Maura Murray

Jenkins wrote:

It seems like there are actually people that seem to think that Renner is going to solve this case. I don't wanna sound iike an asshole but anyone who actually thinks that needs to have their head examined, that's just crazy talk.
He's brought some info to light, I'll give him that. He's confirmed things that were just rumors an has gotten some other info that's been interesting.
He's also spoken to a lot of people, although unfortunately it sounds like most of those people wouldn't really sit down for formal interviews and he's gotten a few sentancs out many of them.
Letely he's been doing a really good job at digging up dirt on the Murrays.
But can someone plese explain to me how they think he's going to be able to solve this case? Just think about what he's doing. It's 9 years later and he's doing the same thing that the FBI and the NHSP did in the first weeks and months and he's doing a much worse job at it.
Does anyoe tthink that he's even got a fraction of the documents that LE have? They literally have thousands of pages in their case file, he's got like what 5-10 relative documents? Maybe more but he ain''t got shit in reality.
What else is he doing? Oh yea he's interviewing te same people that the FBI invterviewed 9 years ago when the case was stil fresh and he's getting a few sentances out of them. These people all sat down for interviews with the FBI 9 years ago, real inteerviews, not some 2 minute talk where half the words are about how they don't wanna talk to him.
Does anyone actually think that all the questions that he, and now JG, are asking haven't been asked by LE 9 years ago/ Does anyone think that he's talking to someone that hasn't spoke to LE 9 years ago?
It's just hilarious that he makes a post about someone in her family doing something stupid and his cheerleader squad aka the comments section of his blog goes on about how close he is to solving the case!!
Sorry but dgging up old family gossip ain't solving this case, ain't happening.
Honestly IMO one of the biggest arguments against her running away and her family knowng where she is or what happened is the fact that you can be damn sure that the first thing that LE did was make sure this isn't some sort of missing person hoax, or something like that. Make sure that they're not going to look like total fools for searchng for a girl that's not even really missing. I just find it VERY hard to believe that any of her family or friends knows where she went and the FBI wasn' able to figure that out. They aint magic investigators but they're pretty damn good, I like to think they'd be on top of that and considered all of these possibilities when it first happened..
It's just amusing to say that some journalist writing a book is going to solve a case that 2 proffesional investigative agencies, with all their resources and experience, couldn't figure out. And he's gong to do it with a fraction of the information!!!
I'll be VERY impressed if he solves this case, I'd bet a thousand bucks he aint solving this case, shit i'd be 10. He'll cover the story if LE solves the ase, but he ain't solving shit, ain't happening

Another post from sir-post-a-lot

I like long posts and I cannot lie,
you other readers can't deny..........

Face The Truth wrote:

A young woman goes missing under tragic circumstances and yet the posts seem to be more concerned about personal attacks on other posters.

Not to nit-pick but can we define "tragic circumstance" An alchol related crash - would be much more tragic had Maura hit an innocent person walking their dog, or plowed into a minivan with a family. My personal opinion is: if that happen then you can use the word tragic. Since we don't know the outcome of her circumstance then we shouldn't use the word tragic lets not inflate this.

Jenkins wrote:

It seems like there are actually people that seem to think that Renner is going to solve this case. I don't wanna sound iike an asshole but anyone who actually thinks that needs to have their head examined, that's just crazy talk.
He's brought some info to light, I'll give him that. He's confirmed things that were just rumors an has gotten some other info that's been interesting.
He's also spoken to a lot of people, although unfortunately it sounds like most of those people wouldn't really sit down for formal interviews and he's gotten a few sentancs out many of them.
Letely he's been doing a really good job at digging up dirt on the Murrays.
But can someone plese explain to me how they think he's going to be able to solve this case? Just think about what he's doing. It's 9 years later and he's doing the same thing that the FBI and the NHSP did in the first weeks and months and he's doing a much worse job at it.
Does anyoe tthink that he's even got a fraction of the documents that LE have? They literally have thousands of pages in their case file, he's got like what 5-10 relative documents? Maybe more but he ain''t got shit in reality.
What else is he doing? Oh yea he's interviewing te same people that the FBI invterviewed 9 years ago when the case was stil fresh and he's getting a few sentances out of them. These people all sat down for interviews with the FBI 9 years ago, real inteerviews, not some 2 minute talk where half the words are about how they don't wanna talk to him.
Does anyone actually think that all the questions that he, and now JG, are asking haven't been asked by LE 9 years ago/ Does anyone think that he's talking to someone that hasn't spoke to LE 9 years ago?
It's just hilarious that he makes a post about someone in her family doing something stupid and his cheerleader squad aka the comments section of his blog goes on about how close he is to solving the case!!
Sorry but dgging up old family gossip ain't solving this case, ain't happening.
Honestly IMO one of the biggest arguments against her running away and her family knowng where she is or what happened is the fact that you can be damn sure that the first thing that LE did was make sure this isn't some sort of missing person hoax, or something like that. Make sure that they're not going to look like total fools for searchng for a girl that's not even really missing. I just find it VERY hard to believe that any of her family or friends knows where she went and the FBI wasn' able to figure that out. They aint magic investigators but they're pretty damn good, I like to think they'd be on top of that and considered all of these possibilities when it first happened..
It's just amusing to say that some journalist writing a book is going to solve a case that 2 proffesional investigative agencies, with all their resources and experience, couldn't figure out. And he's gong to do it with a fraction of the information!!!
I'll be VERY impressed if he solves this case, I'd bet a thousand bucks he aint solving this case, shit i'd be 10. He'll cover the story if LE solves the ase, but he ain't solving shit, ain't happening

I agree that James has some premature congratulaters among his followers, but I don't count out his chances of solving it. It seems a long-shot but all it takes is that one piece of evidence, that one previously unknown fact or that one person with info to come forward. James's efforts are at least making the possibilities more possible by digging deep into her life, her past and exposing the connections that can be tied together. He has given himself a monumental task. It would be interesting to know what he thought his chances of solving were at the start, and what he thinks they are now.

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
Alden, please tell us what conclusion you come to involving the above statement. No one else can seem to bring it all together. Maybe posting your thoughts on it would inspire others to follow the thinking behind it.

The fact that much or all of the damage to the Saturn happened before the Saturn left Amherst might raise some questions, the below four among them.

1) The person(s) who drove and/or transported the Saturn to NH obviously knew the car was previously damaged. Who drove and/or transported the Saturn to NH?

2) Who showed the damaged Saturn to BSG? For what purpose?

3) How is it known that Maura Murray was the person SBD saw at the WB curve?

4) Were any parts of the Saturn missing before it was found at the WB curve?

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I haven't heard from her in months. I hope she is ok.

thx. Amy; i, too, hope she is ok.

Alden H Olson wrote:

<quoted text>
The fact that much or all of the damage to the Saturn happened before the Saturn left Amherst might raise some questions, the below four among them.
1) The person(s) who drove and/or transported the Saturn to NH obviously knew the car was previously damaged. Who drove and/or transported the Saturn to NH?
2) Who showed the damaged Saturn to BSG? For what purpose?
3) How is it known that Maura Murray was the person SBD saw at the WB curve?
4) Were any parts of the Saturn missing before it was found at the WB curve?

In reference to questions 1 - 4, do you have some theories that answer them? I am not asking for more questions, I want to know what you think.

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
In reference to questions 1 - 4, do you have some theories that answer them? I am not asking for more questions, I want to know what you think.

I think the Saturn sustained most or all of its damage before it left Amherst MA.

Alden H Olson wrote:

<quoted text>
I think the Saturn sustained most or all of its damage before it left Amherst MA.

When, Where, Why..?

Pippi Longstocking wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks, Bill
Personally I have always been satisfied with Fred’s explanation that he advised Maura to use the rag to stop the car from smoking. If the car was in poor condition it would make sense she might use this kind of temporary fix. Here in the UK a car that is badly smoking is liable to be pulled over by police.
The fact the engine was heard to rev just before the accident is interesting. It was reported there were splashes of wine found on the inside of the driver’s door and my immediate thought was that Maura was taking a sip of her drink, lost concentration for a moment and crashed. Without wanting to get too much into the territory of conspiracy theories, I suppose it is possible Maura was taking a sip of her drink, dropped the bottle top, reached down to quickly pick it up – taking her foot somewhat off the gas – the car started to stall out and she over-compensated causing the engine to rev and her to lose control.... It would be interesting to know whether the Coke bottle top was found inside the car.

Maybe Citigirl can clairify (I am going off memory and not my notes) but the coke bottle was found underneath Maura's car. I am not sure if it was discovered before the car was towed away or after.

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
The explanation never made sense to me. If the engine is producing smoke, a rag in the tailpipe is not going to stop that and may have actually contributed to the troubles she was having. The rag would not stop it from smoking, it would stop it from coming out of the tailpipe to some extent, but the smoke is still being made by the engine. It has to go somewhere. It probably came out of any leaks in the exhaust system and/or backed up into the engine cylinders and made it run even worse than what it was. Every time the exhaust valve opened to expel the smoke, with the manifold full of old smoke it may not be able to push the new smoke out of the cylinder. This would result in poor combustion and a poorly running engine. Like a self fulfilling prophecy.
The fact that Fred was OK with it being there at the time of MM's accident just tells me 2 things for sure 1) it was not in any way related to a possible abduction 2)Fred knew nothing about cars but knew how to avoid drawing police attention.
Another reason for Fred's easy dismissal of the rag would imply his involvement and the rag being used as a means to disable her car purposely but I do not believe that to be the case so I won't go into it. I only mention it just so I can dismiss it as non viable, as someone else surely would bring it up.

Just going off what some of the cast of characters (Involved in the case) have said over the years:

1. Fred alerted police very early on that his daughter may have come to their area to harm herself.

2. At some point, Fred regretted having put those thoughts into the investigators minds.

3. Investigators explore the possibility that the rag in the tailpipe was a possible failed make-shift desperation suicide attempt.

4.(this last one is opinion) fred feels he has to explain away the rag so it doesn't support a suicide theory as he has now shifted to a boogeyman theory instead. Fred's shift to a boogeyman theory IMO was more about putting public pressure on the police to devote more time and resources (basically move rapidly) in locating his daughter. If fred keeps going to the media with the notion that a serial killer is on the loose, the public will stay hot after the police in getting some answers.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe Citigirl can clairify (I am going off memory and not my notes) but the coke bottle was found underneath Maura's car. I am not sure if it was discovered before the car was towed away or after.

The Coke bottle was certainly discovered later, I don't know whether it was before or after the car was towed. I don't recall reading whether the lid was on or off the bottle when it was found. It may not have even been noted. I just felt it was feasible, given the wine splashes on her door, that Maura could have dropped the cap while taking a drink, leaned down to retrieve it and lost control.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
Smith did go to the Westmans door that night.
He asked them "Have You seen the girl driving the car, there is a rag in the tailpipe"
The 1st part of the statement is reasonable....
The 2cd is not....WHY WOULD HE SAY THAT TO THEM.?

he probably didn't say that exactly the words as you've quoted him here, unless your quote was taken from an official document.
i am always wary about unverified second and third hand sources...quoted.

THe coke bottle was found AFTER the car was towed away. The bottle was under the car and once it was towed Smith saw it.
I still think there's a possibility that Smith thought foul play that night when he came across the car.
There's a young woman missing from the scene with a rag in her tailpipe and there's wine splashed all over the car, I can see him thinking this wasn't a normal minor accident, the kind that's happened many times at that very curve.
They said that there was wine splashed all over, on the ceiling, on the door, on the floor and seats. If you have wine in a coke bottle and you crash the wine should theoretically only splash in one direction, not 3 or more. Could that be evidence of a struggle or could Smith have thought that was evidence of a struggle? It's hard to say for sure but it is possible.
One thing that is clear is that Smith did not treat this like a normal one car accident. Cars slide off the road all the time in NH during the winter months, it's a daily occurence. Driver also leave their cars very often as well, drunk or sober, due to the face that you have no clue how long it might take for a cop to show up which can take an easy hour or more simply because there aren't that many cops up here and they have to cover a lot of miles. So it is not umcommon for a car to be left after a minor crash, it's perfectly legal and done often.
Smith stayed on the scene for almost 2 hours, that is NOT normal for a one car accident in NH, it's just not. Normally they'll take a look around to make sure the person isn't hurt nearby, call for a tow and go on their way. This takes what 30-45 mins? Most of the time the cop doesn't even stay on scene even that long, but not in this case. Smith was there for basically 2 hours, what made this scene seem so different that he felt the need to stay so long? If every cop stayed on the scene as long as Smith did that night for a minor accident the state of NH would be broke by February; it's just not normal to stay on the scene of a one car accident for 2 hours, whether the driver is there or not, it's just not.
Another thing is why did he keep the other emergency responders away from the car? That's not normal either, was he thinkng that he wanted to preserve potential evidence that the car might hold? I can't see much other reason to keep them back from the car.
So we know for a fact that he knew Maura was driving the car, but yet when the family arrived on Wednesday he blatantly lied to them telling them that he thought it was Fred driving the car and figured that he had gone snowmobiling or something. Maybe he didn't think the family would go talk to the neighbors themselves and find out that he knew she was driving but they did. Now why would he lie about that?
What did he have to gain from lying to the family? Did one of his superiors tell him to lie to the family or maybe play down the foul play angle?
Then we have the witness who sought out the family and told them that they heard cops arguing in their back yard over jurisdiction. The only jurisdictional argument I can see taking place in NH would be over a major crime, like abduction. Did Smith think foul play that night and try to get JKM to bring in the SP that night to start an investigation immediately and JKM disagreed with him? Could this be why JKM has always refused to answer any questions about that night?
Looking at what Smith did it looks to me like he thought something more than just a minor accident occurred that night. Once she wasn't located by the next day and they had absolutely no idea what happened I have a feeling that his bosses told him to play down the foul play angle and this is why he lied to the family when they arrived. There's no way to know for sure but this is a possibility.

Either way, it's wicke shady that he lied to the family, is this standard practice for the HPD to lie to the family of missing people? I've aways found it odd nobody ever made a biigger deal out of that fact.

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
he probably didn't say that exactly the words as you've quoted him here, unless your quote was taken from an official document.
i am always wary about unverified second and third hand sources...quoted.

This was told to Me by Tim and Faith Westman.

Jenky,

Standard procedure (IMO) would be not to formulate any sort of theory about the person who fled the scene of a minor accident without learning about that person first.

Police didn't start investigating until they heard from Fred (next day). All evidence/statements point to that. there was no need for an investigation that night. They got the car owner's information and figured they would hear from someone wanting the car back later that night or some time the next day.

Jenkins wrote:

Could this be why JKM has always refused to answer any questions about that night?.

Or...... Could it perhaps be that this is an open, active investigation and to 'answer any questions' about that night would be against the written policies of the NHSP?

Could it be that if he answered any questions, he would be disciplined and perhaps fired?

How many times do I have to explain this simple fact to you? And how many times will you ignore it and continue to use this to support your ridiculous theories?

What an idiot you continue to be, you are consistent.

I just checked Renner's blog - comments for the last several blog entries by Green have finally been approved. Many of those comments are complaints about Green.

I noticed that Green's name at the end of his posts was no longer a clickable link to his Blogger profile. A Google search shows that his Blogger profile no longer exists.

Interesting ...

Maruchan wrote:

I just checked Renner's blog - comments for the last several blog entries by Green have finally been approved. Many of those comments are complaints about Green.
I noticed that Green's name at the end of his posts was no longer a clickable link to his Blogger profile. A Google search shows that his Blogger profile no longer exists.
Interesting ...

Indeed

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Or...... Could it perhaps be that this is an open, active investigation and to 'answer any questions' about that night would be against the written policies of the NHSP?
Could it be that if he answered any questions, he would be disciplined and perhaps fired?
How many times do I have to explain this simple fact to you? And how many times will you ignore it and continue to use this to support your ridiculous theories?
What an idiot you continue to be, you are consistent.

So nice to have You back....

BUT You don't need to be an a**hole to people.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Or...... Could it perhaps be that this is an open, active investigation and to 'answer any questions' about that night would be against the written policies of the NHSP?
Could it be that if he answered any questions, he would be disciplined and perhaps fired?
How many times do I have to explain this simple fact to you? And how many times will you ignore it and continue to use this to support your ridiculous theories?
What an idiot you continue to be, you are consistent.

Is there anything in the policy of NHSP about speaking on the record about an open investigation after you're retired or if you leave the NHSP? What I'm wondering is once everyone who worked this case is retired, would they get into trouble if they talked to the media?