Maura Murray

Judged:

3

3

3

WTH-the-original wrote:

I don't know about anyone else. But that person throwing me peanuts and lemons is really going to make me cry if they keep it up. I probably won't post anymore if they keep doing it. KIDDING! I keep hoping to get the highest peanut/lemon/mean face tally every. Keep them coming. Like we don't know the imbeciles doing it. I can't help but laugh my ass off. Pure entertainment.
Bill

Judged:

3

1

1

WTH-the-original wrote:

I stopped over at websleuths and had to laugh. They are still going over whether or not Maura had a flashlight to see at night. Insisting that it would not have been possible for her to run without one. One stated "maybe she used her cell phone for light"? I found that hysterical. That was gone over years ago, several times and here they are rehashing those same things. Even when it has been repeated several times years ago that there likely was plenty of light from the moon once your eyes acclimated.
As someone who did many night patrols and has hiked at night, for many, many years, I know this to be the case. Anyone else can go outside at night with even a quarter moon and some light clouds, wait 15 minutes not exposed to any white light (that is important. White light destroys visual purple which activates the rods in your eyes critical for night vision) and you will be amazed at how well you can see. Especially in the winter with lots of reflected light from snow on the ground.
That horse is getting pulpier and pulpier. In some cases it seems like it is not even new people. It seems like they go around the block with their thoughts and when the get back to the start, they have forgotten everything they discovered or figured out the first, second, third... time through. It's really quite amazing and an interesting psychological study.
Bill

Judged:

2

2

1

AppointedNH wrote:

A thought on the rag in the tailpipe...
Maura didn't have water to wash blood off her face, hands, etc..

Judged:

1

1

1

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Where did Maura get all of this blood all of a sudden? Never heard about any blood anywhere at the scene. Don't remember anything in the report about blood, not even on the airbag that I remember.
Bill

Judged:

2

1

1

AppointedNH wrote:

A thought on the rag in the tailpipe...
Maura didn't have water to wash blood off her face, hands, etc.so she melted snow in the rag by placing it on the tailpipe. After she was done cleaning she stuffed it in the pipe. Any trunk lights in that Saturn? Maybe she closed the trunk quickly to avoid being seen and the pipe was easier than opening the trunk up again. A little snow and heat from the pipewould make water to clean. Alcohol would be a ringer for DWI if she used alcohol to clean up. This supports her running/avoiding police. God bless Yankee ingenuity.

Judged:

2

2

2

AppointedNH wrote:

Just confused red wine with blood, it must be late. So there was wine on her and she washed it off. Any hair samples taken from the Saturns heater vents? Carpet?

Pointless Endeavor wrote:

One time, after falling through thin ice on the shallow shore of a pond, I "washed" mud off my pants by rubbing my legs with dry snow. No melting required. It did a very good job, but it was painfully cold. I wouldn't have done it if I was far from a warm place to change clothes. in my opinion, I don't think she would have the need to wash up or even think about it.

Judged:

1

1

1

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Absolutely. This is a tried and true method to get oneself "dry". Snow is an excellent blotter for water.
And no, I don't believe she had preening on her mind after the accident. Her sole intention at that point, after talking to the SBD was, to get away.
Bill

Judged:

1

1

1

AppointedNH wrote:

<quoted text>
So she knew the rags were in the trunk. Did anyone else know about what was in her trunk? If it was intentionally done who knew the rags were in there? Any answers to this one? Snow is the last thing I'd wash my face with after a warm ride in a car. I wouldn't leave the wine on if I knew I might be caught or would meet someone up close.

Judged:

1

1

1

AppointedNH wrote:

<quoted text>
So she knew the rags were in the trunk. Did anyone else know about what was in her trunk? If it was intentionally done who knew the rags were in there? Any answers to this one? Snow is the last thing I'd wash my face with after a warm ride in a car. I wouldn't leave the wine on if I knew I might be caught or would meet someone up close.

Judged:

1

1

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem to be making the assumption that anyone knows where the rag came from and when the rag was placed in the tailpipe.
I don't know that anyone knows that information, except maybe Maura. Welcome to the MM mystery. Most things are not known.
Don't know why you believe that she was drenched in wine. There was some wine splashed around the inside of the car, didn't sound and the pictures don't seem to indicate a tremendous amount. She may have been virtually unscathed by the red drink with no need to clean herself before flight. In any event I personally don't believe that was her imperative. Getting away from the scene of the crash was.
Bill

Judged:

1

1

1

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
The only explanation I have ever seen about the origin and reason for the rag was the tow truck driver reportedly (by Renner) said he mentioned the rag to Fred and Fred said it was from her trunk and was used to keep the car from smoking. So it's an unsubstantiated statement that is difficult to figure out. It seems that the statement has to be true. The rag was there, we know that, it was found by police. If Fred never made the statement then I would think that would be the one true piece of evidence that points to potential foul play and he would be hammering the rag constantly in every statement he ever made and in every legal document he had ever filed. Yet in reference to the rag, Fred has never mentioned it publicly that I have ever seen or heard.

Judged:

1

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>So it's an unsubstantiated statement that is difficult to figure out. It seems that the statement has to be true.

Judged:

3

3

2

AppointedNH wrote:

Again, does that Saturn have interior lights when the trunk is open? I know if theres a license plate light on the outside of the trunk it would be up in the air getting attention . Is there any report that states the running lights or headlamps of the Saturn were on? If you wanted to hide a wine soaked rag wouldn't you hide it in a unsearchable area? The interior, trunk, glovebox would be certainly searched. But then the coke bottle with wine was left. Is that the only alcohol in the car aside from stains?The vehicle was dead, so it would be towed. Only two people knew of the rags in the trunk before the incident, one I spoke with personally and one is definitely missing. I'm not leading into anything, just creating discussion.

Judged:

2

2

1

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Back during the first MMM forums there were several who had started talking about how some locals including the police might be involved in an abduction and murder of Maura. Several stopped after being confronted with the facts that nothing supports that theory and that it may be hurting the investigation by pissing of the locals who if they might know something, would have to be nuts to get involved with this vigilante mentality. One in particular, refused to stop and made many comments about the locals, and continued making accusations for months.
It is entirely possible that if anyone knows anything more about Maura they are not saying anything because of the relentless abuse that the locals, people like SBD and CW faced repeatedly. Why would anyone who might have any information want to get involved in this case knowing they might come under the scrutiny of some of these people. There were also comments about how it is OK for people, including some of these internet sleuths to just walk, dig or do anything they wanted on other peoples property "for the sake of Maura" constitutional rights be damned. They wanted specific people to open their homes for inspection to anyone. It went on and on for a very long time. Comments, again by this one individual about Lysol-ing the entire area were made. And of course Fred's comment about a "dirtbag taking her". There was obviously more and with one person in particular it went on for months but that is the feel for what was going on. I am sure I have forgotten a lot of the minor details over the years but the basic stink of that situation remains the same.
At some point, and I am suggesting that you don't hold your breath. Jenkins claims he is going to reproduce some of the original forums in their entirety. If that happens, and if they are complete, and they are the correct ones, since there were several forums. You should be able to gauge for yourself what happened. I am not the only one that knows how caustic some of those conversations were.
At some point, it was obvious to any thinking individual that in particular that one person, probably poisoned the area if there was anything to be discovered. Why would anyone want to get involved in something like this? Get their names portrayed in a public forum in that fashion. Have people loudly and anonymously accuse them with no evidence. Have people walking on and inspecting local peoples property without permission. And being told they had to have that done. Why would anyone want to get involved? She in particular, very likely salted the earth with respect to any locals coming forward because of her accusations of people in the area when all they did was attempt to help, in particular the SBD. She was told repeatedly that what she was doing was harmful and she never stopped. Even when some of her "friends" asked her privately. She didn't stop. It literally took a campaign to make her stop. She still stops in with usually banal hit and run posts, but for the most part she doesn't post. For the betterment of the forum in my opinion.
Bill