read early news reports it sounds like there was two but really the HPD just lied about what SBD said, making it look like there was more than one witness.
We have the SBD who specifically said she did NOT appear intoxicated.
Then we have the statements by the westman's and the marotte's, i think that's their name, and both of those statements say NOTHING about here exhibiting ANY of the classic signs of someone who is intoxicated on alcohol. She was on the side of the road in winter time, walking around in ice and snow next to a snowbank.. The witnesses report her walking around her car, going back and forth to the trunk, a 'flurry of activiity' at the trunk, even her sitting there with the door open for a few mins trying to use her phone, or smoke a cigarette. NO real witnesses report anything even resembling an intoxicated person.

Actually they describe someone who would do what prety much anyone might do after an accident in the middle of nowhere in NH. She crashed, checked out the damagge to her car, sat there and tried to get a signal on her cell, and then got her things together and after sitting there for 16 mins+ she decided to walk up the rd and try to hitch a ride, which in all likelihood is exatly what she did.
Where in that does she sound like she's drunk?
What on the record, confirmed witness eever said anything about her actually being drunk?
How does that possibly sound like she was actively trying to elude LE? Who sits there for 15 minutes when they're soooo scared of LE they're about to walk miles into the woods through 2.5' of snow to their death to avoid them? How does that make any sense at all?

Read the witness statements, the REAL witness statements, not some vague ass reference in some random article so some witness who doesn't even exist.
She does not sound intoxicated and she certainly doesn't sound very concerned about the cops either. These are all ASSUMPTIONS made by people on here. Assumptions that really have no basis in fact and that are repeated as if they were fact by the very people that claim they're here to stop assumptions and fantasy from becoming repeated as fact. Saying she was drunk and trying to elude LE is straight up fantasy based on assumption, plain and simple.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Great, so that's just your opinion, you base it on absolutely nothing other than your preconcivved notion that if someone has an open container that automatically means that they're drunk. What a silly assumption.
You also completely ignore ALL the witness statements that indicate otherwise, including the SBD who said she was NOT intoxicated. What a silly way to rreach a conclusion, certainly not an educated opinion, but it is an opinion.
Let's ignore 3 independant witnesses that corraborate each other, including the one witness who actually spke to her and draw out conclusion by pulling it out of our ass, great method you got there OOOOO.. lol
Unfortunately many people, especially college age kids drive around with open containers, it's just a fact of life. But do these kids get hammered behind the wheel? Very rarely. People might have a drink or 2 but who the hell is pounding large quanntities of alcohol while driving? Lots of people drink a little bit, but who the hell drinks a lot while driving??
The fact is there is no evidence indicating she was actually drunk. Nothing even indicating it, there's proof she had at least one drink open while driving; that's having an open containter it's a long way away from proving anyone was intoxicated.
She had one drink in her car- she ws half in the bag!!! LOL, do you really realize how riidiiculous that sounds considering all the wirness testimony that shows a girl who was NOT drunk and was NOT fleeing her car in any sort of hurry whatsoeveer. One could actually argue that she was waiting for the cops but after 15-17 minutes of waiiting there figured they weren't coming and she probably better find a ride. I'm not saying that's what i think happened but someone could certainly argue that, she waited at her car that long.
You need to actually read wat the witnesses who were there have to say and draw conclusions based on real, factual info, not you fly by the seat of your pants backwards ass instinct.

SBD is the only witness that was close to her. All others were seen through windows. You can insult me all you want. There is only 1 witness and his statements have varied. You have no factual info that she was sober.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Unfortunately many people, especially college age kids drive around with open containers, it's just a fact of life. But do these kids get hammered behind the wheel? Very rarely. People might have a drink or 2 but who the hell is pounding large quanntities of alcohol while driving? Lots of people drink a little bit, but who the hell drinks a lot while driving??
The fact is there is no evidence indicating she was actually drunk..

Jenkins - lets not make this seem normal. College kids if they allow an open container in their car -"IF" - the drivers aren't drinking. Please don't make it seem normal that a girl was driving in the middle of nowhere by herself drinking alchol while driving. That isn't normal actions. Drinking and driving is stupid stupid stupid.

Tang Zoi wrote:

I don't know what you guys are smoking.....but take a freaking break.
Not Do Doo Doo Do or Patty davis.....

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/haverhill-nh/...

Patty Davis

Littleton, NH

Reply »
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 28, 2006

What is new ? regarding investigation by police...vanished 2/9/2004 after 7PM near Swiftwater Covered Bridge on Tourist's National Registry on Route 112 Haverhill, Woodsville/Bath NH. We have not and will not forget that Maura Murray was alive before Swiftwater.

Hi all!

I've been away from things for a bit, working on this: http://www.deadline.com/2013/01/warner-bros-t...

That news has allowed me to enlist a P.I. to help me with the last bit of research for Maura's book. Fingers crossed.

And if you missed it there's some pretty good trolling going on here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/11234587879193...

Peace,
James Renner

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/haverhill-nh/...
Patty Davis
Littleton, NH
Reply »
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 28, 2006
What is new ? regarding investigation by police...vanished 2/9/2004 after 7PM near Swiftwater Covered Bridge on Tourist's National Registry on Route 112 Haverhill, Woodsville/Bath NH. We have not and will not forget that Maura Murray was alive before Swiftwater.

Sorry Sherlock, not enough Mid Sentence CAPS. Better luck Next time.

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
SBD is the only witness that was close to her. All others were seen through windows. You can insult me all you want. There is only 1 witness and his statements have varied. You have no factual info that she was sober.

Yes, you are right that the SBD's story has varied, he told at least 3 versions of events. But the other witnesses, the wman;s and the marotte's stories both corraborate what the SBD said about her being drunk. They report a person who is walking around her car just fine, going to the trunk, llooking at the damage, they report absolutely nothing that indicates she was drunk, nothing.

There is not one witness who reports anything resembling her being drunk, all there is is a bottle that was under the car and a pink stain in the snow, that's it.
So there is no factual evidence to indicate she was DRUNK. You can't say there was no factual evidence to indicate she was sober, it doesn't work like that. Either there's evidence, or even something indicating that she was drunk, or there's not. If there's nothing indicating such then you have to assume that she was NOT drunk, expecially when you have the one witness who actually spoke to her saying that she was NOT drunk. Your whole line of loic here is totally backwards; there's nothing to indicate she was sober?!
What the hell is there to indicate she was drunk?? THAT is the question, you act like it's just a given that she was drunk and without evidence she was not that she must've been. Well it's the other way around, without ANYTHING indicating she was intoxicated you have to assume she was SOBER.

I love the ass backwards logic that's present around here. Totally backward and hypocritical to the max

James Renner wrote:

Hi all!
I've been away from things for a bit, working on this: http://www.deadline.com/2013/01/warner-bros-t...
That news has allowed me to enlist a P.I. to help me with the last bit of research for Maura's book. Fingers crossed.
And if you missed it there's some pretty good trolling going on here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/11234587879193...
Peace,
James Renner

Congratulations James.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, you are right that the SBD's story has varied, he told at least 3 versions of events. But the other witnesses, the wman;s and the marotte's stories both corraborate what the SBD said about her being drunk. They report a person who is walking around her car just fine, going to the trunk, llooking at the damage, they report absolutely nothing that indicates she was drunk, nothing.
There is not one witness who reports anything resembling her being drunk, all there is is a bottle that was under the car and a pink stain in the snow, that's it.
So there is no factual evidence to indicate she was DRUNK. You can't say there was no factual evidence to indicate she was sober, it doesn't work like that. Either there's evidence, or even something indicating that she was drunk, or there's not. If there's nothing indicating such then you have to assume that she was NOT drunk, expecially when you have the one witness who actually spoke to her saying that she was NOT drunk. Your whole line of loic here is totally backwards; there's nothing to indicate she was sober?!
What the hell is there to indicate she was drunk?? THAT is the question, you act like it's just a given that she was drunk and without evidence she was not that she must've been. Well it's the other way around, without ANYTHING indicating she was intoxicated you have to assume she was SOBER.
I love the ass backwards logic that's present around here. Totally backward and hypocritical to the max

There is no factual evidence that she wasn't drunk. And there is no way in he88 that either of these parties could make out if she was walking straight, stumbling, staggering or even falling down. All they saw was the trunk being opened and closed. It was too dark to see anything else. And where did they say she was walking around her car just fine? Please put a link to this information.

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.

Knockoffs? Hardly.

I live in Chicago - the GOP is, for all intents and purposes, non-existent here. No hotline help for me.

I'm surprised, Beagle. I expect better from you.

At the barest minimum, some belabored tangentially connected conspiracy from the Windy City, or some such.

Snowy wrote:

it's like arguing with a fly (buzzes). or a goat (spits). or a mule (won't budge).
let's default to you, SS....you've got the credentials.
does the presence of open container(s) at the scene of a car crash suggest to law enforcement that the occupants have been drinking?
i somehow doubt Jenky knows just how much....or who....was drinking.
but if she was, her judgment was likely impaired, and her ability to maintain an even body temp outside of a shelter, especially if she was improperly dressed, was compromised.
she likely disappeared under these circumstances.
am i missing something here?

It most certainly suggests the possibility that the occupants were drinking. When you factor in the highly suggestive other portions of the tale - including leaving the scene of the accident, refusing assistance from SBD, and falsely claiming to have called AAA - I'd imagine it was nearly a foregone conclusion.

James Renner wrote:

And if you missed it there's some pretty good trolling going on here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/11234587879193...
Peace,
James Renner

This is so amusing. Whenever you run into people who disagree with you, you call them trolls. Now you come here, to tell us about the "trolls" on Facebook. Oh yes, I'm just gonna jump right on that one! Especially when, on 12/30/12 in your Twitter feed you posted a link to this thread, saying "The trolls have invaded a forum about the disappearance of Maura Murray: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/franconia-nh/... …" Of course, you posted that right after you were taken to task by members here for outing Orko's real name a couple hours before. So you ran off to Twitter to get some of your followers there to come back you up here.

And now you are over on the Maura Murray Missing Facebook page, as you are regularly, posting your incorrect "facts" that Helena Murray has to continually correct you on, calling posters there "ignorant" and you come here to get us to go there to back you? Uh, I think not. As far as I can see, you are the troll, here and on Maura's page.

Truly pathetic.

James Renner wrote:

Hi all!
I've been away from things for a bit, working on this: http://www.deadline.com/2013/01/warner-bros-t...
That news has allowed me to enlist a P.I. to help me with the last bit of research for Maura's book. Fingers crossed.
And if you missed it there's some pretty good trolling going on here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/11234587879193...
Peace,
James Renner

Congratulations, James. I wish you continued success with future endeavors - and you seem to be well on the path to precisely that.

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.

Hmmmm, I had thought that Major Do-Do was Beagle - although I can't recall where that was claimed...

What difference does it make if Maura was drinking or not. She is gone.

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmmmm, I had thought that Major Do-Do was Beagle - although I can't recall where that was claimed...

You could be right. So many using different monikers. I can't keep up.

Shack wrote:

What difference does it make if Maura was drinking or not.

Ohh, a question, even though it's not marked as such. Makes me wonder if we would even be having this conversation if Maura just stayed by her car and waited for the police? Of course the drinking is a reason to run. On top of her other legal problems. Seems like a motive to go away, quickly, which she seemed to do. So I guess the drinking comes into play with her decision making. And of course, poor decision making is what we are talking about here. She is missing, we don't know why. We do know she made some bad decisions, and that she may have compounded those with even worse decisions. That is the reason the drinking is important. It helps establish, mindset, and her possible actions after the crash and very likely the reason for the crash. This has been talked about for years. Of course, likely, you were too busy feeling, or accusing, to read any rational thoughts on the subject.

Bill

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.

Who saw the Red Truck in Amherst?

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.**

Ive finally slipped off my Tod's driving mocs after a long day...My point was,no need to be a showoff,its tasteless..
Another relevant note..When you finely attired ladies are done with your extravagant items i HONESTLY hope you find time to donate them to help the cold&hungry,when in fact people like me actually purchase them in bulk containers for resale.Im here,on the 3rd shift nightly working& making handsome profits selling these jewels to my friends in china..P.S..I wear Cashmere too.