Maura Murray

Maruchan wrote:

This is the news story from WMUR: http://www.youtube.com/watch... It says they had been searching for 3 days, so this story is probably from Thursday or Friday. Who is the man standing next to Kathleen? Also, note the color of the vehicle they are standing in front of - maroon or red.
What I find interesting about this story is the camera footage of the snow at the scene of the accident. The snow close to the trees hasn't been touched - it is very deep and hasn't been disturbed. A vehicle never got close to hitting those trees. If you look at the roadway on Google Street View, any other trees not in view on the video are set farther back from the road than the trees in the video, and in fact there are no trees closer to the road than the trees in the video all the way to the yellow winding road sign further east. How did the officer who wrote the report ever conclude that she hit any trees?
This leads me back to again thinking the damage occurred from the Saturn cutting across the corner of the W's property and hitting one of the steel poles there.

Tims Red Truck........

There was a bit of confusion on when fred was notified his daughter was missing and why his siblings didn't right away tell him.

well here is sharon rausch word for word on that account:(None of this is my editorializing, this is all sharon, so believe it or don't believe it.

On Fred being first notified:

Maura's wreck sometime after 7 p.m., 2/9/2004

2/10/04 3:20 p.m

Sharon Rausch (Billy's mom)

"Fred receives a voice message on his home phone about his car being found abandoned near Woodsville NH on the evening of February 9th. Fred’s answering machine notes the time of day as 3:20 PM EST. Fred is at work on a contracted job in another state and does not get the message until later.
At approximately 5:00 or 5:30 PM Fred Murray receives a call from his daughter Kathleen. The Haverhill Police have reached her brother, Freddie Murray’s residence (Freddie resides with his mother Laurie Murray, younger brother and Maura when she is not at school.) The police reported to Freddie that they found an abandoned car owned by Frederick Murray. Freddie told them that was his sister’s car and they had to search for her. The policeman that talked to Freddie said that if she was missing, he would have to contact their local police department. When Freddie called the local police department he was told that he would have to call the University of Massachusetts at Amherst Police Department, Maura’s current residence.. Fred Murray, the father called Haverhill Police Department and begged them to start looking for Maura."

not that this adds anything really.

But from all accounts I have been able to uncover, Fred murray was working in hartford connecticut or that general vincinity at time maura went missing.

That area takes just under an hour to get to amherst from.

It would take somewhere around an hour to get to amherst from hartford and a total of about 3 hours and 10 minutes or so to get to maura's accident site.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>your second entry is referring to TC and his new wife. Not his parents.

I'm going to repost what Maruchan posted. Unless Tim is Ben Button how is he 55 and his knew wife 45? maybe he has a son with the same first and last name? I'm not going to write anymore and I'll give you a chance to clarify.

Since Renner's post about KM, I did some research, and am sharing this just as publicly available information. According to newspaper reports, KM was living in Hanover, MA, at the time of Maura's disappearance. A Google search found this on the Wicked Local Hanover site, from the Hanover Mariner Police Log, edition dated November 8, 2005:

"SUNDAY, OCT. 30 ... 4:06 p.m. Massasoit Lane, arrest: Kathleen Murray, 28, 32 Massasoit Lane, Hanover. Charges: Domestic assault-drunkenness."

I did a further search on that address, and found this from the same website, edition dated April 25, 2012:

"Wednesday, April 11 ... 8:06 p.m. Hillside Drive, report of domestic assault and battery. Arrest: Timothy A. Carpenter, 55, 32 Massasoit Lane, Hanover. Charge: domestic assault and battery. Arrest: Claire Hurlburt-Carpenter, 45, 32 Massasoit Lane, Hanover. Charges: domestic assault and battery, assault and battery by dangerous weapon, intimidation of a witness."

If the second entry is referring to TC's parents, as I believe it is, then he has a lot of gall saying to Renner: "The family, he admits, is a mess."

As I've said before, I do not have a side here, and am just reporting what I have found.

Orko Kringer wrote:

not that this adds anything really.
But from all accounts I have been able to uncover, Fred murray was working in hartford connecticut or that general vincinity at time maura went missing.
That area takes just under an hour to get to amherst from.
It would take somewhere around an hour to get to amherst from hartford and a total of about 3 hours and 10 minutes or so to get to maura's accident site.

whoops, I meant Bridgeport, Hartford is where I flew into.

Bridgeport is 1 hour and 55 minutes from amherst mass and its about 4 hours even from the accident site where maura's car ended up.

Sorry about the mixup.

Orky- he was working in Bridgeport, not Hartford. So add about 45 min-hour on to those times depending on traffic.

Makes Fred's 'drove through the night' statement sound kind of ridiculous. If he found out about te crash on Tuesday around 5:30pm, he could've been on the scene by 9:30-10 on Tuesday night, but instead he showed up on Wednesday morning early just before the f&g were about to conduct their search.

There's just soooo many things about what Fred has said that just don't make any sense. He makes it sound like he was 12 hours away & drove non stop through the night the second he heard she was missing, this was clearly not the case.

Maruchan is definitely correct, that video proves flat out that her car didn't hit any trees on that corner, contrary to what smith wrote in his report.

Really has Got to make you wonder what caused smith to conclude that she hit a stand of trees when it is blatantly obvious she did NOT hit any trees.
Just look at the damage to her car anyways, that's clearly NOT from any trees, that's not what a car looks like after hitting a tree. Nvm the fact that it's impossible for a car to bounce back out onto the road after hitting a tree.

Why is smith's report so flawed? Was he really that bad at deciphering what happened after the accident or did he intentionally write it wrong?
It is obvious he has no problem lying regarding this case so it only makes sense to consider that he intentionally wrote a flawed report.

Jenkins wrote:

Maruchan is definitely correct, that video proves flat out that her car didn't hit any trees on that corner, contrary to what smith wrote in his report.
Really has Got to make you wonder what caused smith to conclude that she hit a stand of trees when it is blatantly obvious she did NOT hit any trees.
Just look at the damage to her car anyways, that's clearly NOT from any trees, that's not what a car looks like after hitting a tree. Nvm the fact that it's impossible for a car to bounce back out onto the road after hitting a tree.
Why is smith's report so flawed? Was he really that bad at deciphering what happened after the accident or did he intentionally write it wrong?
It is obvious he has no problem lying regarding this case so it only makes sense to consider that he intentionally wrote a flawed report.

Why would he intentionally write a flawed report? And why would he lie regarding this case?

Jenky, any thank you's for that lengthy lesson on NH criminal and motor vehicle code definitions?

No apology for telling me I don't know what the law means, "how could I possibly not know these things? "

You call me out, I reply with a detailed explanation jus as you requested, and then nothing?

Real cool guy you are. I am not even a little surprised.

Douchebag

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
Why would he intentionally write a flawed report? And why would he lie regarding this case?

Yes.....Why.

Don't think He lied....Confused Maybe.....Wonder if He had been at the A-Frame prior to going to the acc. scene.

it has been reported that there was a "nick" found on a tree as well at the scene of maura's car accident FWIW:

but here is an actual quote from the family spokesperson known as Peabody.

"Although some believed Maura's car hit a tree, the family has always known that it did not........the snowbank was so tall, deep and hard that it was not possible that her car went through it;

possible speculation (re: the tree) was because a small tree on the other side of the snowbank had some "skinned bark" -- but due to the location of the tree, and the location of the damaged bark, physics made it impossible for it to have been hit by Maura's car.

Jenkins wrote:

Orky- he was working in Bridgeport, not Hartford. So add about 45 min-hour on to those times depending on traffic.
Makes Fred's 'drove through the night' statement sound kind of ridiculous. If he found out about te crash on Tuesday around 5:30pm, he could've been on the scene by 9:30-10 on Tuesday night, but instead he showed up on Wednesday morning early just before the f&g were about to conduct their search.
There's just soooo many things about what Fred has said that just don't make any sense. He makes it sound like he was 12 hours away & drove non stop through the night the second he heard she was missing, this was clearly not the case.

i agree. every time i read he drove "through the night" i wince. Hartford or Bridgeport....easily drivable distances.
for the record....this could be the first time i fully agree with you.

FrmLE wrote:

Jenky, any thank you's for that lengthy lesson on NH criminal and motor vehicle code definitions?
No apology for telling me I don't know what the law means, "how could I possibly not know these things? "
You call me out, I reply with a detailed explanation jus as you requested, and then nothing?
Real cool guy you are. I am not even a little surprised.
Douchebag

have i ever apologized to you for questioning whether you are a FrmLE? i remember a little go-around. if not, i'm offering one....straight up!!
and i also recall you held a firm position stating you didn't believe FM had any possible involvement with, knowledge of, or cover up in MM's disappearance. i respect your view, and believe most of us are not in a position to draw any conclusive judgement against him.

Maruchan wrote:

This is the news story from WMUR: http://www.youtube.com/watch... It says they had been searching for 3 days, so this story is probably from Thursday or Friday. Who is the man standing next to Kathleen? Also, note the color of the vehicle they are standing in front of - maroon or red.
What I find interesting about this story is the camera footage of the snow at the scene of the accident. The snow close to the trees hasn't been touched - it is very deep and hasn't been disturbed. A vehicle never got close to hitting those trees. If you look at the roadway on Google Street View, any other trees not in view on the video are set farther back from the road than the trees in the video, and in fact there are no trees closer to the road than the trees in the video all the way to the yellow winding road sign further east. How did the officer who wrote the report ever conclude that she hit any trees?
This leads me back to again thinking the damage occurred from the Saturn cutting across the corner of the W's property and hitting one of the steel poles there.

I agree that the damage is not likely from tree trunks at least. I have been past the scene several times in the last couple weeks and I can only guess that if there was any tree damage it would have been from a branch. The damage over the driver side headlight could have been done if hitting a thick branch straight on. It's the only thing that could have been close enough to the road. However, I think it is more likely from the marker posts on the clipped corner. Consider that the officers on the scene are not fully trained accident investigators. They are town cops, trained in general police work. I liken them to the general practitioner compared to a heart specialist. They had limited time to get the scene clear, and a minor fender bender would not warrant much more than a quick estimate of how it happened. Just my opinion of course.

http://m.youtube.com/watch...

Remember Maura, Liko, Brianna, Serry, Patrick. I know this is only a fraction of the actual carnage.

May it finally be over.

They haven't lost Floyd have they?

FrmLE wrote:

Jenky, any thank you's for that lengthy lesson on NH criminal and motor vehicle code definitions?
No apology for telling me I don't know what the law means, "how could I possibly not know these things? "
You call me out, I reply with a detailed explanation jus as you requested, and then nothing?
Real cool guy you are. I am not even a little surprised.
Douchebag

It's not my fault you don't understand how to read that law. I apologized about mischaracterizinf your earlier post but you're clearly wrong about this.

The rules don't change if you're driving someone else car, you were quoting the section specifically regarding when you crash into someone else's car.

I'm not gonna continue Debating someone who is clearly & obviously wrong but just refuses to admit it & goes so far to misquote laws that are dealing with multi-car accidents & try to say they apply to single car accidents.

It clearly states that in a one car accident thats over $1,000 the driver or te owner has 15 days to make a report.
your detailed explanation was full of shit & misquotes by someone who can't admit when they're wrong.
What you said obviously made no sense, I had already quoted the CORRECT law, just admit when your wrong dude, it's not that hard.

mcsmom wrote:

Saco, Maine is an interesting place. Eaten more Rapid Rays dogs than I care to recall.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>not to me because I know.

Citigirl, this is your reply to mcsmom - what did you mean by this? I'm wondering because there is a similar comment on Renner's blog by an anonymous poster: "I know a connection. But You are the last person I would give the info to." Although, now that I look at it, that comment was probably made by Tang/Columbo considering the capital "Y" in "you".

Anyway, do you know what the connection to Saco is?

That's what I figured jenky. I suppose my explanation made no sense to anyone else either Huh? lol

One more example of how you don't know enough to know what you don't know.

Sad and pathetic.

I stayed at the Quality Inn when it was the Quality Inn in Hadley. I did so because I wanted to see for myself, hear for myself. Most times that I stayed there the late night from desk person was a UMASS student. I doubt Maura would have had any trouble getting a room key.

Also, if my memory serves me correctly, the rooms were equipped with the slide chain for door security the ones that are a PIA to use.

This is ridiculous, FrmLE is so obviously wrong about this & misquoting quotes instead of just admitting it. ALL the quotes that he quoted to prove his point are obviously talking about what to do if you crash into another car or damages someone else's property. Which obviously you need to stop or go to the nearest police station because otherwise you're committing hit and run against someone if you don't. Here's the first quote:
"The driver of a vehicle who knows or should have known that he or she has just been involved in any accident which resulted in death, personal injury or damages to property, shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of the accident and give to the driver or owner of any other vehicle involved in said accident, and to any person injured, and to the owner of any property damaged, the driver's name and address"
-right there they are clearly and obviously referring to the owner of the property the accident damaged, be it their car or other property. This phrase is obviously referring to a 2 car accident.

The next sentence is obviously explaining what to do in a one car accident:
"Any person driving a vehicle which is in any manner involved in an accident"

-Now the statute is clearly talking about what to do in a ONE CAR accident, because obviously there isn't anyone else's car or property damaged that you have to report it to on the spot, a one car accident can't be a hit and run, hence not needing to go to a police station immediately.
This next quote makes this clear:
"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 any person is injured or killed, or if damage to property is in excess of $1,000, unless the accident is investigated by a police officer,

"If such driver is physically or mentally incapable of making such report, the owner of the vehicle involved in such accident or the owner's representative shall, after learning of the accident, forthwith make such report."

This whole thing means that if you hit somebody else, or damage any property you need to wait for a cop or go to the nearest police station, because otherwise it is a hit and run.
If your in a one car accident that the damages are greater than $1,000 the driver has 15 days to report it or if they're unable to make such report the owner of the car needs to make the report, if say the person is injured.

That first sentance the FrmLE was quoting was talking about what do do after you crash into another person, that is so obvious.
If that wasn't true there wouldn't be a stipulation the person who owns the car must do it if the driver of the car can not. The rules are obviously the same for someone driving a car they own or they borrow, you don't have to go to a police station if you crash somebody's car while borrowing it. That notion is ridiculous. FrmLE is quoting the law that makes a hit & run illegal.

It's ridiculous he's pushing this & thinks I should admit I'm wrong? Anybody can go & read the law in its entirety & figure out what they're talking about. It's a little confusing but fairly clearly written too.
To suggest that a kid driving a car registered in their parent's name, which is like half the college age kids in the country, has to go to te nearest police station immediately following an accident is just plain silly. I can't believe anyone would actually try to say that's how it is. Lol, such obvious misreading of the law.