Maura Murray

hannah_b wrote:

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?

Great question Hannah & tbh no, I Don't think he had anything to do with it, or any of his friends or fellow officers did either but just the sheer fact that it appears he intentionally wrote a bad report does raise som questions IMO.

My point is that he wrote is that he wrote it like 5 days later, at that point it was clear that a young woman was missing after this crash. That's pretty serious, that's arguably the most important accident report he ever filled out, & he got it that wrong?
Why??
Was he trying to cover something up?
I'm under the impression that smith really didn't know what happened to her, but had a damn good idea that she was abducted. Many of his actions from that night indicate that he did not think this was a normal accident, the type of which apparently happen on that corner all the time on the winter. He did a lot more than would be expected if he thought it was simply a car that slid off the road where the driver left the scene, which is perfectly legal.

IMO the hpd was covering their asses. They didn't want to be the cops who were on duty when a young girl went missing, they didn't want to be blamed in any way. So instead of writing an accurate report, which might raise questions as to why she lost control before the curve, like did the rag cause her to stall, he wrote it out to make it look like a run of the mill crash.
This is further evidenced by the fact that he lies to te family when they arrived. This doesn't mean that he did it or knows who did, I think it means that they didn't want to be held responsible in any way, hence them lying about a witness saying that she was drunk, etc.

So no, I don't think he knows exactly what happened, but I think he definitely knew that she was abducted and most likely had been murdered like so many other women have been in that area over the years.
All jmo, it's hard to determine exactly what this guy was thinkin when he mad the report.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Great question Hannah & tbh no, I Don't think he had anything to do with it, or any of his friends or fellow officers did either but just the sheer fact that it appears he intentionally wrote a bad report does raise som questions IMO.
My point is that he wrote is that he wrote it like 5 days later, at that point it was clear that a young woman was missing after this crash. That's pretty serious, that's arguably the most important accident report he ever filled out, & he got it that wrong?
Why??
Was he trying to cover something up?
I'm under the impression that smith really didn't know what happened to her, but had a damn good idea that she was abducted. Many of his actions from that night indicate that he did not think this was a normal accident, the type of which apparently happen on that corner all the time on the winter. He did a lot more than would be expected if he thought it was simply a car that slid off the road where the driver left the scene, which is perfectly legal.
IMO the hpd was covering their asses. They didn't want to be the cops who were on duty when a young girl went missing, they didn't want to be blamed in any way. So instead of writing an accurate report, which might raise questions as to why she lost control before the curve, like did the rag cause her to stall, he wrote it out to make it look like a run of the mill crash.
This is further evidenced by the fact that he lies to te family when they arrived. This doesn't mean that he did it or knows who did, I think it means that they didn't want to be held responsible in any way, hence them lying about a witness saying that she was drunk, etc.
So no, I don't think he knows exactly what happened, but I think he definitely knew that she was abducted and most likely had been murdered like so many other women have been in that area over the years.
All jmo, it's hard to determine exactly what this guy was thinkin when he mad the report.

So your theory is smith knew she was abducted, but waited five days to fil out the accident report because that would help his career advancement?

Maybe this is not what it appears to be but it seems on April 14, 2004 Billy was blogging on this site. Appears to be a Turkish website? The title of it is:

Help to get your girl back.

Have You Observed Maura Murray? http://bit.ly/xWlitD
(PRWEB) April fourteen, 2004

Q. Monthly bill, can you explain to us a small about your relationship with Maura?

A. I fulfilled Maura by means of an introduction by her sister, Julie, in the drop of 2001 although we cadets at the United States Army Academy. We were drawn to one one more practically quickly and have been dating ever because. Well on her way to efficiently completing the Nursing Plan at Umass, Amherst we had planned to turn into engaged (the certain date was to be a shock) inside of the yr and married sometime after she had graduated in the Spring of 2005.

Q. Most of the information reports say that Maura is a really responsible younger lady, nevertheless proof suggests that she was planning on leaving school and going absent someplace without having telling her loved ones and pals. Do you believe that the stress of nursing college and lifestyle in common would generate Maura to depart with out telling any person?

A. Although no 1 can converse for Maura, I can say that she was not only taking pleasure in her current semester, which she expressed to me on many occasions, but also was excelling at the same time, primarily based on her Dean

Gönderen likeur8es zaman: 02:00

mcsmom wrote:

Maybe this is not what it appears to be but it seems on April 14, 2004 Billy was blogging on this site. Appears to be a Turkish website?

It's not what it appears to be. Billy was interviewed in Oklahoma by Child Seek Network, a non-profit based in Wilsonville Oregon, USA. An automated "web scraper" grabbed this news story from the internet and posted it as their own original content. It's a common occurrence.
The original interview can be found at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/04/prweb11...

Pointless Endeavor wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not what it appears to be. Billy was interviewed in Oklahoma by Child Seek Network, a non-profit based in Wilsonville Oregon, USA. An automated "web scraper" grabbed this news story from the internet and posted it as their own original content. It's a common occurrence.
The original interview can be found at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/04/prweb11...

Yes, the entire interview makes sense now. Billy had a date in mind to ask Maura to marry him, how sad that never happened.

"IMO the hpd was covering their asses. They didn't want to be the cops who were on duty when a young girl went missing, they didn't want to be blamed in any way."

a toddler is up to 3 years old
a pre-schooler is 3-4 years old
a school-age child is 5-10 years old
a pre-teen is 11-12
a teen is 13-18
an adult, by all standards, is 21 years old

Maura Murray was not a young girl at age 21. it is moronic to continue to identify her as a young girl at the time of her disappearance.

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, the entire interview makes sense now. Billy had a date in mind to ask Maura to marry him, how sad that never happened.

Perhaps he's moved on by now, found another ally in love, married and is starting the family he wanted. Although a romantic notion, one (IMHO)can't and shouldn't wait forever. One should live their life to the fullest and be happy.

Pointless Endeavor wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps he's moved on by now, found another ally in love, married and is starting the family he wanted. Although a romantic notion, one (IMHO)can't and shouldn't wait forever. One should live their life to the fullest and be happy.

Timmy never gave up on Lassie.

Snowy wrote:

"IMO the hpd was covering their asses. They didn't want to be the cops who were on duty when a young girl went missing, they didn't want to be blamed in any way."
a toddler is up to 3 years old
a pre-schooler is 3-4 years old
a school-age child is 5-10 years old
a pre-teen is 11-12
a teen is 13-18
an adult, by all standards, is 21 years old
Maura Murray was not a young girl at age 21. it is moronic to continue to identify her as a young girl at the time of her disappearance.

LMAO, we got the grammar police out tonight in force! Gotta make sure everything is worded exactly perfect, don't wanna get a ticket.

But come on here,
She was young, she was a girl, what's your point??
I probably should've said young woman but that's just wording, the point I made in my post is still valid & you pointing that out realt doesn't have any bearing on what I said.

Besides for the fact that I don't see 'girl' anywhere on that list that you pulled off google. So what's the problem?

guesstimate - young girl = approx 6-10 years old.

Snowy wrote:

guesstimate - young girl = approx 6-10 years old.

6-10 years old minor child. 21 years old young girl or young adult.

Snowy wrote:

"IMO the hpd was covering their asses. They didn't want to be the cops who were on duty when a young girl went missing, they didn't want to be blamed in any way."
a toddler is up to 3 years old
a pre-schooler is 3-4 years old
a school-age child is 5-10 years old
a pre-teen is 11-12
a teen is 13-18
an adult, by all standards, is 21 years old
Maura Murray was not a young girl at age 21. it is moronic to continue to identify her as a young girl at the time of her disappearance.

a toddler is up to 2.9 a preschooler is 2.9 to 4. kindergarten is 5 to 6.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>a toddler is up to 2.9 a preschooler is 2.9 to 4. kindergarten is 5 to 6.

my intent, citi, was not to be scientific, but to help Jenk understand that MM is not a missing child, or a missing young girl. she may be better described, at the time of her disappearance, as a young woman or a female adult.
his repeated use of innocent / young girl implies a helplessness beneath her level of intelligence, education and social sophistication.

snowy i admire your tenacity and strength of will, but alas my dear one cannot partake in logical conversation with so many illogical conversationalists

uknowwho wrote:

snowy i admire your tenacity and strength of will, but alas my dear one cannot partake in logical conversation with so many illogical conversationalists

uh huh. get it. got it. hey!!! ;)

That's just such a silly complaint snowy, she was a girl & she definitely was not old, so young girl would be an accurate description.
I agree that young woman is a more apt description but that's just splitting hairs, nobody who's reading this forum is gonna think that she was a young child bc I described her as a young girl instead of young woman. That's just total hair splitting & has nothing to do with the topic of my original post.

Why don't you try to address any of the real problems I brought up? Like the fact that smith's report is full of errors and inconsistencies? He said she hit a stand of trees which is pretty much impossible considering the damage to her car & where her car was found. He said she spun out after the curve & that is not consistent with where the damage on her vehicle is. Also the damage to her car looks NOTHING like any damage I've ever seen from a tree.
How could this guy get his report so wrong?
Was it intentional & if so why would he intentionally make a report that is innacurate? Could it be the same reasoning that made him decide to lie to the family upon their arrival?

Why don't you address any of those REAL issues instead of splitting hairs on something to trivial and inconsequential as whether she should be called a young girl or young woman? That's just such a pointless part to harp on it just seems silly to even discuss.

I've been reading this forum for awhile now and I have to say it's at an all time low. All the ones that tried to keep truth from fiction ,werent afraid of calling BS when they saw it and added enough interesting things to keep me and others coming back are gpne
Chased away by a crazy poster and one that will write a boring repetitive book just to argue a point and try to prove himself right.
Such a shame. Guess tang got his wish.
Good luck you all.C ya. Nothing worth coming here for anymore.

last time - more explicitly stated - i would hope "young girls" are not involved in relationships and behaviors that are culturally and legally reserved for adults, and would, therefore, be inappropriate for "young girls". MM was not a young girl.

Snowy wrote:

last time - more explicitly stated - i would hope "young girls" are not involved in relationships and behaviors that are culturally and legally reserved for adults, and would, therefore, be inappropriate for "young girls". MM was not a young girl.

Lol, this is soooo stupid. Obviously calling her a young girl is a fine description if what she was. She was a girl who certainly was not old by any stretch, meaning she was a young girl.
This is stupid because you are trying to debate something that has no true definition, something that can mean different things to different people. A girl that's 6-10 years old could also be called a young girl but I would probably say little girl, which I wouldn't use to describe mm.
What makes this extra stupid is the fact that me saying young girl means nothing, it's absolutely moronic to pick that one wording out of a post & criticize it when it has nothing to do with the point of the post, that the responding officer wrote a bunk report.
It's not like anyone is going to read my post & now think that we are talking about a minor or something like that. Little kids don't get in car crashes by themselves in Nh. So there is absolutely no chance that people are now gonna start thinking that we are talking about a minor. This is soooooo stupid I can't believe you're actually still talking about this snowy, what is your problem?
Young girl is a perfectly apt description of her. Young adult probably would be more accurate I agree, but all you're doing is splitting hairs...totally pointless & ridiculously minor hairs at that.

Snowy why don't you try answering the question? Why do you think smith's report contains so many errors? Do you think it was an honest mistake? I give hike the benefit of the doubt & say it was probably an honest mistake but there are certainly some blaring problems with that document that make me think otherwise sometimes.

Wasn't smith a local to the Haverhill area? Iirc he was & he grew up there or at least went to the local high school.

Well didn't he say that the reason that it took him 19 minutes to arrive on scene was bc he didn't know the roads well?
Does that not strike anyone else as strange? He was from the area & had been a cop for 1-2 years before this accident. Seems strange that he would say that he didn't know the roads well & use that as an excuse to take so long arriving on the scene. If you grow up somewhere or even just go to high school in a town you usually get to know the roads pretty damn well. Once you're a cop your job is basically driving around the town all night. I would think that even if you're not a local you would learn the roads pretty quick by driving around a town for 8 hours a day, within a couple months you should have the roads & the quickest ways to get places down pretty damn good unless you're really bad with directions. So after a year or more of being a hpd cop shouldn't be have known the roads like the back of his hand?

That just seems like a really weak excuse as to why it took so long for him to respond to the accident that night.
Was this yet another lie from smith? It sure looks like it might be one to me. What's wrong with this guy? Does he have some sort of memory problem or something? How could he NOT know the roads well after over a year of driving them for 8 hrs a day & living there his whole life?

Did he really go the wrong way or was he actually responding to the other accident that Anne, & supposedly others heard on their scanner that night just after 7? Anne said that just after 7, 7:03 iirc she heard in the scanner that a car had slid off the road. Then several minutes later she heard that the driver had left in a private vehicle, or something to that effect.
The 19 minute response time would make sense if smith was already responding to that call & was almost there when he got the report of mm's accident at 7:27 when FW called in about Maura. That makes much more logical sense than this cop who grew up in the town & had been driving it in a cruiser for the last year not knowing the roads well & going the wrong way.
This would be in the gap that there is in the logs. There is a gap of about an hour before FW's call where absolutely nothing is in the log. So either absolutely no calls were placed to dispatch during that time or LE has left out a block of time in the logs for some reason.

Anne swears she heard this call & I believe her, she does not sound like she is making it up at all. She also says that she knows of someone else who also heard that call on their scanner too. One of the pi's claimed that they've spoken to other people who heard the call, I would think they're probably the same people that Anne knows but that is just a guess.
We know for a fact that smith has no problem with lying about this case, he lied right to the family's face when they arrived saying that he thought Fred was driving the car when he clearly knew it was Maura within minutes of arriving on the scene.
The guy lied to the family of a missing person flat out, he filed an accident report that is clearly full of errors, why should we believe anything this guy has to say regarding this case?
Doesn't it make more sense that he was responding to an earlier accident, was almost on that scene & then had to turn around & drive to the WB curve rather than he didn't know the roads well & made a wrong turn? That just seems like a convenient excuse considering the circumstances..

It really makes me wonder about that gap in the logs & if it was intentionally left out bc it would reference the earlier accident.
Did smith really not know the roads well or was that a made up excuse? If it was an excuse why would he lie about that? If there was an earlier accident why would they not want the public to know about it? Theres something wrong w this picture here.