Maura Murray

Snowy wrote:

whatif ~ i'm interested in more of your input as you go along, and / or an additional overview of your feelings / opinions / ideas, so far.
that is some due diligence to read through this discussion...seriously.
i'm pretty much stuck at
1) alive
2) succumbed to the elements; woods
3) an abductor known to her; not stranger abduction
and, always, the Vasi angle.
Happy Easter, everyone!

hi, snowy. sorry for the delayed reply. easter and kids and family and church and all that. hope you enjoyed yours, as well as others reading along.

thanks for the encouragement, too. it was wth-the-original's comment to another poster a long way back about reading up on the available info that i took seriously (not sure if the other poster did though, lol.) i'm racing through this thread to try and catch up to the present because renner is starting to post some intriguing bits. i do feel weird whenever i just drop into the middle of some other thread conversation with a random observation triggered by some really old posts, like i did yesterday with the hotel lock thing.

for the record, i was talking to my so (who pays zero attention to maura's case or this forum, other than what i talk about) and i went through my hotel lock theory seeing as my so would be a somewhat unbiased audience. when i asked, "would you ever stay in a hotel and not engage the additional locks", the answer i got was, "sure, i probably have, especially when i was younger." lol. just kinda debunked the whole idea. so, yeah. who knows?

i just got past the italian dinner party from last october and felt a little bummed that it missed out.:)

one of the benefits i've gotten from taking the time to slog through all that has been written here is that it does really help to see what "territory" in maura's disappearance has already been well covered. i was guilty of rehashing what to me at the time were "new" ideas when i first started posting, trails of thought that were already well-worn.(though, in the interest of full disclosure, there have been many times i've skimmed certain portions.)

i'm veering into jenkins territory with the length of this post (a wink and a nudge, jenkins ;D ), so i'll wrap it up with this. i do have my own pet theories – certainly multiple – about what has become of maura in the past nine years. none of them are novel or unique, and most or all of them are similar to or the same as those held by other posters here. my only thing is that, at least at this point, i don't want to go "on the record" with them because i could easily box myself in by getting caught up in discussions trying to defend a theory or theories. for the time being, i really want to allow myself to be open to all the explicit, empirical, factual information and then allow myself to just think about it, mull it over and, perhaps, let it lead to more latent, implicit ideas that may not ever have been thought of before. honestly, that's how the idea of the hotel lock and maura's access to the room in the middle of the night popped into my head. hadn't heard it before, but it seemed to kind of make sense which is why i tossed it out here.

so, i hope you don't feel like i'm evading your invitation or copping out. i hope to have more thoughts or observations as i keep going, but i may not. who knows? and at some point, i'm sure i'll put my own theories out here for scrutiny. and then I'm sure renner will post some explosive revelation that will make us all look foolish in the end. lol. can't wait for the book.

about the hotel and inner/outer lock:

I suppose if fred knew maura was coming back that night, he wouldn't lock the dead-bolt.

Or (and this is just a theory not factual) fred may have had too much to drink that night which explains why maura went back to the hotel with him before returning right back for the dorm party. Fred may have crashed went to sleep shortly after getting to the hotel and not double-locked the door.

Jenkins wrote:

-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.

Jenkins - the police report is needed for the insurance companies. I think people can't just leave the accident - 1. It could be unsafe if they leave with their car that might be unsafe to drive 2. It could change the facts given to LE for the police report.

Wouldn't everyone in accident go home and try to make a better story up to tell LE. or a husband would tell the officer that he was driving when his wife was, or vice versa.

If people could just leave the accident than what would a police report even be needed for? I think if no law is made for people to have to stay by their car it ruins the whole integrity of the report.

I understand that MM's situation of leaving an accident to never be seen again is a perfect example why you interpret the law the way you do because what she did worked out so well for her, but do you have any other more logical reasons, why you think people can crash a vehicle and leave it? I'd also like to know when in your mind you feel that they should have the car towed?

Orko Kringer wrote:

about the hotel and inner/outer lock:
I suppose if fred knew maura was coming back that night, he wouldn't lock the dead-bolt.
Or (and this is just a theory not factual) fred may have had too much to drink that night which explains why maura went back to the hotel with him before returning right back for the dorm party. Fred may have crashed went to sleep shortly after getting to the hotel and not double-locked the door.

yep. absolutely legit critique, fred being extremely inebriated, and i believe it could well account for why maura was able to gain access to his room in the early morning hours and get his cell phone without disturbing him.

whatif wrote:

<quoted text>
yep. absolutely legit critique, fred being extremely inebriated, and i believe it could well account for why maura was able to gain access to his room in the early morning hours and get his cell phone without disturbing him.

That was merely an observation, definitely not a critique. I like the way you think and brainstorming ideas is a good thing.

What is really baffling is why would maura leave the brew pub and go to her father's hotel and why would she even need any kind of car that night, considering her party/get together was in her own building that she lived?

It's an easy drive to get to the hotel fred was staying out, so I don't feel like I am going out too far on a ledge by saying that maura didn't need to drive him back to his hotel because he didn't know his way around amherst.

But that whole night is puzzling and to me is just a continuation and related to maura's odd behavior two nights earlier.

While one person can have two car wrecks in the same day, the manner in which maura had her wrecks leads me to believe that the wrecks were not just two unrelated occurences and a string of bad luck for one person.

Most respectfully - FrmLE is correct regarding the verbage of the law he posted.

whatif wrote:

<quoted text>
hi, snowy. sorry for the delayed reply. easter and kids and family and church and all that. hope you enjoyed yours, as well as others reading along.
thanks for the encouragement, too. it was wth-the-original's comment to another poster a long way back about reading up on the available info that i took seriously (not sure if the other poster did though, lol.) i'm racing through this thread to try and catch up to the present because renner is starting to post some intriguing bits. i do feel weird whenever i just drop into the middle of some other thread conversation with a random observation triggered by some really old posts, like i did yesterday with the hotel lock thing.
for the record, i was talking to my so (who pays zero attention to maura's case or this forum, other than what i talk about) and i went through my hotel lock theory seeing as my so would be a somewhat unbiased audience. when i asked, "would you ever stay in a hotel and not engage the additional locks", the answer i got was, "sure, i probably have, especially when i was younger." lol. just kinda debunked the whole idea. so, yeah. who knows?
i just got past the italian dinner party from last october and felt a little bummed that it missed out.:)
one of the benefits i've gotten from taking the time to slog through all that has been written here is that it does really help to see what "territory" in maura's disappearance has already been well covered. i was guilty of rehashing what to me at the time were "new" ideas when i first started posting, trails of thought that were already well-worn.(though, in the interest of full disclosure, there have been many times i've skimmed certain portions.)
i'm veering into jenkins territory with the length of this post (a wink and a nudge, jenkins ;D ), so i'll wrap it up with this. i do have my own pet theories – certainly multiple – about what has become of maura in the past nine years. none of them are novel or unique, and most or all of them are similar to or the same as those held by other posters here. my only thing is that, at least at this point, i don't want to go "on the record" with them because i could easily box myself in by getting caught up in discussions trying to defend a theory or theories. for the time being, i really want to allow myself to be open to all the explicit, empirical, factual information and then allow myself to just think about it, mull it over and, perhaps, let it lead to more latent, implicit ideas that may not ever have been thought of before. honestly, that's how the idea of the hotel lock and maura's access to the room in the middle of the night popped into my head. hadn't heard it before, but it seemed to kind of make sense which is why i tossed it out here.
so, i hope you don't feel like i'm evading your invitation or copping out. i hope to have more thoughts or observations as i keep going, but i may not. who knows? and at some point, i'm sure i'll put my own theories out here for scrutiny. and then I'm sure renner will post some explosive revelation that will make us all look foolish in the end. lol. can't wait for the book.

whatiif ~ happy Easter monday ~ happy spring!
again, much respect for your motivation and intelligent approach to information collection. i would not have patience to plow through the nonsense for a tidbit, and i'd probably find the emotional tone disconcerting if i were a new reader.
the conversation has been long...years...so the redundancy / rehash cycles. unfortunately, i have a low tolerance as most observations are obvious, and few novel ideas have emerged from it. your ideas are unique.
so, keep it going! and thx for your reply.

OK so lets say I am a new driver and I want to know what to do in case of an accident. From the NHDOS-DMV: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/dmv/financ...

Financial Responsibility > Accidents and Crashes

In the State of New Hampshire, any motor vehicle accident causing death, personal injury, or combined vehicle/property damage in excess of $1,000.00 must be reported in writing to the NH DMV within 15 days.

If police respond to/investigate an accident, the officer will submit a written report to the NH DMV on form DSMV 159, State of New Hampshire Uniform Police Traffic Accident Report.

If the police did not investigate, the individual operator(s) would be responsible for filing an Operator's Report (DSMV 400).

Note the use of the word IF.

Then the findlaw that was previously posted. I wont repost, here is the link: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/...

and then the findlaw statute language cleaned up (on a lawyer site amazingly): http://www.ehlinelaw.com/new-hampshire-hit-an...

New Hampshire Hit and Run Laws

Section 264:25
• A driver having knowledge he was involved in a motor vehicle accident that caused property damage, personal injury, or death must stop immediately at the accident scene and provide the name and address of each occupant, his name, address, vehicle registration number, and driver’s license number to the vehicle owner, property owner, or injured person.
If this is not possible, the information must be provided to a uniformed police officer on the accident scene or a police station.

If a driver that is operating a vehicle that is involved in a motor vehicle accident or the owner of a vehicle that was parked illegally at the time it was involved in an accident must submit a written accident report within 15 days to the division that contains facts surrounding the accident and circumstances regarding any injuries or death that may have occurred, or property damage that exceeds $1,000, unless a police officer investigates the accident. In this case, the report the officer files satisfies all requirements of this section. This is provided that an owner of a motor vehicle involved in the accident is not otherwise required to file an accident report by this paragraph.
In regards to the matter of knowledge, voluntary intoxication does not establish a defense for the provisions listed in this section. Drivers filing reports must present them in the required manner stated by the director. The division must be able to use the information to determine that the deposit of security requirements under RSA 264:3 are not applicable due to existing insurance or other specified exception in that chapter.
If the report cannot be made because the driver is mentally or physically incapable, the vehicle owner involved in the motor vehicle accident must submit the report upon learning about the accident. If it is required by the division, the owner or driver of the vehicle must also furnish additional information that is relevant.

What I would like to know is: Where is the law that says you have to wait for police? It is not my intention to take sides here so lets just skip past all that, I want to know where I can reference that law. I don't want an interpretation of a law I can't see. Obviously if I could find that law I would not be asking. For the record, the young drivers in my house have been told to always call the police.

Just reading an article from 2006 quoting Fred Murray about the LE handling of the case. This is regarding where Maura was headed the day of her accident?

They would have known where she was heading if they had bothered to check the last phone call she made three hours before she left Amherst. I told the police where she was going two days after the accident but they didn’t check that either. The police failed to follow their own procedures and are now striving to prevent this from coming to light. Maura probably did get a ride with one or more of the area’s multitudinous sex offenders who law enforcement can’t catch because they waited too long to get started.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2006/03/35310/#jDjgL6xu61I...

Does anyone have any detail about this statement of Fred's? Is it known where she was headed?

How many people have been run off the road? If it hadn't been tried on me I wouldn't be here today. Your looking for a truck , old, with a huge engine. Somewhere around Lincoln.

Liko, Rammed by McKay
Serry, pitted into a wall of trees
Maura accidents squared
Vasi hit and run
There was another young man that was pitted around Westfield, he died too

Tip of the iceberg folks.

The murder incorporated network exists, bridged between crooked LE and friends of Floyd. I'd be looking into Maine too.

If I had to guess, I'd say they body count is in the high 20s, over the past 2 decades.
That's what happens when you team up McKay and floyd. It's like when bad meets evil. Eventually, McKay became Floyd's pawn.

Can anyone else imagine Kathy in Maura's room, Imagine her in Brianna's room.

Both rooms were set up by the same person, same style.

Bitch used the wrong 'to' in the email.

I'm guessing Kathy had a limited education.

The picture of Maura's brother was a threat.

Did Maura understand the implied threat to her brother and resist escape?

I think Maura and her father were literally minutes away from each other.

God will smile on you mr. Murray. You are like Job. In the end, you will be redeemed.

I know that you are a great father. There is nothing else to say.

In RE to Renner's newest posting(Fred's report to police)

Anyone else notice that he said he went back to CT on Sunday, then THE NEXT AFTERNOON he got a call from Kathleen that Muara was missing? That would have been the day of her accident, not the following day when Mrs. Rauch explains everyone was notified. I don't recall Mrs. Rauch even mentioning Kathleen in her statement regarding the notifications but don't have time to find the quote again right now.

BillNH wrote:

In RE to Renner's newest posting(Fred's report to police)
Anyone else notice that he said he went back to CT on Sunday, then THE NEXT AFTERNOON he got a call from Kathleen that Muara was missing? That would have been the day of her accident, not the following day when Mrs. Rauch explains everyone was notified. I don't recall Mrs. Rauch even mentioning Kathleen in her statement regarding the notifications but don't have time to find the quote again right now.

A slip of the tongue no doubt. I always wondered why FM didn´t try and reach Maura Monday night after she failed to call as promised.
I would still be interesting in viewing mr Murray´s work records.

Gaaahhhh... interestED, of course!

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
A slip of the tongue no doubt. I always wondered why FM didn´t try and reach Maura Monday night after she failed to call as promised.
I would still be interesting in viewing mr Murray´s work records.

Yes I expect most people will think so as we'll. I am suspicious of Fred's movements so I would be interested in those records too.

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
A slip of the tongue no doubt. I always wondered why FM didn´t try and reach Maura Monday night after she failed to call as promised.
I would still be interesting in viewing mr Murray´s work records.

absolutely...i understood the arrangement / promise was for her to be back in touch with her father by 8 PM on Monday.
the story and details about FM's availability has holes in it.

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
A slip of the tongue no doubt. I always wondered why FM didn´t try and reach Maura Monday night after she failed to call as promised.
I would still be interesting in viewing mr Murray´s work records.

I also see Kathleen was the one ancho actually notified Fred. My memory is not what it used be

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
absolutely...i understood the arrangement / promise was for her to be back in touch with her father by 8 PM on Monday.
the story and details about FM's availability has holes in it.

This is what happens over time. Eventually people talk and the holes start to be filled in. I went to bed last night thinking that maybe Tim C told James the truth about whether or not FM was working that night.

Molly Bish. Where was Floyd at the time of her abduction?