Maura Murray

James' latest post is up. The more he digs, the weirder people get. I'm starting to believe she's in hiding somewhere and her family knows it.

Hans Strudle wrote:

James' latest post is up. The more he digs, the weirder people get. I'm starting to believe she's in hiding somewhere and her family knows it.

Could be the reason they never asked for donations, unlike many families of the missing.

It sure would be interesting to have access to FM´s and maybe the sisters´ phone and gps records from the last few years. Maura may be closer than we think, I doubt she´s in Ireland over anywhere overseas. Maybe in Canada, but possibly closer. Who did she or extended family know/have contact with that could provide false ID?

Hey NSA, where are you when you´re needed!?

Hans Strudle wrote:

James' latest post is up. The more he digs, the weirder people get.

Yes, people get "weird" when others accuse them of things like being the person who posted the letter about Maura being in Quebec. Oh, wait, James didn't accuse, he simply asked her "to comment" - so that's OK, right? No harm there.

Let's look at what James presented to this person:

"Taunton, as you know, is where the person who posted the Geocities letter (the one that explains that some family members know that Maura is living in Canada) was from. As several people have pointed out, that letter appeared to have been written by someone who was trained as a nurse. Like Martha. And was somehow related to Maura. Like Martha. And was in Taunton. Like Martha."

How would you respond if you were being accused of something you didn't do? "F*** you" seems appropriate to me.

But James is now getting his "facts" all mixed up. Taunton is NOT where "the person who posted the Geocities letter ... was from." The person in Taunton was not the letter writer, according to a prior post from James, but was the person who RESPONDED to the letter, the poster named Observer:

"A frequent commenter who called themselves 'Observer' responded to this post with:

'This is very interesting, it somehow has the ring of truth to it. This is common knowledge in certain circles of people who are close to the family.'

The moderator wanted to know who 'Observer' was. So she contacted Leone.

Using the IP tag that accompanied the 'Observer' messages, Leone traced the poster to a specific server in the area of Taunton, Mass. They figured if 'Observer' was posting in this Geocities forum, they were likely posting in other forums related to Maura's disappearance. A quick check of the Franconia, NH Topix forums found a long conversation about the mystery. Three people were posting on Topix from Taunton, Mass, too. But one commented much more than the other two. On Topix, this poster went by the handle 'Citigirl.'"

There is no information that he has provided or that I can find that shows the location of the person who posted the letter. The only location he has provided in relation to the letter is the location of the person who commented on it, Observer, who he believed was Citigirl. If he has other information that the person who posted the letter was identified as posting from Taunton, I'd like to see it.

But now, based on his mixed-up memory, he is accusing yet another family member of lying and conspiring to hide the fate of Maura. And his followers, without a moment of doubt, join in the witch hunt:

"The fact that she said 'good luck with your research' as opposed to 'goox luck with your search' speaks volumes. Think about it."

Renner's "investigation" is the most pathetic and damaging thing I have ever witnessed.

By the way, I've always believed that letter was a just another hoax and am not sure why it has become such a focal point of the "investigation." You really have to ask yourself, would any family member or friend of Maura really have told the world, essentially, that Maura committed a felony hit and run? From the letter:

"Maura Murray has the right as every independent adult does to leave with her new boyfriend and start a new life. Maura is living a content and satisfying life in the Province of Quebec.... Sometime between 12 MN and 1 AM Maura driving her Saturn struck and critically injured the UMass student Petrit Vasi leav- ing him for dead ... She disappeared, her only wish is that she be left alone to live her life in peace. She is happy and contented and just wants to be left alone."

Really? She injures someone "critically," and just wants to get on with her happy contented life? Besides the fact that none of this letter sounds true to me at all, would a friend or family member really think it's OK for a relative to evade a felony charge with possible prison time to escape to another country and live happily ever after? And then give her location so she can be more easily found?

Sorry, I think everything about this letter is a red herring and really don't understand why it is being relied on as some sort of "fact," but since Renner has so few facts, I guess he needs things like this to pad his book.

Maruchan wrote:

By the way, I've always believed that letter was a just another hoax and am not sure why it has become such a focal point of the "investigation." You really have to ask yourself, would any family member or friend of Maura really have told the world, essentially, that Maura committed a felony hit and run? From the letter:
"Maura Murray has the right as every independent adult does to leave with her new boyfriend and start a new life. Maura is living a content and satisfying life in the Province of Quebec.... Sometime between 12 MN and 1 AM Maura driving her Saturn struck and critically injured the UMass student Petrit Vasi leav- ing him for dead ... She disappeared, her only wish is that she be left alone to live her life in peace. She is happy and contented and just wants to be left alone."
Really? She injures someone "critically," and just wants to get on with her happy contented life? Besides the fact that none of this letter sounds true to me at all, would a friend or family member really think it's OK for a relative to evade a felony charge with possible prison time to escape to another country and live happily ever after? And then give her location so she can be more easily found?
Sorry, I think everything about this letter is a red herring and really don't understand why it is being relied on as some sort of "fact," but since Renner has so few facts, I guess he needs things like this to pad his book.

Exactly! Thank you for saying what we all are thinking.

Habs wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly! Thank you for saying what we all are thinking.

Any time.:)

My last for this evening. There are folks over on Maura's Facebook page who are theorizing that the latest tree ribbon removal is by somebody who "knows something" or is "hiding something" and/or by mysterious locals trying to impede the investigation. As BillNH said about a week ago:

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
Does anyone honestly think that someone responsible would risk going and taking down the ribbon? If it was a local, and there is NO evidence it was, I would put my money on the ones close by trying to sell their house ...

Just to add weight to BillNH's theory, the "M" family, who saw the "flurry of activity" at Maura's trunk on the night of the accident, is selling that property, per Sam Ledyard, and the listing, with 24 photos of the property, can be found on NNEREN. Per public records, they own the house and all the property adjacent to 112 between the house and Old Peter's Road, totalling 177 acres, and all of it is for sale. The ribbon tree is far enough off the road that it is most likely not part of any highway easement, therefore, I believe they OWN the ribbon tree and therefore have a perfect right to remove anything on it. The fact that the ribbon and poster has been up there for over nine years is a testament to the fact that they were helping to keep Maura's memory alive - they could have removed every one of them each time they were put up. Now that they are selling their house, the last thing they would want is to draw attention to a girl going missing essentially on their property, so they are likely the ones who removed the ribbon/poster.

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
... the "M" family, who saw the "flurry of activity" at Maura's trunk on the night of the accident

Sorry, it was the Westmans who saw the "flurry of activity," not the Ms.

Geez Louise, that should have said 1.77 acres, not 177.

:>)

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
Any time.:)
My last for this evening. There are folks over on Maura's Facebook page who are theorizing that the latest tree ribbon removal is by somebody who "knows something" or is "hiding something" and/or by mysterious locals trying to impede the investigation. As BillNH said about a week ago:
<quoted text>
Just to add weight to BillNH's theory, the "M" family, who saw the "flurry of activity" at Maura's trunk on the night of the accident, is selling that property, per Sam Ledyard, and the listing, with 24 photos of the property, can be found on NNEREN. Per public records, they own the house and all the property adjacent to 112 between the house and Old Peter's Road, totalling 177 acres, and all of it is for sale. The ribbon tree is far enough off the road that it is most likely not part of any highway easement, therefore, I believe they OWN the ribbon tree and therefore have a perfect right to remove anything on it. The fact that the ribbon and poster has been up there for over nine years is a testament to the fact that they were helping to keep Maura's memory alive - they could have removed every one of them each time they were put up. Now that they are selling their house, the last thing they would want is to draw attention to a girl going missing essentially on their property, so they are likely the ones who removed the ribbon/poster.

I don't think you can't discount locals that are trying to find backpacks as also trying to create a mystery by taking the ribbon down.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think you can't discount locals that are trying to find backpacks as also trying to create a mystery by taking the ribbon down.

Tom and NHRider acted out of genuine concern for Maura and her family. And how are they repaid? They get accused of cutting down her ribbon.

Why would you make such a terrible accusation?

It probably flew off after getting soaked and constantly freezing and thawing recently.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
Tom and NHRider acted out of genuine concern for Maura and her family. And how are they repaid? They get accused of cutting down her ribbon.
Why would you make such a terrible accusation?

So you know both people well enough to speak about how they feel? You have spoken to them in length to know this? So if for some reason the local police department is called over a missing back pack and one was never turned in are you willing to put your name with them?

Note that I also said "shouldn't be discounted" not that they actually did it, but I like an answer to the other question. Its amazing how you guys want anything found in the woods to be realted to Maura, but me suggesting that someone did it to create mystery seems far fetched. If you going to leave all options open, then leave all options open. Don't chaneg the rules on your playground.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
So you know both people well enough to speak about how they feel? You have spoken to them in length to know this? So if for some reason the local police department is called over a missing back pack and one was never turned in are you willing to put your name with them?
Note that I also said "shouldn't be discounted" not that they actually did it, but I like an answer to the other question. Its amazing how you guys want anything found in the woods to be realted to Maura, but me suggesting that someone did it to create mystery seems far fetched. If you going to leave all options open, then leave all options open. Don't chaneg the rules on your playground.

Any person who knowingly makes a false statement about potential evidence in a missing person case to "create a mystery" should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Having said that, I have absolutely no reason to doubt either Tom or NHRider.

Here's my question for you: why. in your mind, should it be presumed that they made false reports?

I'm not sure I understand your question (whether I'd be "willing to put [my] name with [the posters]"). If either man had suggested that his report was false, I would have notified the authorities immediately. Encouraging unlawful activity is aiding and abetting -- the outcome being that I would receive the same punishment as the person who fabricated the evidence. I certainly wouldn't want to get disbarred and go to prison just to get some blog hits. So, here's the best answer I can give you: I have attached my name to this because I believe the reports.

Now, we don't know whether it's connected to Maura. But, at least in my opinion, it's worth the CCU's time and energy to determine whether such a connection exists.

Jen wrote:

It probably flew off after getting soaked and constantly freezing and thawing recently.

Or maybe Bigfoot took it. Blue is his fave color!

This is interesting. Sam Ledyard has now posted a photo on his blog of JWB/nhrider's phone, showing the phone call he purportedly made to the NH CCU. Sam's comment:

"When he got home, NHRider called the CCU to report his discovery of the black backpack."

I guess this is "evidence" that JWB/nhrider is telling the truth.

But I find that the picture of the phone provides a different type of "evidence."

These are comments by JWB/nhrider on the blog regarding the backpack discovery:

"nhrider says:
November 8, 2013 at 8:13 AM
Was the area not far from the road? I am going to take a ride up there today and look.
unfortunately I don’t have a camera."

"nhrider says:
November 10, 2013 at 8:21 AM
It was a no brainer to go look, I really only went up there to check out the overlook and take some notes on the layout as we were waiting for further confirmation as to actual location from Tom and that was one of the reasons I didn’t dig out a camera.The last thing I ever thought I would do is see the backpack he was referring to. It then became very obvious that there was only one spot Tom would have gone. I wish there was cell coverage there or I would have called LE from there and waited."

Hmmm. First, JWB/nhrider says he doesn't have a camera - not he can't find his camera, he DOESN'T HAVE A CAMERA. The next thing he says is that he didn't "dig out a camera" - how does one "dig out a camera" that one doesn't have? And, if he didn't have a camera, how did he take a photograph of his cell phone to send to Sam?

He did take his cell phone as evidenced by his last statement: "I wish there was cell coverage there or I would have called LE from there and waited."

That's the interesting part. It just so happens that the cell phone in the picture that Sam posted is a Tracfone LG505C - go look at the photo on Sam's blog and then Google the LG505C. It is the same camera. I did a pretty thorough job of researching to see if there is another similar looking model - there isn't.

And guess what that phone has?

A 1.2 megapixel camera.

Interesting.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

Here's my question for you: why. in your mind, should it be presumed that they made false reports?

I'll answer the question but ask it based on only what we know. Was an actual "report" created by LE or are you counting a post on your blog from an anonymous poster considered a "report" If an actual report was made I'd like something to reference it. If no reference is available change the question and remove the word "report".

Hey all. Just dropped in to say Hi. Interesting reading from the past week or two, Maruchan as always, awesome researching. Currently working near Honolulu, Oahu. The weather is divine and no sign of Maura. This would be a perfect place to disappear. Aloha.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll answer the question but ask it based on only what we know. Was an actual "report" created by LE or are you counting a post on your blog from an anonymous poster considered a "report" If an actual report was made I'd like something to reference it. If no reference is available change the question and remove the word "report".

"Was an actual 'report' created by LE or are you counting a post on your blog from an anonymous poster [] a 'report[.]'"

I was referring to neither.

When I refer to a "report" I mean when Tom reported the backpack to the state police (or NHRider; to the CCU).

Why should it be presumed that these reports were false?