Maura Murray

Orko Kringer wrote:

If the rag was put in the tailpipe as a means for a quick suicide, maura may have realized that A). It wasn't going to work. Or B). She didn't have enough time to make it work (before police were going to start showing up) so she gave up and bolted the scene on foot.
She left her clothes behind.
I find that a pretty good indication that she wasn't just waiting to meet someone and travel on. They would've taken the time to get her clothes and valuables as well.
The clothes and things were packed in a gym bag, so it wasn't a time issue as far as getting those.
All this is IMO.

I find it extremely hard to believe that the rag in the tailpipe had anything to do with any sort of suicide attempt. To think that we would have to go by the assumption that Maura was a complete and total idiot, which she clearly wasn't. You would have to be beyond stupid to think that you're gonna kill yourself by putting a rag in your tailpipe.

How do you know she left all of her clothes behind? That is an assumption, correct? We know that she definitely left clothes behind but we have no clue as to whether she took some with her.
Remember that a witness reported seeing a 'flurry of activity' at the trunk. That sounds to me like she was getting stuff together, knowing that she wouldn't be goin back to the car that night.
It is very possible, actually likely that she brought one nights worth of clothes with her in her backpack.
She left most of the Alcohol in the car, that indicates that she didn't have enough room in her backpack to carry it all. That's probably because she packed some clothes, a quick overnight bag so she wouldn't have nothing.

Either way, nobody has any idea if she left ALL of her clothes in the car, and it's likely that she didn't leave all of them.

[QUOTE who="FrmLE”] Use whatever word you wish, run, leave, disappear, whatever. The fact are this.
* She left the scene of an accident, another crime, and walked past several houses.
* One of those houses was SBD who had offered to help her and call th Police.[/QUOTE]

Is it a "fact” that she walked past several houses? Which ones — east or west? How would you know this unless you were hiding in the bushes and witnessed this firsthand, or there was a residential security video recording?

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it a "fact” that she walked past several houses? Which ones — east or west? How would you know this unless you were hiding in the bushes and witnessed this firsthand, or there was a residential security video recording?

The only way to avoid going past any houses would be to go directly into the woods. Several houses in both directions by road. It was actually a relatively populated area where she crashed.

Jenkins wrote:

While it may not have been smart, it was perfectly LEGAL for her to leave that accident scene. It was a one car accident, with no injuries, no damages even close to over $10,000 & no damage to anybody else's property.
In a one car accident like the she did NOT break the law by leaving that accident scene....are you SURE you used to be in LE?? How could you possibly NOT know that?

You see jenky, the difference between someone who has spent a career in Law Enforcement and someone who sits on the internet and googles to find answers, is that I know what the law is.

The little teeny tiny difference is that you must have read wrong.... Perhaps some reading lessons are in order?

Jenkins wrote:

no damages even close to over $10,000

I believe the Law states $1000 in damage, not $10,000. Hey, it's just one zero right?

Well that one zero is the difference between crime and no crime. Because there certainly was more than $1000 damages to Maura's car.

Jenkins wrote:

are you SURE you used to be in LE?? How could you possibly NOT know that?

Yes, I am pretty sure I was a cop.

Snowy wrote:

New Hampshire Conduct after accident
(NH Statutes 264:25)
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/...

Good catch Snowy, thank you.

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
The only way to avoid going past any houses would be to go directly into the woods. Several houses in both directions by road. It was actually a relatively populated area where she crashed.

Thank you BillNH, I’m not local but have travelled in the area during the leafing season. I was just questioning as to why FrmLe stated that it was a “fact” that MM had walked past several houses after the crash.

I’m of the opinion that someone offered her a ride directly adjacent to her car and she accepted. Or she was grabbed by thug(s) in the Red Truck after SBD left WBC.

Frostman wrote:

I’m of the opinion that someone offered her a ride directly adjacent to her car and she accepted. Or she was grabbed by thug(s) in the Red Truck after SBD left WBC.

No vehicle stopped from the time of the crash until the time the police showed up. The accident scene was visible from a witness location, they reported the crash and watched from a distance.

They reported no 'red truck' stopping by Maura's car.

Therefore, unless she sprouted wings and flew away straight up, she must have walked by several houses.

You see, the point is, if she was looking for assistance, assistance was available.

Or, put another way, she intentionally AVOIDED assistance and the police.

Does that help?

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Good catch Snowy, thank you.

you're very welcome.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
No vehicle stopped from the time of the crash until the time the police showed up. The accident scene was visible from a witness location, they reported the crash and watched from a distance.
They reported no 'red truck' stopping by Maura's car.
Therefore, unless she sprouted wings and flew away straight up, she must have walked by several houses.
You see, the point is, if she was looking for assistance, assistance was available.
Or, put another way, she intentionally AVOIDED assistance and the police.
Does that help?

If they watched from a distance they would have watched where she went.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
No vehicle stopped from the time of the crash until the time the police showed up. The accident scene was visible from a witness location, they reported the crash and watched from a distance.
They reported no 'red truck' stopping by Maura's car.
Therefore, unless she sprouted wings and flew away straight up, she must have walked by several houses. You see, the point is, if she was looking for assistance, assistance was available.
Or, put another way, she intentionally AVOIDED assistance and the police.
Does that help?

You said that, factually, she walked by several houses. Which ones? Which way?

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
If they watched from a distance they would have watched where she went.

No, that is not true. Because there is a difference between a person and a car or truck with its light on.

A person is significantly smaller than a truck, a person is about 120 lbs, 5 ft tall, and maybe 18 inches wide. A truck is about 500lbs, about 6 ft tall also, but about ten feet long and about 6 ft wide.

Also, a person does not have an engine and therefore does not make engine sounds when it runs. A person can walk away without being seen from the distance the witness was. A truck could not have driven up without being seen and heard.

Does that help?

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
You said that, factually, she walked by several houses. Which ones? Which way?

Are you serious? Ok, let me put it another way.

If Maura was at the crash scene, and either way on the road were several houses which she could have stopped at.

No, the police searched the woods and snow directly surroounding the car, and found no footprints.

Sooooo, what are the possible directions she could have left the scene?

Up the road, or down the road, left or right. Both ways have houses. Therefore, as I said before, unless she sprouted wings and flew away straight up, or tunneled straight down, she must have walked by several houses.

Is this really that hard for you?

FrmLE wrote:

A truck is about 500lbs,

Should have read, a truck is about 5000 pounds.

Snowy wrote:

New Hampshire Conduct after accident
(NH Statutes 264:25)
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/...

Thanks for posting that snowy, it clearly shows that she was not legally obligated to stay at that scene.
Remember that this was a one car accident that there were no injuries or damage to anyone else's property, that means she was free to leave whenever she felt like it.

Now that doesn't mean it was a GOOD IDEA to leave, far from it considering she was a young woman out on the road by herself & in a very vulnerable position once she left that car, but legally she committed no crime by leaving that scene.
Really makes me wonder why FrmLE would say that when it's obviously not the case.

Another thing he said that was wrong was regarding the alleged open container, the infamous coke bottle found under her car after it was towed with a pink stain in the snow nearby. An open container in NH is not legal, but it is NOT a criminal offense, it is a violation. Something you get a ticket for, not arrested for. It's not a criminal offense it is a civil violation, at least according to the state of nh's .gov website.
So idk WTH FrmLE was talking about when he said that she committed 2 crimes, she clearly didn't at all. Comments like that by him just make me wonder, is he really an ex cop? I do believe that he was a cop so then why would he make statements that are so blatantly wrong?
It's a common known fact most cops actually DON'T know the laws they're sworn to enforce, ask any lawyer & they will confirm this, both defense attorneys and state's attorneys alike. It's actually a problem many prosecutors have with prosecuting cases, the charging officer just doesn't know the law.
Just makes me wonder about FrmLE, are statements like that just evidence of ignorance of the law or is he intentionally making misleading statements?

Jenkins wrote:

Thanks for posting that snowy, it clearly shows that she was not legally obligated to stay at that scene.
Remember that this was a one car accident that there were no injuries or damage to anyone else's property, that means she was free to leave whenever she felt like it.

You are 100% incorrect. Let me ask you this, have you ever been a cop in New Hampshire? Of course, the answer is NO.

If you were you would know that the law states "if any person is injured or killed, or if damage to property is in excess of $1,000"

That does not mean damage to anyone elses property, that means any damage to any property that exceeds $1000, ie: her car.

Don't even begin to think you are going to argue this with me, I have prosecuted this charge dozens and dozens of times, I know the law.

Maybe you should go to the Police Academy or Law School before you try to read and understand Criminal Statutes.

After reading New Hampshire Conduct after accident
(NH Statutes 264:25) several times, I believe Jenkins is correct. She had no obligation to wait for an officer. However if she truly clipped the inside corner of that curve, it looks like she was obligated to leave her information with the owner of that property, there may have been property damage. No dollar amount is attached to the first paragraph.

the first sentence that is, not paragraph.

Jenkins wrote:

So idk WTH FrmLE was talking about when he said that she committed 2 crimes, she clearly didn't at all. Comments like that by him just make me wonder, is he really an ex cop? I do believe that he was a cop so then why would he make statements that are so blatantly wrong?

Well, since you want to argue semantics with me, let's review what I actually said, shall we?
.
.

Jenkins wrote:

So idk WTH FrmLE was talking about when he said that she committed 2 crimes, she clearly didn't at all.

FrmLE wrote:

* She had alcohol in an open container, which is a violation of Law.

It says, she violated the law a couple times and she was intentionally avoiding the police.

Those are the direct quotes, that is EXACTLY what I said.

Sooo, as you can see, I did not say she committed 2 crimes, I said she violated the law a couple times. WHich, is exactly what she did. She violated the Law, right?

The point of my statement was that Maura had reason to want to avoid the police.

However since when you want to play games with semantics, then I'll play.

As you can clearly see, I said she VIOLATED THE LAW, as in she commited a VIOLATION.

Please show me where I said she committed crimes?

BillNH wrote:

After reading New Hampshire Conduct after accident
(NH Statutes 264:25) several times, I believe Jenkins is correct. She had no obligation to wait for an officer. However if she truly clipped the inside corner of that curve, it looks like she was obligated to leave her information with the owner of that property, there may have been property damage. No dollar amount is attached to the first paragraph.

Yeah, as much as I hate to admit it, it looks like Jenkins was correct in this instance.

RSA 264.25, broken down to its essential elements, says:

"The driver of a vehicle who knows ... that ... she has just been involved in any accident which resulted in ... damages to property, shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of the accident and give to ... the owner of any property damaged, the driver's name and address, driver's license number, the registration number of the vehicle and the name and address of each occupant. If by reason of injury, absence or removal from the place of the accident, or other cause, such ... owner of the property damaged ... is unable to understand or receive the information required in this section, such information shall be given to any uniformed police officer arriving at the scene of the accident or immediately to a police officer at the nearest police station. Any person driving a vehicle which is in any manner involved in an accident ... shall within 15 days after such accident report in writing to the division the facts required hereunder together with a statement of the circumstances if ... damage to property is in excess of $1,000 ... "

It appears to me that the language refers to damage to another's property, not the property of the driver.

But none of this really matters as far as I am concerned. You have to take the totality of the circumstances together - Maura was on probation, had alcohol in the car which splashed inside, which, even if she hadn't been drinking, might make her fear that she could be arrested for DUI. With the circumstances that we know about, it is certainly reasonable to speculate that she fled the vehicle in order to avoid contact with law enforcement.

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>

But none of this really matters as far as I am concerned. You have to take the totality of the circumstances together - Maura was on probation, had alcohol in the car which splashed inside, which, even if she hadn't been drinking, might make her fear that she could be arrested for DUI. With the circumstances that we know about, it is certainly reasonable to speculate that she fled the vehicle in order to avoid contact with law enforcement.

I agree with your conclusion. I hate to catch someone like frmLE in an error, his facts are usually spot on but what he was saying did not match what I was reading.