Maura Murray

Judged:

2

2

1

WTH-the-original wrote:

The above answer was in reference to the "What if SBD didn't stop".
And I'll state again, the only person that knows if those dogs were on scent or not are the handlers.
Bill

Judged:

1

1

1

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry - I know you are talking to Jenkins and I am sure he will answer you also.
You are failing to look at the time the call was placed by FW to get total time at the car.
19:27 call from FW
19:29 enroute
19:46 arrive
Took LE 17 min to get to scene
19 min from FW call to LE arrive
Maura was seen at car just minutes prior to LE arrival so the odds are she was at her car for at least 15 minutes. Also as Tang pointed out FW didn't call 911 immediately so tack on several more minutes. These are FW words also.
I would rather believe the dispatch record over the police report that was filled out a week after the accident. Maybe someone can talk about if dispatch auto records times.

Judged:

2

2

2

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
Last post on this, I'm going by the accident report, witness statements on what happened. She did not sit in her car for 15 min.
You do your research and stop stating things a fact.

Judged:

1

1

1

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
By the time the dogs were brought in the scent would most likely be gone. The fact the dogs went a football field east and stopped does not necessarily mean they were even tracking a scent.

Judged:

3

3

3

Jenknis wrote:

<quoted text>
My god man, you REALLY need to review your research or something bc it is a FACT that it took Smith 19 minutes do arrive on scene.
Now if you're trying to debate how long she was actually sitting there bc of the different things she did in that time, like spoke to SBD; as Bill oor wowzer did a few posts back, that's one thing.
But to state that Smith arrived in 10 minutes is just factually wrong.
There is no debating that number, you need to show a link, or a quote, or something, anything that says it took him 10 minutes because you are completely wrong. If you can show any sort of legitimate source for your ten minutes made up number then I would gladly admit I'm wrong, but I know you can't do that.
But if I can show links and prove that it was 19 minutes then will you chane your mind? You said 'that's a long time if it's true'; well it is true, why are you acoiding this question? If I can show that number is accurate then is it going to change your opinion?
I seriously doubt it, you guys cling to your deniall like a fat kid to a ho ho, so why am I even gong to waste my time.
Everybody else except the troll brigade that troll this thread knows that I'm well researched and would never throw out a number like that unless I have a verified source to back it up with; you guys use sources like 'someone told me' and 'my research' lol, your research isn'tt a source, either post a link or a real quote to show what you're saying isn't complete BS or admit that you're wrong.
If it was gonna change your mind, i'd gladly dig up my source, but honestly I don't see why I would wast my time, everybody who knows this case knows it took smith a long time to arrive and he claims that he took a wrong turn. idk where your 'reasearch' lol is sourced from but you def have a wrong number there.

Judged:

3

3

3

Tang Zoi wrote:

Where did FrmLE go. He came and left so quickly. Really miss his posts.

Judged:

1

1

1

Jenknis wrote:

<quoted text>
My god man, you REALLY need to review your research or something bc it is a FACT that it took Smith 19 minutes do arrive on scene.
Now if you're trying to debate how long she was actually sitting there bc of the different things she did in that time, like spoke to SBD; as Bill oor wowzer did a few posts back, that's one thing.
But to state that Smith arrived in 10 minutes is just factually wrong.
There is no debating that number, you need to show a link, or a quote, or something, anything that says it took him 10 minutes because you are completely wrong. If you can show any sort of legitimate source for your ten minutes made up number then I would gladly admit I'm wrong, but I know you can't do that.
But if I can show links and prove that it was 19 minutes then will you chane your mind? You said 'that's a long time if it's true'; well it is true, why are you acoiding this question? If I can show that number is accurate then is it going to change your opinion?
I seriously doubt it, you guys cling to your deniall like a fat kid to a ho ho, so why am I even gong to waste my time.
Everybody else except the troll brigade that troll this thread knows that I'm well researched and would never throw out a number like that unless I have a verified source to back it up with; you guys use sources like 'someone told me' and 'my research' lol, your research isn'tt a source, either post a link or a real quote to show what you're saying isn't complete BS or admit that you're wrong.
If it was gonna change your mind, i'd gladly dig up my source, but honestly I don't see why I would wast my time, everybody who knows this case knows it took smith a long time to arrive and he claims that he took a wrong turn. idk where your 'reasearch' lol is sourced from but you def have a wrong number there.

Judged:

4

3

3

Jenknis wrote:

<quoted text>
If it was gonna change your mind, i'd gladly dig up my source ...

Judged:

1

1

1

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
No you wouldn't, you almost never do. I think you have posted a link maybe once. The rest of the time, you spout off all your "facts," demand that others post links to back theirs, and say this same lame thing.
Luckily, some of us here DO and HAVE taken lots of time to find and post links, all of which you ignore.
Here is the link to the police report which oo00oo referenced he/she got their information, which states: "Police Notified: 1935" "Police arrived: 1945". It is document 3: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7_atAFvowRhN...
So, oo00oo wasn't talking out of his/her behind after all.
The problem is that there is also the initial dispatch reports with different times which correspond with what JWB posted above, which I'm not going to type again, but is document 2 in the link above.
On another subject, Renner posted weather reports for 2/9/04 on his blog today, to which he added: "I think it's just another bit of circumstantial evidence that shows it would have been quite hard to die from exposure to the elements. Especially for someone with military training, like Maura."
Once again, I am just amazed that somebody who has spent so much time on this case has so little understanding of hypothermia. I would think he would have at least educated himself on the subject a little bit. More people die in summer than in winter from hypothermia, and 36 degrees isn't exactly balmy. People can and do die from hypothermia in much warmer temperatures. Add alcohol into the picture, and possible exertion from running, which would cause tiredness and sweating, and anybody who knows anything at all about hypothermia would know that she could very easily have succumbed. And anybody that knows anything about hypothermia knows that one of the first things to happen is you lose any sense of judgment, and people do many strange things that make no sense, like walking off a road into the forest and snow and cross rivers and take off their clothing from paradoxical undressing ... Really, some time go watch "James Kim Stranded" on YouTube, and see what he did, when he had a wife, a toddler and infant waiting for him to find help. He walked, not just off a road, but down a very steep, difficult canyon with no trail of any kind, that searchers found almost impossible to navigate. Watch the show, read about it, and then come back here and tell me MM couldn't have done the same thing.

Judged:

2

2

2

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
No you wouldn't, you almost never do. I think you have posted a link maybe once. The rest of the time, you spout off all your "facts," demand that others post links to back theirs, and say this same lame thing.
Luckily, some of us here DO and HAVE taken lots of time to find and post links, all of which you ignore.
Here is the link to the police report which oo00oo referenced he/she got their information, which states: "Police Notified: 1935" "Police arrived: 1945". It is document 3: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7_atAFvowRhN...
So, oo00oo wasn't talking out of his/her behind after all.
The problem is that there is also the initial dispatch reports with different times which correspond with what JWB posted above, which I'm not going to type again, but is document 2 in the link above.
On another subject, Renner posted weather reports for 2/9/04 on his blog today, to which he added: "I think it's just another bit of circumstantial evidence that shows it would have been quite hard to die from exposure to the elements. Especially for someone with military training, like Maura."
Once again, I am just amazed that somebody who has spent so much time on this case has so little understanding of hypothermia. I would think he would have at least educated himself on the subject a little bit. More people die in summer than in winter from hypothermia, and 36 degrees isn't exactly balmy. People can and do die from hypothermia in much warmer temperatures. Add alcohol into the picture, and possible exertion from running, which would cause tiredness and sweating, and anybody who knows anything at all about hypothermia would know that she could very easily have succumbed. And anybody that knows anything about hypothermia knows that one of the first things to happen is you lose any sense of judgment, and people do many strange things that make no sense, like walking off a road into the forest and snow and cross rivers and take off their clothing from paradoxical undressing ... Really, some time go watch "James Kim Stranded" on YouTube, and see what he did, when he had a wife, a toddler and infant waiting for him to find help. He walked, not just off a road, but down a very steep, difficult canyon with no trail of any kind, that searchers found almost impossible to navigate. Watch the show, read about it, and then come back here and tell me MM couldn't have done the same thing.

Judged:

1

1

1

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't hypothermia from the cold and hyperthermia from heat? I have never heard of body temp going down because of heat. I am no expert at all on this.

Judged:

3

3

3

Ridiculous wrote:

My goodness,how the world turns....We have JWB/Granny/Riduculous the original/etc. debating in a sane and reasonable manner.
Everyone else here seems to be making effort to discuss this issue on merit/proof. Then, we have Bob. What about Bob someone asked last week; Bob is still fixated on what people can pull out of there asses and using foul language to insult and cover up his inability to actually engage in a reasonable debate. The man who cries for a kinder gentler thread just can't put those shoes on and wear them.
Very interesting just watching this without engaging...