Maura Murray

citigirl wrote:

John Green "The earliest Maura could have departed the scene was about 8:34 pm. This was five minutes after Faith Westman's call, thus giving her enough time to have talked with Bruce Atwood (which could have occurred as early as 7:25 pm), get out of the car, gather her thoughts and self, walk a short distance, then begin running. See the timeline posted to Renner's blog on Saturday the 11th.
The latest Maura could have departed the scene was 8:46 pm, or seconds before Officer Smith arrived. See the timeline posted to Renner's blog on Saturday the 11th."

Westamans called 911 at 7:27pm. So noway SBD could have talked to her before that. According to this timeline Maura still would have been at the scene when LE,fire,and EMTS arrived. I wonder who Bruce Atwood is. This is a new name to me.

1. Green refers to Arthur (Butch) Atwood as "Bruce" <---- this is a confusing error.
2. Green posts times as "8:34" and "8:36" when in fact the times should be "7:34" and "7:36" <---- if anyone follows these times Green has posted, they'll be off by a full hour. Those who are very familiar with Maura's case will know his times are wrong, but what about newcomers? Lots of room for confusion here as well.

In my 20 yrs working with lawyers, persistently making errors like the above, AS WELL AS refusing to correct them when I learned better, would have been grounds for dismissal. Accuracy in legal work is extremely important (similar to the importance of accuracy in medical work). Cases are won and lost on the basis of facts and accuracy.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
What am I missing here? He went to his hunting camp in the fall as he did every year,several months after Maura went missing. It doesn't look like he did anything unusual.
You've put so many people in a guilty light that it makes me wonder why.

My perception of this is that: LE made Him look guilty by searching His trailer in the 1st place and then going to His house @ 1 BHR in 09 to search 3 times.

The info put out there about the PA land does not incriminate Him anymore than He already had been by LE.

Stating a fact that he had property in PA and hoping that it had been looked into as well is a working theory that: IF He did have anything to do with MM disappearance every option should be looked into.

Forcier made Himself look GUILTY in the beginning and LE solidified that fact.

Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Green refers to Arthur (Butch) Atwood as "Bruce" <---- this is a confusing error.
2. Green posts times as "8:34" and "8:36" when in fact the times should be "7:34" and "7:36" <---- if anyone follows these times Green has posted, they'll be off by a full hour. Those who are very familiar with Maura's case will know his times are wrong, but what about newcomers? Lots of room for confusion here as well.
In my 20 yrs working with lawyers, persistently making errors like the above, AS WELL AS refusing to correct them when I learned better, would have been grounds for dismissal. Accuracy in legal work is extremely important (similar to the importance of accuracy in medical work). Cases are won and lost on the basis of facts and accuracy.

9 yrs. later I can recite these times in My sleep. Accuracy is EVERYTHING.

Thank You advocate......John

Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
In my 20 yrs working with lawyers, persistently making errors like the above, AS WELL AS refusing to correct them when I learned better, would have been grounds for dismissal. Accuracy in legal work is extremely important (similar to the importance of accuracy in medical work). Cases are won and lost on the basis of facts and accuracy.

Really??? You are saying that in some pursuits accuracy is actually expected? Interesting. I know engineering it counts also. I mean I have never heard "that it was close" to be an accepted answer when a bridge falls down or for any engineering failure I have seen.

But not novel writing correct? I mean if you just want to publish a book and have a great screenplay, accuracy isn't really a prerequisite, at least it doesn't seem to be.

But who would have thought that the legal system requires accuracy?? Interesting. All those pesky fact that get in the way of a good story. Must be kind of a pain for those who just want a good story.

Bill

BillNH wrote:

John Green has offered up some entertainment at least. Ran right to his blog and posted a correction about BHR elevation but couldn't even manage to credit the correct poster. If he had a chance at being credible, it's gone already.

Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't know if he saw this post of yours, but you are right -- he credited citigirl on his blog entry, when it was Maruchan who posted the observation about elevations on that route. Apparently Green did see the later Topix post where someone corrected his "Citigirl" to "citigirl" (lower case), because I saw that he did fix that on his blog entry, but not the Maruchan part.
It's difficult to fully accept his research abilities when he makes errors of this type with respect to sources.

This is tooooo funny.:)

Hi, I'm citigirl.:)

Again, even if they are "little" facts, such as this, they are still facts and accuracy is important. My screen name was sort of bolded at the top of the quote, how could he miss that?

It makes me wonder, with my clearly stated opinions of how I feel about both Green and Renner, if this is simply a ploy to appeal to my vanity so that they can get hold of my real name and expose it to the world, perhaps to get me to shut up.:)

Most likely, it's just another among many errors already made by Green.

"I really hope citigirl might become willing to lend her expertise to my methods. She knows a lot more about this case than I do."

This is even funnier - which of us knows more? Me or citigirl? If he doesn't even know who we are, how can he say that? Because I said it about myself?!? This is just bizarre.

Fun to read though.:)

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I know engineering it counts also. I mean I have never heard "that it was close" to be an accepted answer when a bridge falls down or for any engineering failure I have seen.

Heh - this reminds me of Stonehenge in "This is Spinal Tap" - perfect example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

:)

Jenkins wrote:

My question is do they consider him a suspect, or POI, just because he made up this story or is there other things that point to him being involved that we don't know about.

Jenkins, there is a February 4 post on the MM Facebook group from a retired NH trooper who participated in the line searches for Maura. I'm not going to post his name here, but hopefully you can find it.

In his post he states:

"There was as I recall a "person of interest" who lived in close proximity to where her car was located. We were instructed explicitly not to go on his property and that he had an attorney who had gotten a court order barring us from accessing his property in any way."

Didn't the search he is referencing take place before RF's sighting was reported? Does anyone know? If so, it looks like he was already a POI and had already gotten a lawyer at that time.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
My perception of this is that: LE made Him look guilty by searching His trailer in the 1st place and then going to His house @ 1 BHR in 09 to search 3 times.
The info put out there about the PA land does not incriminate Him anymore than He already had been by LE.
Stating a fact that he had property in PA and hoping that it had been looked into as well is a working theory that: IF He did have anything to do with MM disappearance every option should be looked into.
Forcier made Himself look GUILTY in the beginning and LE solidified that fact.

Didn't he not allow his place to be searched and that is why after it was sold the searches were then done?
I don't blame him one bit. If someone had an accident close to my house and then disappeared through no fault of mine I'd be damned if I'd allow a bunch of strangers to search my home or anything I owned
How many times have those houses and yards been searched through the years? Any idea? You should know the answer to this.
It's no wonder people are getting sick of it. For 9 years they have had strangers walking around in the woods, taking pictures of their homes and putting it on the internet and asking questions.
And then we have people like you that enjoys taking innocent people and making them look like they are guilty of something.Anything.
So who are you going to throw under the bus next week tang?

James Renner wrote:

For the record Jenkins, I do not believe her family is hiding her. I do believe Fred knows more about why she was leaving UMass, though. And probability still strongly suggests she was travelling in tandem with someone or met with someone she knew up there. However, I am keeping my mind open to other possibilities.

Connection to Londonderry ping perhaps?

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
It's no wonder people are getting sick of it. For 9 years they have had strangers walking around in the woods, taking pictures of their homes and putting it on the internet and asking questions.

Your a horrible, horrible person. Ask shack.

Oh wait. It should be of no surprise that anyone would be sick of strangers walking around their property without permission and unannounced. Especially after the online reaming the area got from shack claiming everyone was a suspect and the weirdos that must have drawn out. Personally, I would react with a high degree of disfavor towards such activity on any of my hundreds of properties.

Bill

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
Connection to Londonderry ping perhaps?

This is not directed at you Hannah

But for the love of god can you all stop talking about the "Londonderry Ping"

There is no such a thing.

If you are to believe james, Mr.Green and apparently a few other knuckleheads on this fourm, they believe that police were tracking an incoming phone call to Maura's phone.

If that were the case, then that has nothing to do with cell phone pinging, therefore calling it the Londonderry ping makes no sense and is factually wrong.

A ping happens to a person's phone when it comes into contact range of a cell phone mast (tower). It has nothing to do with incoming/outgoing calls.

Just having your phone turned on (back in 2004) meant that it would ping. No one had to be calling it and you didn't have to be calling someone. It pinged by just being turned on.

Now a days with technology, your cell phone can be turned off and it will still ping. Once again this has nothing to do with calling someone or getting an incoming call.

This "Londonderry Ping" crap you keep hearing about from the likes of James just happens to be looking into Maura's location at about the same time she was checking her cell phone for messages. She also happened to be near Londonderry Vermont at the time *(If she took I-91 which is what is believed).

So there you have it. Maybe this whole Londonderry ping crap is about that and maybe it isn't, but if this is really about police checking into an incoming call to Maura's phone in the afternoon hours of Monday feb 9, 2004 THEN IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PINGING. And is wrongfully labeled the "Londonderry Ping."

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
This is not directed at you Hannah
But for the love of god can you all stop talking about the "Londonderry Ping"
There is no such a thing.
If you are to believe james, Mr.Green and apparently a few other knuckleheads on this fourm, they believe that police were tracking an incoming phone call to Maura's phone.
If that were the case, then that has nothing to do with cell phone pinging, therefore calling it the Londonderry ping makes no sense and is factually wrong.
A ping happens to a person's phone when it comes into contact range of a cell phone mast (tower). It has nothing to do with incoming/outgoing calls.
Just having your phone turned on (back in 2004) meant that it would ping. No one had to be calling it and you didn't have to be calling someone. It pinged by just being turned on.
Now a days with technology, your cell phone can be turned off and it will still ping. Once again this has nothing to do with calling someone or getting an incoming call.
This "Londonderry Ping" crap you keep hearing about from the likes of James just happens to be looking into Maura's location at about the same time she was checking her cell phone for messages. She also happened to be near Londonderry Vermont at the time *(If she took I-91 which is what is believed).
So there you have it. Maybe this whole Londonderry ping crap is about that and maybe it isn't, but if this is really about police checking into an incoming call to Maura's phone in the afternoon hours of Monday feb 9, 2004 THEN IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PINGING. And is wrongfully labeled the "Londonderry Ping."

The phone making an incoming call to MM cell phone was pinging off the Londonderry tower.

Todd Landry's affidavit from the Chris King page:

"Supporting Affidavit for Issuance of Search Warrant I, Todd D. Landry, do hereby depose and say;

1. That I am currently employed by the State Police and have been for the past ten years. Currently, I am assigned as a Detective at Trooop- F in Twin Mountain, NH. I have received extensive training in the investigation of criminal matters.

2. That on February 9, 2004 at 1927 hours the Haverhill, NH Police Department responded to a single vehicle motor vehicle crash on Route 112 in Haverhill, NH. Upon arrival, Sgt. Cecil Smith was unable to locate the driver of the vehicle. Subsequent investigation determined that the driver of the vehicle was MAURA MURRAY (d.o.b. 05/04/82), 22 Walker Street, Weymouth, MA.

3. A witness at the scene later confirmed that the driver was MURRAY.

4. An extensive search of the area has been conducted and MURRAY has not been located.

5. During the course of this investigation, Cellular Telephone records have been obtained by Law Enforcement that were used by MURRAY. A representative from Sprint Corporate Security advised this affiant that during the late afternoon hours of February 9, 2004an outgoing telephone call was made to Murray from the Londonderry, NH Sprint tower. This call had to have been made from within a 22 mile radius of the tower. The identity of this caller and telephone number has not been made as of this date.

6. That identifying the caller of the telephone call could be pertinent to the ongoing investigation and may lead to the whereabouts of Maura Murray.

7. Based on the foregoing, there is probable cause to believe evidence in the suspicious disappearance of Maura Murray may be found through Sprint Wireless Cell Tower Telephone Records, including any outgoing calls from the Londonderry tower of Sprint to Maura Murrays Sprint PCs number ********** for February 9, 2004 from 0001 hours to 2400 hours.
Todd D. Landry"

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Didn't he not allow his place to be searched and that is why after it was sold the searches were then done?
I don't blame him one bit. If someone had an accident close to my house and then disappeared through no fault of mine I'd be damned if I'd allow a bunch of strangers to search my home or anything I owned
How many times have those houses and yards been searched through the years? Any idea? You should know the answer to this.
It's no wonder people are getting sick of it. For 9 years they have had strangers walking around in the woods, taking pictures of their homes and putting it on the internet and asking questions.
And then we have people like you that enjoys taking innocent people and making them look like they are guilty of something.Anything.
So who are you going to throw under the bus next week tang?

Rick's property @ BHR was never searched while He owned it. The trailer was sold and moved to Lyme NH where it was searched by LE after recieving a warrant to do so.

I am not throwing Him under the bus. HE DID THAT HIMSELF. Simply stating the facts ma'm.

This freaking PING-THING is just so silly.

Shut the PING UP.....

Alden - re your post #35925, i wholly agree.
to hell with Occam.

"Your synopsis sounds good, but you're leaving out a couple crucial facts that seperate this case from others that you've mentioned.
The biggest one being that there was 2.5' of snow on the ground at the time, more in higher elevations, this is confirmed by the NHSP, the nedia and local witnesses, including your beloved SBD. Not only was there 2.5 of snow, according to the NHSP the conditions 'couldn't be better for tracking'. It was nice fresh flufffy snow. When it snowed that big storm this winter I made a post about how incredibly difficult it was to walk ANYWHERE in snow that deep, there's no way she made it deep into those woods in any way. She was wearing Jeans and low top sneakers, it would've been extremely difficult and PAINFUL for her to walk anywhere into the woods. THese weren't conditions where you just run into the woods real quick to hide, these are condiditions that you can barely even WALK TEN FEET through without snow shoes. It's just next to impossible for ANYONE to get anywhere deep into the woods in conditions like that."

I respectfully disagree with your point that it is impossible to make that walk without snow shoes. I did just that on a 4 mile hike this winter with a friend. We walked on what is called the Kettle Moraine in Wisconsin when there was at least that much snow, possibly more. I will concede that it did take awhile, but it can be done. I am not nearly in as good of shape as Maura, and it wasn't much fun, but we did it.

"NVM the fact that we're tallking about a 21 yr old girl here, does anyone HONESTLY think that a young woman like that is just gonna go walking into the woods like that in te pitch black?...
Even wowzer just a few pages back said that no women she knows would WALK THEIR DOGS in pitch black conditions like that pu on BHR, so she nows no women that will walk their dogs in the pitch black"
I've always said that IF she's in the woods that doesn'y mean she would've definitely been found, obviously, especialy considering the sizee of the forest we're talking about, but does anyone HONESTLY believe the she WOULD enter the woods in conditions like that?"

Again, I respectfully disagree with your point. If there is 2 feet 5 inches of snow on the ground, it is NOT anywhere near pitch black. In fact, it is quite bright out (especially if there is any moon.) I live in the country in WI and I walk my dog all the time at night, especially in winter, without a flashlight.

I think that if she has been drinking and is worried she might not get off probation if she gets caught. She probably panicked and in doing so, could easily have ran for awhile and then ducked into the woods especially if a car was coming. I just don't that that is an impossible scenario. Especially for someone who enjoys the outdoors as much as she did. She might have seriously mistaken the weather, but I think it is as probable as any other scenario. And maybe more likely.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
That is the series of events that I remember being told. So is this "new" information, or changed information? I actually don't remember them ever verifying that it was Maura he saw, but when the timeline got better it could have allowed for it to be. Originally the timeline that was in place when this first happened didn't allow for it to be her. Later, when the timeline was strengthened, it appeared possible. And I will say that these are the amateur sleuth timelines, not official ones.
Bill

For what it is worth. I believe FRMLE told Amy that LE did think the sighting was verified, but couldn't tell her why. Perhaps Maruchan can dig these quotes up.

Amy don't you remember FRMLE telling you that the sightings were confirmed, but he couldn't tell you why?

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
For what it is worth. I believe FRMLE told Amy that LE did think the sighting was verified, but couldn't tell her why. Perhaps Maruchan can dig these quotes up.
Amy don't you remember FRMLE telling you that the sightings were confirmed, but he couldn't tell you why?

I would have to look back through, but I think he said LE thought the sighting was credible. Not confirmed. He said he couldn't say why.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/franconia-nh/...

amy researches wrote:
FrmLE, can you tell us why LE thought the construction worker's sighting was credible?

FrmLE: I'm sorry Amy, I really can't.

Post #23586