Maura Murray

huh? breaker 9, it's a no go, as in not now

rozShoem wrote:

<quoted text>
Why? Because I knew of her familiarity with that area and needed to have a good idea the distance from the Saturn to that area. Needed a second opinion and Bill has the best info/data of anyone on this forum. That's why. Thanks, again Bill.

Like one big happy fam!

rozShoem wrote:

<quoted text>
So you believe in fleas. God, too. Interestingly you've positioned both together in one sentence.
.

I have traveled many miles and now have come disguised as a pimp to help you.

paul wrote:

huh? breaker 9, it's a no go, as in not now

Take all of the time you need. Time seems not to matter, right? At least this appears to be the case in this disgraceful mess.

oh, be silent, Roz. let the authorities know how much you disrespect them, and how wise and all-knowing you are. dress to impress, as there is no other substance to support your claims. i'm waiting for you to connect the CT rapist to MM's disappearance.
has anyone been searching for her in Canada?

oh, be silent, Roz. let the authorities know how much you disrespect them, and how wise and all-knowing you are. dress to impress, as there is no other substance to support your claims. i'm waiting for you to connect the CT rapist to MM's disappearance. has anyone been searching for her in Canada?

|oh, be silent, Roz. let the authorities know how much you disrespect them, and how wise and all-knowing you are. dress to impress, as there is no other substance to support your claims. i'm waiting for you to connect the CT rapist to MM's disappearance. has anyone been searching for her in Canada?

there's a parrot in the room.
Canadaaa?

One post for every sunflower seed in my cup.

just me wrote:

<quoted text>Maybe he would have known due to a first accident that people keep referring to. The one where a female slid off the road and got into a private vehicle. "They" tried to find her from that minute on because of something else seen? Something else said by whomever reported the first accident and troopers who have their own cars to drive home in, go out and have a look even while off the clock of official duty? RO sees a red truck with MASS plates eyeballing her and she goes into the store for a good 1/2 hour. As she's leaving she sees a police car going that way too.(wasn't that just before a 7:30 closing time? Wouldn't the timing of that make it CS and not the trooper? And if someone was removed from the scene, who was left at the scene? And wouldn't the fact that she had to walk home to be seen at all by the trooper make her being asked if she saw anyone walking AFTER a police driver was seen heading that way with it's blue lights flashing? How many cars with blue lights flashing were out that night. Sounds like more than two.
How sure is anybody that Faith saw her 1-2 minutes beforehand? Do we give this statement too much credit?

Just Me,
You may as well forget about the ST information. This information is off limits or so it seems. Anything one reads (older written info) indicates the need or desire for various pieces of information regarding the ST (it had been repeatedly mentioned that he had dropped by/stopped in at the accident scene). Therefore, various people had inquired at what time he'd stopped by accident scene. In several instances there is a mention that someone will follow up to determine this information as well as other questions....but there is never any follow up. For some reason, the ST is being kept out of the equation, unfortunately. Evidentally, few see his appearance at the scene as not part of the equation of information. We know the time and from what direction the Haverhill Police Officer appeared at the accident scene. He did not see Maura on the highway....no sign of her. We do not know if the ST arrived at the scene from the same direction the officer had arrived or if he'd driven there from the opposite direction. If this information were known, it would then be clear that Maura was nowhere in sight on that specific section of highway during a particular period of time. A lot of people wonder why this information was not available. Some have said it's because the case is active. Information was released regarding Haverhill officer's arrival so it seems reasonable similar information might have been released by the NHSP. Maybe there is some legal reason why they are not releasing any information regarding the ST. This information would be helpful as it might be possible to reduce the timeframe further (by minutes) in which Maura disappeared. There are several posts previous to mine in which the writers' seem perplexed as to why this information remains unavailable.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, let us start with this piece of bullshit. Confirmed by who? I remember one person and only one person claiming that Monahan was there. So, someone is full of shit. It could be Monahan, Strelzin, Smith, Atwood and possibly others that didn't see Monahan at the scene. Or someone else who I guess was RO. I know none of these people. Why do a couple of people give such weight to RO's "sighting"? Is she a liar? I doubt it, could she be mistaken? Or is everyone else in on a massive cover-up and have sold Maura to white slavers or for her eggs, or are they all pod people?
Inquiring minds?
Bill

Bill,
You can partake in the BS....but the fact is that people immediately after Maura's accident asked and evidentally continue to ask legitimate questions regarding information about a ST at the scene of Maura's accident. Maura's father asked (in a letter) where the ST was for a 2-hour period when, according to dispatch he had not responded to attempts to reach him. It seems her father thought it would have helped if someone had started to search for his daughter. His question seems legitimate, but one would need to consider whether or not the ST was on duty or not. It would seem helpful, though, if it was known from which direction the ST had arrived at the accident scene and at what time. At least investigators would then know that she was not on a certain stretch of highway within a certain time period. This information would be helpful. No wonder investigators are having difficulty connecting the dots in this case after six years. Some of the dots are noticeably missing. So you can ridicule people who continue to feel uncomfortable about what appears to be missing information....but the only one laughing appears to be you.

Bob about what wrote:

|oh, be silent, Roz. let the authorities know how much you disrespect them, and how wise and all-knowing you are. dress to impress, as there is no other substance to support your claims. i'm waiting for you to connect the CT rapist to MM's disappearance. has anyone been searching for her in Canada?

Bob,
You focus on the CT rapist. That should keep you busy. I respect the authorities....especially those attempting to solve this case that for good reason has been extremely difficult to solve. So "Bob"....you can hit the CT trail should your heart so desire.....but my belief is that the perp lives in the Grafton County area. Thanks for the suggestion however.

Snowy wrote:

there's a parrot in the room.
Canadaaa?

You don't mean a parrot. "Owl" as in Snowy owl.

Snowy wrote:

oh, be silent, Roz. let the authorities know how much you disrespect them, and how wise and all-knowing you are. dress to impress, as there is no other substance to support your claims. i'm waiting for you to connect the CT rapist to MM's disappearance.
has anyone been searching for her in Canada?

Snowy,
You search in Canada. Skiing is great there this time of year! Part of the team can focus on the Grafton County area in search of the abductor. So you bounce off to Canada with all of the substance you have to support your wild "runaway" ideation.

rozShoem wrote:

<quoted text>
Snowy,
You search in Canada. Skiing is great there this time of year! Part of the team can focus on the Grafton County area in search of the abductor. So you bounce off to Canada with all of the substance you have to support your wild "runaway" ideation.

and perhaps, just perhaps....to be sheltered by a relative?

rozShoem wrote:

<quoted text>
Bill,
You can partake in the BS....but the fact is that people immediately after Maura's accident asked and evidentally continue to ask legitimate questions regarding information about a ST at the scene of Maura's accident. Maura's father asked (in a letter) where the ST was for a 2-hour period when, according to dispatch he had not responded to attempts to reach him. It seems her father thought it would have helped if someone had started to search for his daughter. His question seems legitimate, but one would need to consider whether or not the ST was on duty or not. It would seem helpful, though, if it was known from which direction the ST had arrived at the accident scene and at what time. At least investigators would then know that she was not on a certain stretch of highway within a certain time period. This information would be helpful. No wonder investigators are having difficulty connecting the dots in this case after six years. Some of the dots are noticeably missing. So you can ridicule people who continue to feel uncomfortable about what appears to be missing information....but the only one laughing appears to be you.

Why are you waiting for others to follow up and find answers. Why don't you do it? You have a computer and most likely a phone so why wait for someone else to find the questions that you are asking about.
You condemn everyone else for not doing anything but yet you do exactly the same.
Find those missing dots. Come on, I know you can do it.

rozShoem wrote:

<quoted text>
Snowy,
You search in Canada. Skiing is great there this time of year! Part of the team can focus on the Grafton County area in search of the abductor. So you bounce off to Canada with all of the substance you have to support your wild "runaway" ideation.

I must thank you again for the guffaws of laughter I've experienced while reading your replies on an otherwise gray,snowy, rainy day.
So the "team" is going to find this Grafton CTY abductor? I hope you will be the head of this team. After all you should get full credit for solving it.
Be sure you carry handcuffs on you (for when you catch the abductor) and a search warrant in hand because after so many searches I doubt many will let strangers search their land without one.
I'd start getting the team ready asap. We're all depending on you.

Roz,

I´d be sincerely interested to know on what basis you are forming your abduction theory and your general description of the supposed abductor.
You have even (in several posts) mentioned that this supposed abductor might have some kind of connection to the Fairlee,Vermont, area.
On what basis are you mentioning that particular area, if I may ask?
I´m not in any way discounting the possibility of an abductor in Maura´s vanishing, but you seem to purport to have a fairly detailed knowledge of the personality and character of such a possible perpetrator.
Are you by any chance some kind of criminal profiler or similar?
I´m sure we are quite a few here on this board who would be genuinely interested to learn a bit more about how you have arrived at your conclusions.
Thank you.

rozShoem wrote:

<quoted text>It seems her father thought it would have helped if someone had started to search for his daughter.

This is still the biggest Red Herring that keeps getting repeated by people who have no clue what was done that night. There was a search done that night. Fred and others like to repeat that, but it is not true.

rozShoem wrote:

At least investigators would then know that she was not on a certain stretch of highway within a certain time period. This information would be helpful. No wonder investigators are having difficulty connecting the dots in this case after six years. Some of the dots are noticeably missing. So you can ridicule people who continue to feel uncomfortable about what appears to be missing information....but the only one laughing appears to be you.

It is you that doesn't know, I am sure the investigators do.

Bill

Euroobserver wrote:

Roz,
I´d be sincerely interested to know on what basis you are forming your abduction theory and your general description of the supposed abductor.
You have even (in several posts) mentioned that this supposed abductor might have some kind of connection to the Fairlee,Vermont, area.
On what basis are you mentioning that particular area, if I may ask?
I´m not in any way discounting the possibility of an abductor in Maura´s vanishing, but you seem to purport to have a fairly detailed knowledge of the personality and character of such a possible perpetrator.
Are you by any chance some kind of criminal profiler or similar?
I´m sure we are quite a few here on this board who would be genuinely interested to learn a bit more about how you have arrived at your conclusions.
Thank you.

mean? incendiary? clueless? i don't think this post could be any more politely written. clearly, if one does not agree with the 'abduction' theory, one is mean, incendiary and clueless. childish.