Maura Murray

I generally beleve that the most simple answer is usually the correct one. This isn't always true, but in most cases it is. IMO that just seems like by far the simplest answer, she caught a ride from someone and it just happened to be the WRONG person to take a ride from, tthat's something that happens and has happened in that specific area more than enough times to know that it is a distinct possibility. That doesn't include anything crazy that seems impossible, like this young girl walking by herself through 2.5' of snow at night wearing jeans and low top sneakers and absolutely no winter gear at all. It would've been EXTREMELY difficuly and PAINFUL for her to walk anywhere far in those conditions. It also doesn't involve her starting a whole new life and evading authorities and her family for years. It doesn't involve her family helping her hide while at the same time mounting searches, going on the media including TV shows, demanding investigations, lobbying for the FBI and doing all this crap when all they had to do was say they thought she ran away and there wouldn't have even been an investigation. WHy would they do any of that if they were trying to hide her? THat makes no sense and certainly isn't any sort of simple answer as to what happened to her.
It's sad to say but the simplest answer to what happened to her is that she fell victim to a predator that night, just like so many other women in the north country have over the years. Anyone who doesn't consider this a very real possibilit y simply is playing ostrich.

BillNH- I believe the accident report from the corolla accident is available on renner's site, it was on there I would assume it's still on there It's under the heading 'hadley accident report', oor something to that effect. It definitely has Hadley accident in the titls, search for that and you should find it no problem.

Mcsmom wrote:

I wonder if thats a photo of the goatee guy LE saw in the early morning hours after the WB scene?

Hey mcsmom- Which pictture are you talking about and who is this 'goatee guy' that was seen in the early morning hours after the WB scene? I've never heard anything like that, i'm just wondering what the story iis with that? THis guy isn't thought to have any connecton to the MM case or is he? Did he come into contact with LE or is that the guy that ran away when he saw them and was never found?

I think that the point you made about her not running formt he scene of the corolla accident was very valid. That accident in Hadley took place in the town next to amherst so it was in the same jurisdiction so clearly if she knew then if she got into trouble there she would've definitely been screwed. Also i'm sure she had a lot more to drink at the dorm party then she did on her drive up to NH.

IDK, obviously none of this can be known for sure but you made a very good point, if she didn't run from the Hadley accident it doesn't make sense that she would have ran away from the WB curve crash. When you combine the fact that she sat there in hadley and that she sat at her car in NH for almost 20 minutes I don't see how anybody can honestly say that they think she was actively evading LE. I still think that she didn't want to talk to the cops, but that's a far cry from actually running from the cops. ANd besides, I still don't see how anybody can HONESTLY say that someone who sits at their car for 20 minutes after an accident was running from the police. THey might sit there for a few minutes to decide what to do, but 20 minutes?? That just makes no sense.
THat was a very good post mcs.

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
Can we, based on prior behavior feel relatively safe assuming that because Maura did not run from the Corolla accident, it was not her intent to run from the WB site?
In the Corolla accident she would likely have felt more compelled to search for an alternate solution than to reacquaint herself with Hadley PD.
In addition, I really don't feel that anyone outside of this case will get any sort of red carpet treatment, no matter what they may bring to the table. IMO.

You can't make her prior behavior categorical. We can't assume that because she did X whe would do Y. What if we applied the same logic from what you said and deducted: Should we feel relatively safe that because she was asked to leave WP she was asked to leave UMASS? Or should we feel safe if she stole one CC number she would steal many? Or should we feel safe if she never left school without telling anyone that wasn't her in the car? You can't use that as a method of proof.
Imagine how LE would ever find a suspect. If this man never committed murder is it safe to assume that he didn't murder some one?

Jenkins wrote:

THat was a very good post mcs.

Ofcourse you think so. And your way of supporting it is using your point made from the "false assumption Fallacy". You know the 20 minutes at the car BS.

Well you must think Coke and Pepsi are idiots. All that wasteful money spent on advertising. Why spend it? According to MCSMOM and Jenkins once you buy a coke it can be safely assumed you would buy one again and again.

Advertising is done because behavoir can and does change.

Jenkins wrote:

BillNH- I believe the accident report from the corolla accident is available on renner's site, it was on there I would assume it's still on there It's under the heading 'hadley accident report', oor something to that effect. It definitely has Hadley accident in the titls, search for that and you should find it no problem.

This isn't really Jenkins posting. It is safely assumed since all of Jenkins posts are long and this one is short be standards, it can't be him posting.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
You can't make her prior behavior categorical. We can't assume that because she did X whe would do Y. What if we applied the same logic from what you said and deducted: Should we feel relatively safe that because she was asked to leave WP she was asked to leave UMASS? Or should we feel safe if she stole one CC number she would steal many? Or should we feel safe if she never left school without telling anyone that wasn't her in the car? You can't use that as a method of proof.
Imagine how LE would ever find a suspect. If this man never committed murder is it safe to assume that he didn't murder some one?

oh, boy. an obvious, logical retort.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Ofcourse you think so. And your way of supporting it is using your point made from the "false assumption Fallacy". You know the 20 minutes at the car BS.
Well you must think Coke and Pepsi are idiots. All that wasteful money spent on advertising. Why spend it? According to MCSMOM and Jenkins once you buy a coke it can be safely assumed you would buy one again and again.
Advertising is done because behavoir can and does change.

Showing intent based on prior circumstances is a very viable part of our judicial system. So much in fact, it can determine someones' guilt or innocence.

For example: Because I'm a duck, and you are not, your intent is to malign every post I make on this forum that contradicts your opinion, you've done it in the past and a jury would conclude that you would do it again.

And for you newbies...a "duck" is a Murray supporter.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
This isn't really Jenkins posting. It is safely assumed since all of Jenkins posts are long and this one is short be standards, it can't be him posting.

fair conclusion lol. i like the way you're modifying your rhought processes. if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. ;)

Jenkins wrote:

I generally beleve that the most simple answer is usually the correct one. This isn't always true, but in most cases it is. IMO that just seems like by far the simplest answer, she caught a ride from someone and it just happened to be the WRONG person to take a ride from, tthat's something that happens and has happened in that specific area more than enough times to know that it is a distinct possibility. That doesn't include anything crazy that seems impossible, like this young girl walking by herself through 2.5' of snow at night wearing jeans and low top sneakers and absolutely no winter gear at all. It would've been EXTREMELY difficuly and PAINFUL for her to walk anywhere far in those conditions. It also doesn't involve her starting a whole new life and evading authorities and her family for years. It doesn't involve her family helping her hide while at the same time mounting searches, going on the media including TV shows, demanding investigations, lobbying for the FBI and doing all this crap when all they had to do was say they thought she ran away and there wouldn't have even been an investigation. WHy would they do any of that if they were trying to hide her? THat makes no sense and certainly isn't any sort of simple answer as to what happened to her.
It's sad to say but the simplest answer to what happened to her is that she fell victim to a predator that night, just like so many other women in the north country have over the years. Anyone who doesn't consider this a very real possibilit y simply is playing ostrich.

MM's abduction is the most simple answer only if the story starts on a dark road in NH and only if you ignore everything else that preseded the Saturn crash.

Jenkins wrote:

BillNH- I believe the accident report from the corolla accident is available on renner's site, it was on there I would assume it's still on there It's under the heading 'hadley accident report', oor something to that effect. It definitely has Hadley accident in the titls, search for that and you should find it no problem.

It’s under the docs section on Mr. Renner’s blog.

Nothing startling in the accident report:

“Veh#1 was travelling w/b on North Hadley Rd near the intersection or North Maple At. Due to operator inattention she went through the “T” intersection and struck the snow bank and guard rail at opposite side of “T” intersection. College St Motor’s towed the vehicle and gave the operator a ride to Quality Inn Motel.”

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
This isn't really Jenkins posting. It is safely assumed since all of Jenkins posts are long and this one is short be standards, it can't be him posting.

It was accurate and helpful, further bolstering your theory.

mcsmom wrote:

For example: Because I'm a duck, and you are not, your intent is to malign every post I make on this forum that contradicts your opinion, you've done it in the past and a jury would conclude that you would do it again.
.

That's not a specific example. What your saying is behavior is carved in stone. No outside variables can change it?

Be specific. I sleep in till 1100am every morning. A fire in the dorm hall at night would not change this? Your jury has me sleeping till 1100am. Am I allowed to get up and attempt to leave.

The young man with the goatee is in the photo with Maura at :32 seconds (of 1:32) in the ID Disappeared trailer, so he’s most likely, IMO, a friend or family member from Hanson or Uni:

http://investigation.discovery.com/tv-shows/d...

Heart wrenching to listen to Sharon and Fred on that clip… I hope there are answers soon.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
That's not a specific example. What your saying is behavior is carved in stone. No outside variables can change it?
Be specific. I sleep in till 1100am every morning. A fire in the dorm hall at night would not change this? Your jury has me sleeping till 1100am. Am I allowed to get up and attempt to leave.

You just answered the basic premise that I was trying to exhibit with Maura. You sleep till 11am, she stayed with the car in Corolla accident.

Two days later you attempt to sleep till 11, but some outside force changes your routine. Two days later Maura, based on her behavior during car accidents was attempting to stay with her car, but some outside force changed her routine.

BTW, it would have been a hop, skip and a jump for Maura to leave the Corolla accident and arrive at the Quality Inn.

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
You just answered the basic premise that I was trying to exhibit with Maura. You sleep till 11am, she stayed with the car in Corolla accident.
Two days later you attempt to sleep till 11, but some outside force changes your routine. Two days later Maura, based on her behavior during car accidents was attempting to stay with her car, but some outside force changed her routine.
BTW, it would have been a hop, skip and a jump for Maura to leave the Corolla accident and arrive at the Quality Inn.

So you are in agreement that a variable would change behavior?

We know there wasn't alchol found in the MA crash right?

There was alchol found at the NH crash?
You have to consider and atleast consider that a factor.

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
BTW, it would have been a hop, skip and a jump for Maura to leave the Corolla accident and arrive at the Quality Inn.

3.2 miles.

Is there a Jerome Ave. in NH?

Alden H Olson wrote:

<quoted text>
3.2 miles.
Is there a Jerome Ave. in NH?

The only Jerome Ave I know about is in NYC, car stripping street.

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
Can we, based on prior behavior feel relatively safe assuming that because Maura did not run from the Corolla accident, it was not her intent to run from the WB site?
In the Corolla accident she would likely have felt more compelled to search for an alternate solution than to reacquaint herself with Hadley PD.
In addition, I really don't feel that anyone outside of this case will get any sort of red carpet treatment, no matter what they may bring to the table. IMO.

Why did one of the first responders say they saw someone walking near the Eddys? Why did another responder say the saw someone walking on 112 toward 302? Why did CS say she was probably going to visit a friend in the Mountain Lakes? Why did the search go only in the Westerly direction? Was it Maura? I honestly dont know. But if it was its obvious she was not running because the person that was seen walking on 112 was reported by several of the responders. Because of the location to Bunga Rd and the Eddys no it was not RO.

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
The only Jerome Ave I know about is in NYC, car stripping street.

Collect 10 PP points.