Maura Murray

In addition to Anne reporting hearing about an earlier accident on her scanner we also have the damage to her car, which IMO indicates that car was involved in 2 separate accidents. Not necessarily on the night in question but it sure does look like that car was involved in more than one crash.

Just look at it. The damage to the hood, above the driver's headlight looks like it was from an object that was higher than her car, if you look closely you'll notice that the hood was actually pushed down over the head light. It seems impossible that a snowbank or a tree could've caused this damage.

Look at the damage below the bumper, that is damage that is clearly consistent with hitting a snowbank. That damage also looks like it was pushing up, what you would expect from a snowbank.

Then the bumper is basically not damaged at all. That seems physically impossible for under the bumper to be hit, above the bumper to be hit as well & then the bumper is fine?
The debt that is above the hood is a pretty sharp & deep dent, it is pushed back an easy 6", that's like 10-12" from the front of the bumper. I know saturn bumpers will bounce back after minor damage but they can't be squished in almost a foot and bounce back from that, it would break or at least show some clear sign of damage, it certainly wouldn't be completely clean like is seen in the original NCN pics that were taken close to when the accident happened.
IMO that is pretty obvious evidence for there being two separate accidents. We have under the bumper being pushed up, then no damage to the bumper, & then the hood being pushed DOWN over the headlight, that seems pretty obvious to me.
Back on the MMM forums I remember discussing this & several posters including myself thought all of that damage probably came from 2 accidents. Well the NHLI hired an accident reconstructionist & he reached the same conclusion that we did; that all of that damage could not have happened at the WB curve. There's just nothing at that curve that was high enough and hanging over enough to cause the bumper to crush downwards like that.
The evidence seems to support the possibility of another earlier accident that happened just after 7 that night.
Something I've found interesting is if you look at the first news reports on this case they have cops from the HPD saying the accident happened just after 7 that night. They later changed it to the 7:27 time that we say now. Why did it change? Is there another more complete version of the logs that also have an accident happening at 7:03 like Anne says she heard?
Was there two accidents that night? It's obviously unclear at this point if there was or not but it definitely is a distinct possibility.

Remember when looking for pics of the damage that you need to view the north country news' pics that were taken shortly after.
Those pics show no damage to the bumper.

The more recent pix of her car are completely different. Somehow the car got smashed up much worse while being held as evidence at the troop F barracks.
How the hell is that even possible? They're holding a car for evidence in what is most likely a murder case, a case they're clearly testing as a murder case & they let it get all smashed up?? Is it common practice for the NHSP to damage evidence they're holding? If they didn't damage it who did? Are we supposed to believe someone came into the barracks property and smashed up her car more?

How could it even get more damages while being held there? At best that is horribly negligent on their part. They claim they're holding it as evidence, & they allow it to be completely smashed up & completely ruined any evidentiary value the car once held?

The thing that makes me wonder is the fact that now the bumper is really really damaged. That's wicked shady. Now it looks MUCH more consistent with it being only one accident. Now no experts can ever examine it in person, only by photos. Also it seems next to impossible that it could have been damaged accidentally. What are we supposed to believe that someone was not rising through the troop F impound lot & crashed into that car accidentally, right in the one spot that completely ruins the evidence??
I like to think that the NHSP wouldn't intentionally ruin evidence they're holding but just compare the photos, someone ruined the evidence & I find it hard to believe it wasn't someone in the NHSP.

I've tried and tried and tried to think of one innocent, logical reason that this car got damaged but I truly can't think of one. If it wasn't on accident WHY would they want to damage it further? Are they trying to hide something?
Is this just a coincidence that the one spot on the car that was potentially evidence of another crash got totally smashed in ruining the evidence?

I wonder if it's common practice for the NHSP to damage evidence they are holding for murder cases. Is there any other evidence in their possession that's been damaged? WTH is going on here?

Compare the original NCN pix with the ones that renner has on his blog to see how badly this car was smashed while being held as evidence by troop F.

What could possibly be their excuse for that? What could possibly be an innocent explanation for this?
I don't want to say that the NHSP is actively covering something up & I really don't believe they are but the fact that the car was damaged so badly while in their custody has got to make you stop and think if it's possible they are. It's highly suspicious & very strange.
I guess it's just another one of those really strange things about this case that just makes zero sense & has no easy logical explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Jenkins wrote:

The evidence seems to support the possibility of another earlier accident that happened just after 7 that night.
Something I've found interesting is if you look at the first news reports on this case they have cops from the HPD saying the accident happened just after 7 that night. They later changed it to the 7:27 time that we say now. Why did it change? Is there another more complete version of the logs that also have an accident happening at 7:03 like Anne says she heard?
Was there two accidents that night? It's obviously unclear at this point if there was or not but it definitely is a distinct possibility.

Just by "looking things over you can clearly tell" right Jenkins. I'm willing to bet that you couldn't explain the difference between an elastic collision or a inelastic collision. You know how I know, because of your rambling. I'm also willing to be that the formulas that are used to help measure these collisions mean absolutely nothing to you. You don't know and you can't understand. So you find the answers in your friend Mr. Ramble. Mr. Ramble helps you win the arguments on the home depot lines, and the Dunkin Doughnut lines. Not because your right, but because the person that your arguing with realizes that they can't get through to you, so they walk away. You take this as a victory and bring Mr. Ramble out to every argument you participate in.

But it doesn't matter because I know when your explaining a collision you know nothing. If I asked you about Newton's laws, you would think I was talking about the second amendment and stronger gun control because of the school shooting.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Jenkins when you say "young girl" it shows that you have in your very confused mind that maura was an eleven year old on a bicylce.

She wasn't a girl lost with a lollipop in her mouth. She was a young adult with fully developed reasoning skills, who was leaving school on her own free will and crashed probably while drinking and driving.

You, your confused mind, and Mr. Ramble have this image of MM being completely helpless. She wasn't. She was a young adult who went through military training. She didn't get lost trying to sell cookies. GET THAT IMAGE OUT OF YOUR HEAD.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Just by "looking things over you can clearly tell" right Jenkins. I'm willing to bet that you couldn't explain the difference between an elastic collision or a inelastic collision. You know how I know, because of your rambling. I'm also willing to be that the formulas that are used to help measure these collisions mean absolutely nothing to you. You don't know and you can't understand. So you find the answers in your friend Mr. Ramble. Mr. Ramble helps you win the arguments on the home depot lines, and the Dunkin Doughnut lines. Not because your right, but because the person that your arguing with realizes that they can't get through to you, so they walk away. You take this as a victory and bring Mr. Ramble out to every argument you participate in.
But it doesn't matter because I know when your explaining a collision you know nothing. If I asked you about Newton's laws, you would think I was talking about the second amendment and stronger gun control because of the school shooting.

You are 100% correct of course. As usual Jenkins is talking out of you know where. He always sounds loudest when he has his back towards you.

Typical, he likely has never written a report in his life but he knows "everything" about how they are written.

As someone who has filled out more than his share of fire and ems reports, which are also legal documents. I can tell you it use to happen frequently, that most of the document would be filled out at the time of the call BUT ISN'T POSTED UNTIL MORE INFORMATION IS FILLED IN at a later time. Very likely what happened in this case.

Currently most (all) reports that I am aware of are digital now so they are usually posted within hours of their creation but even then there may be additions added.

Watch now how jenkins will talk about how I am bragging to deflect from the fact he is clueless about how reports are written.

Again, watching Jenkins try to "process" information is like watching a blind boxer. He keeps swinging but he never hits anything. You do have to give him credit for the entertainment factor though. I know I constantly find myself laughing so hard I practically pee myself reading his posts, the few I can gag my way through. It gets very tiring constantly trying to fix the mess he leaves behind.

I am willing to bet those trees have been hit so many times that I would be able to find scars on most of them. No way to tell who caused them, or when. And of course when jenkins tells us that there are "no marks on the trees", we have to take at face value he knows what he is looking at. Something I doubt he does based upon all the things he has said in the past.

I am also impressed that you either know or researched the difference between elastic and inelastic collisions/damage. I had tried to explain that before several times. Some people of course understood, jenkins of course does not. His constant references to the bumper clearly point that out. I have never figured wasting time telling him something more than once EVER made sense based upon how his OCD seems to have him preoccupied with certain things and he just rambles on and on and on about the same things.

There really seems little reason to respond to most of his idiocy, at least for me. Most seem to have gotten use to him, and his blanket statements of stupidity and false "facts". In fact it appears he usually is writing and answering himself. I can't wait to start seeing him quote himself as a reference for the crap he writes.

Bill

I think Jenkins makes some very valid points. Lots of previous accidents at WB, HPD response times were less than for this accident. Williams himself said the accident occurred "just before 7pm".

So what gives?

i have 4000 characters to fill up with my own Jenkytown rant. it's nearly 3PM, not 3AM, so the words don't flow as easily as when my good friend, Know-It-All, puts on his thinking cap and talks to his invisible friend about trees.

"innocent young girl" calls me out to tidy up the topix house, and "trees" unfailingly brings Bill from a sitting to a standing position.
the Lighthouse beacon is a steady stream out of the darkness, and when someone shows up with a squirt bottle of concentrated Lysol, Wowzer turns the nozzle right back around.

so, please enjoy the music while we all remain on hold until the boogey man or the muffin man file their respective reports to the All Knowing One. he just knows. it all. all knowing. all being. revered. his Royal Wordiness. and worldliness.
i humbly bow to my hero, with characters remaining.

I notice you guys said absolutely nothing related to my posts, but only things about me. Such a tool of the weak minded person, attack the messenger not the message. You guys are too predictable, it's become comical.

Jenkins wrote:

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?
...
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...

Jenkins wrote:

In addition to Anne reporting hearing about an earlier accident on her scanner we also have the damage to her car, which IMO indicates that car was involved in 2 separate accidents. Not necessarily on the night in question but it sure does look like that car was involved in more than one crash.
...
Was there two accidents that night? It's obviously unclear at this point if there was or not but it definitely is a distinct possibility.

Jenkins wrote:

Remember when looking for pics of the damage that you need to view the north country news' pics that were taken shortly after.
...
I guess it's just another one of those really strange things about this case that just makes zero sense & has no easy logical explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

mcsmom wrote:

I think Jenkins makes some very valid points. Lots of previous accidents at WB, HPD response times were less than for this accident. Williams himself said the accident occurred "just before 7pm".
So what gives?

Are you stating that whenever a "log" is wrong or incorrect it can't be human error? Are you stating that an error in the log effects the outcome of logic?

If Col. Tibits - makes recording mistake in midflight to Japan does that mean that there's a conspiracy theory of the dropping of little boy.

Or if the Titanic log isn't recovered or read how are we to know that it was an actual iceberg not a torpedo or alien straffing run that sank the Titanic?

Cognitive dissonance makes you create these questions about the log book and try to find any other reason of MM missing due to outside forces, and not her own actions.

See why its really not worth posting. I thought that I answered several of his presumptions. He doesn't read it, or if he does read it he doesn't understand it, or if he does understand it he makes believe he doesn't. As I have said before, I do actually believe that posting for him, is useless and not worthy of doing, but, others who read and understand may get significant benefit. First they see how wrong he is repeatedly, and maybe more importantly they see that he cannot be educated. That when others see over and over how committed he is to his agenda, that no logical argument can sway him, they will look at anything he says with a jaundiced eye, as they should. Realizing that everything he says has the same bent view.

Again, I think most know what they are reading when they read a jenky post, so I just don't see my time being spent here answering. He doesn't understand the answers, and I think most others know what they are reading and treat it like something they sometimes find on the bottom of their shoe.

And for filler. How many times has the times, and Anne questions about a previous accident been asked, with nothing to back it up? And even if it occurred, how does that change Maura crashing her car with alcohol on board and then running from the scene? Of course hat is somewhat rhetorical in the sense that all those questions have been answered a hundred times before also.

Yyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwww wwwwwwwnnnnn. Now to get back to doing fun stuff. I'll pop back in, in a month or so. You know, when jenkins has solved this by repeating over, and over, and over, the same inane questions that have been hashed over for years. Over and over and over and have gone down the same rabbit holes with no resolution. Or him using all the false assumptions that he posts as fact.

Bill

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you stating that whenever a "log" is wrong or incorrect it can't be human error? Are you stating that an error in the log effects the outcome of logic?
If Col. Tibits - makes recording mistake in midflight to Japan does that mean that there's a conspiracy theory of the dropping of little boy.
Or if the Titanic log isn't recovered or read how are we to know that it was an actual iceberg not a torpedo or alien straffing run that sank the Titanic?
Cognitive dissonance makes you create these questions about the log book and try to find any other reason of MM missing due to outside forces, and not her own actions.

I'm not making reference to a singular entry, but rather a painstaking overview as to the history of accidents at the WB curve and who responded, times etc etc. I have no issue between belief and behavoir, in this case it's a matter of black and white.

Williams stated 7 pm during an interview.

Need help. exit 30 on 93 North to Clearbrook codo complex. Distance and Time if anyone can help me. Thank you.

make no mistake, the inane, and sometimes, insane content of the posts on this thread are interesting.
that's why the old-timers unfailingly come back, but regularly complain about it being a time time-waster and borrrring.
who is forcing the hand of anyone to return?
i admit to commenting of my own free will. can't complain.
:)

Jenkins wrote:

I notice you guys said absolutely nothing related to my posts, but only things about me. Such a tool of the weak minded person, attack the messenger not the message. You guys are too predictable, it's become comical.

We tried that before Fred. Others delivered your message for you too. You've already been extended much more courtesy then most people.

Your points are weak rehashes of items discussed ad nauseum.

From now on Craig can give you Vanswers.

Jenkins wrote:

I notice you guys said absolutely nothing related to my posts, but only things about me. Such a tool of the weak minded person, attack the messenger not the message. You guys are too predictable, it's become comical.

What substance do you think was made in your argument that needed to be refuted? Just because you Ramble on and on about something and I don't take my time to tell you why your wrong doesn't make you right. Its not my job to do the math, or the research for you.

Snowy wrote:

make no mistake, the inane, and sometimes, insane content of the posts on this thread are interesting.
that's why the old-timers unfailingly come back, but regularly complain about it being a time time-waster and borrrring.
who is forcing the hand of anyone to return?
i admit to commenting of my own free will. can't complain.
:)

The info I am asking for is because Trooper Koelher states he is at that location and arrives at Clearbrook Condo 12M in less than 15 Min. Important in the Patric McCarthy Case. Troop F again.