Maura Murray

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
You should be ashamed. The last thing needed is for you to goad him on by making him think he did a good thing by taking out some posters that you happen to dislike.
I doubt anyone left because of the bizarre behaviour the other night.

there is certainly some residual shock that the same behaviors were unprovoked and repeated; clearly the problem lies with poor impulse control and personal issues on the part of one individual that extend well beyond the topic of this forum. i don't believe he is capable of understanding or taking responsibility for his own manner of relating to others.

Therapy time..........

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not goading anyone. I thought the other night was freaking INSANE.
This forum should be closed and......NOW IS THE TIME.
NO....I am not ashamed. You are a real treat.
You must just love this place so much, You need a real life. Just saying...!

If this forum upsets you to the point that you think it should be closed just remember that no one is twisting your arm to stay here reading and replying.
I have a real life, actually quite a busy one but I love to multitask.
Tang wrote:**You are a real treat.***
Thank you. My friends and family think so too.

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
there is certainly some residual shock that the same behaviors were unprovoked and repeated; clearly the problem lies with poor impulse control and personal issues on the part of one individual that extend well beyond the topic of this forum. i don't believe he is capable of understanding or taking responsibility for his own manner of relating to others.

Very well said.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
If this forum upsets you to the point that you think it should be closed just remember that no one is twisting your arm to stay here reading and replying.
I have a real life, actually quite a busy one but I love to multitask.
Tang wrote:**You are a real treat.***
Thank you. My friends and family think so too.

This forum does not upset Me, and nobody is twisting My arm.

Just think IF this forum were gone You wouldn't need to come here and "DEFEND YOUR NEIGHBORS". I still ask WHY You feel the need to come here. But Your life includes this forum and after 9 yrs. You would think it would get Old, Very Old. But for some reason, Here You are.

Well, have @ it little Miss Multitasker.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
This forum does not upset Me, and nobody is twisting My arm.
Just think IF this forum were gone You wouldn't need to come here and "DEFEND YOUR NEIGHBORS". I still ask WHY You feel the need to come here. But Your life includes this forum and after 9 yrs. You would think it would get Old, Very Old. But for some reason, Here You are.
Well, have @ it little Miss Multitasker.

don't play that, homie. it's been played out.
she, or you, or anyone may post to this public forum. your record likely stands as one of the longest old timers. as usual, since there is no new content about MM, it's easy to take the liberty of running with vicious accusations. Wowzer's credibilty, even as an anonymous poster, exceeds that of many others.

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
don't play that, homie. it's been played out.
she, or you, or anyone may post to this public forum. your record likely stands as one of the longest old timers. as usual, since there is no new content about MM, it's easy to take the liberty of running with vicious accusations. Wowzer's credibilty, even as an anonymous poster, exceeds that of many others.

Yeah....So What.....You guys kill Me with Your "Holy Selves Club".

Homie.....WTF is that supposed to mean.

Yes, anyone can post to this forum. Big whooooopeeeee...!

Credibility.....Huh.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah....So What.....You guys kill Me with Your "Holy Selves Club".
Homie.....WTF is that supposed to mean.
Yes, anyone can post to this forum. Big whooooopeeeee...!
Credibility.....Huh.

Homie, just means best buddies. Really touching. Who knew Mr. Snowy could be so sweet?

Something I've always wondered about is smith's report, why is it so poorly done? It's just weird, it obviously has errors in it & it doesn't really make sense either.
It basically says she spun out and hit some trees. That doesn't make any sense , if she spun out you would expect to see damage to the passenger side, the rear or maybe the front but the front drivers side is pretty much the last place you should sustain damage to. If you spin out on a left corner your ass end naturally will slide out to the right which makes it so you're sliding towards the curve right side first, theoretically the front left corner should be the least likely to hit anything. It's weird that he would think she spun out when you look at that damage.
He also says she hit some trees, & even attributed the damage to the trees but that just doesn't seem possible. There was a snowbank that was high enough to where she had to squeeze out of her door & the family even saw where she had pushed her door into the bank. It's just not possible that she could've went through this snowbank, hit those trees & then came back out to park her car so it was facing into traffic.
Besides witnesses state that she actually was ass end into the bank immediately after the crash.
Basically smiths assessment that she spun out and hit some trees is just wrong, imho, the damage looks nothing like damage from a tree normally looks and it looks next to impossible that a tree even caused that damage.

What makes much more sense is the ems driver and lavoie's assessment that she hit the snowbank on the inside of the curve. That more properly fits the evidence and the witness statements. She most likely hit th snowbank on the inside of the curve, which would account for the damage to the frot left of her car, and then clipping the snowbank like that spun her ass end around to the right so she ended up ass end into the snowbank. That is plainly and clearly th most likely thing that happened in that accident.
There is no way a tree caused that damage, just look at it.

The question then becomes: how did he get it so wrong? He did it a week later but come on, at that point he had a missing girl on his hands & that accident report had become way more important than it would've been if he had filled it out that night; I find it hard to believe his memory was that bad. Maybe he took crappy notes that night, didn't really think about the damage & just wrote what he assumed happened. Either that or he intentionally wrote a bad report. I find it hard to believe he got it wrong on purpose but he has shown that he has no problem with lying when it comes to this case, he told the family he didn't even know it was a girl driving, which we now know was clearly a lie.
So did he lie on the accident report too?
If he also lied on the report, why? What would be the purpose of doing so? something stinks with the whole accident report, thing needs a giant can of Lysol. How is it possible some ems guy/tv repair man's thoughts on the accident make way more sense than a cop's?
Idk, but there is clearly some problems with his report.

Jenky, why would CS intentionally write a bad report? Do you think he or a friend or fellow LEO of his had anything to do with MM going missing?

Maybe Smith knew the damage to the inside curve was done by another vehicle, enter the red truck. He turned away from the accident in the same direction RO saw the red truck coming from. IMO he had two scenarios going at the same time, with the help of Monaghan.

Jenkins wrote:

Something I've always wondered about is smith's report, why is it so poorly done? It's just weird, it obviously has errors in it & it doesn't really make sense either.
It basically says she spun out and hit some trees. That doesn't make any sense , if she spun out you would expect to see damage to the passenger side, the rear or maybe the front but the front drivers side is pretty much the last place you should sustain damage to. If you spin out on a left corner your ass end naturally will slide out to the right which makes it so you're sliding towards the curve right side first, theoretically the front left corner should be the least likely to hit anything. It's weird that he would think she spun out when you look at that damage.
He also says she hit some trees, & even attributed the damage to the trees but that just doesn't seem possible. There was a snowbank that was high enough to where she had to squeeze out of her door & the family even saw where she had pushed her door into the bank. It's just not possible that she could've went through this snowbank, hit those trees & then came back out to park her car so it was facing into traffic.
Besides witnesses state that she actually was ass end into the bank immediately after the crash.
Basically smiths assessment that she spun out and hit some trees is just wrong, imho, the damage looks nothing like damage from a tree normally looks and it looks next to impossible that a tree even caused that damage.
What makes much more sense is the ems driver and lavoie's assessment that she hit the snowbank on the inside of the curve. That more properly fits the evidence and the witness statements. She most likely hit th snowbank on the inside of the curve, which would account for the damage to the frot left of her car, and then clipping the snowbank like that spun her ass end around to the right so she ended up ass end into the snowbank. That is plainly and clearly th most likely thing that happened in that accident.
There is no way a tree caused that damage, just look at it.
The question then becomes: how did he get it so wrong? He did it a week later but come on, at that point he had a missing girl on his hands & that accident report had become way more important than it would've been if he had filled it out that night; I find it hard to believe his memory was that bad. Maybe he took crappy notes that night, didn't really think about the damage & just wrote what he assumed happened. Either that or he intentionally wrote a bad report. I find it hard to believe he got it wrong on purpose but he has shown that he has no problem with lying when it comes to this case, he told the family he didn't even know it was a girl driving, which we now know was clearly a lie.
So did he lie on the accident report too?
If he also lied on the report, why? What would be the purpose of doing so? something stinks with the whole accident report, thing needs a giant can of Lysol. How is it possible some ems guy/tv repair man's thoughts on the accident make way more sense than a cop's?
Idk, but there is clearly some problems with his report.

there was no visible damage to the trees. I could be wrong but I would think that if a vehicle hit a tree there would be some kind of damage.

what do you mean he had 2 accidents going?And what do you mean with the help of Monahan? don't you think the b*** and all the neighbors would have seen some red truck backing up are trying to get away, or even just heading east as fast as it could go? And if anybody did report seeing a red truck then why the hell didn't they put out a news bulletin? At that point they might think she was abducted.

Anna J wrote:

what do you mean he had 2 accidents going?And what do you mean with the help of Monahan? don't you think the b*** and all the neighbors would have seen some red truck backing up are trying to get away, or even just heading east as fast as it could go? And if anybody did report seeing a red truck then why the hell didn't they put out a news bulletin? At that point they might think she was abducted.

BHR neighbor did call about suspicious red truck.. The inside curve was damaged at the WB. CS did not put that in his report. Someone had to have hit it. They did put out a BOL.

IMO It's possible the tire marks on the snow bank in CS report are from the red truck doing a three point turn on the curve and damaging his tail light on the inside corner snow bank while backing up. To me this fits FW acceleration and thud, and leaves less doubt that she was accurate in her 911 call of a vehicle facing westbound. The position of the Saturn as per TW was much further from view.

Hi all,just a thought.Saturn driver pulls in some place to buy a bulb and fix broken light from prior accident.Rt 112 with one headlight would be no fun.Bad guy or couple replaces bulb using screw driver and rag from trunk.rag goes in tailpipe.saturn is folowed.ride is offered to driver.take car philip

Heard this one before. I think it was Weeper who brought it up. At least these humans are civil.

mcsmom wrote:

IMO It's possible the tire marks on the snow bank in CS report are from the red truck doing a three point turn on the curve and damaging his tail light on the inside corner snow bank while backing up. To me this fits FW acceleration and thud, and leaves less doubt that she was accurate in her 911 call of a vehicle facing westbound. The position of the Saturn as per TW was much further from view.

Ofcourse if the CW sighting is correct than there is a good chance that this theory is debunked.
If the CW sighting is correct it will show that MM didn't want a ride, and ran away from cars.

Hello forum friends, long time no chat. Glad to see everyone's still here and staying active. I keep up with the posts/Renner's blog/the facebook forum, but haven't had much to contribute. Not much is new, as ever.(Well, I got a puppy, so that's new, but I'm talking about new with the search for Maura, duh! But have been understandably preoccupied with said pupperoni.:))

Just popping in to say hello and that I hope everyone is well.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>there was no visible damage to the trees. I could be wrong but I would think that if a vehicle hit a tree there would be some kind of damage.

You would think so right? Generally when a car hits a tree, there is damage to that tree; that's just basic physics, when an object that's made out of steel & weighs thousands of pounds hits a standing object that's made of wood you can see some clear and obvious damage to said tree.

Also it just seems next to impossible that she actually hit that little stand of trees due to te fact that there was snowbanks there. Logically if she hit a tree she should've been stuck in the snowbank with Her front end into the tree. What did she bounce back out? Just makes no sense at all that she hit those trees, or any tree for that matter.
So when you made it up to NH you didn't see any damage to any trees citi?
I drove by there several times in the weeks following her accident & I definitely didn't see any damaged trees. I remember specifically thinking that it was weird that it was said she hit a tree when there was nothing indicating that actually happened, not only that but it just looked impossible.

Just really makes me wonder how smith reached that conclusion & why he did when it looked to be so obviously wrong. Idk, seemed weird to me and it still does.