Maura Murray

Since it's obvious several posters have been following Maura's disappearance for years, could someone please direct me to a site where I can view facts surrounding the case? I started reading all of the posts on this forum from the beginning, but found I was wasting too much time on non-relevant comments and some baseless theories. While many other theories seem to have merit, I like to keep an open mind while reviewing facts. Thanks in advance...

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
rewind. big time
for whose benefit are you coming back to ask the same questions?
over and over and over?
seriously.

SnowyB, I do not appreciate your bully post. I will post whatever question I want to.
I never thought I would write such a post to you. So please, just scroll!

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
WHAT! This has happened before? I don't know Wowzer. I remember the good old days when shack thought that every emergency vehicle and all search personnel would be called in for miles around. And that because that didn't happen, there was negligence. And if it that wasn't policy, it should be. Those were heady times. Most after it was explained of course understood, but not some. Some insisted that we needed full immediate call-outs for all accidents when the driver runs away. Some continued to insist, but again, it does my heart well to know that most people are reasonable and understand the absurdity of that action. The toll it takes on rescuers and how eventually they will just stop coming out.
At some point, personal responsibility has to kick in.
Bill

Yes those were the good old days. It's always nice to reminisce once in awhile.
Oh the memories...sigh

Retired MA Tpr wrote:

Since it's obvious several posters have been following Maura's disappearance for years, could someone please direct me to a site where I can view facts surrounding the case? I started reading all of the posts on this forum from the beginning, but found I was wasting too much time on non-relevant comments and some baseless theories. While many other theories seem to have merit, I like to keep an open mind while reviewing facts. Thanks in advance...

the most comprehensive collection of facts is the maura is missing series.

@ Live from Salem

-- "Where does NH RTE 112 connect Bartlett, NH to Hanson, MA (southeast Massachusetts)? Isn't 93 or 16 a better choice of route?"

Fred lived in Weymouth from the time that Maura was six through her disappearance. He would have either driven to Braintree to take 1-93 or he would have taken route 3 in Weymouth to 1-93 in Braintree.

-- "Did the Murrays frequent the Haverhill, NH area often during vacations and drive to Bartlett, NH (using rte 112)?"

Fred indicated, on Disappeared, that Maura would not have been familiar with the stretch of 112 on which she disappeared. So I would think no.

-- "Why doesn't Fred use his 'dirt-bag' line during the interview?"

Is this a joke?

"Why doesn't Fred explain his whereabouts from the time of MM's disappearance until the noontime chat with Haverhill PD the day after?"

Assuming that he has not, your guess is as good as mine.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
To me his greatest weakness in his book is going to be the investigation. I don't think he knows what he is doing. He has researched a lot of pieces but I don't think he knows what he is looking at. Him thinking that people disappear when they are being watched is a prime example. He has never actually watched someone or something so he has no idea. To him that points in directions that do not logically follow. Biggest reason that people appear to disappear to those "watching". It is because they don't have eyes on the target when it does whatever it did. To Renner it is a mystery. To Renner it points in bizarre directions. The ability to leave ones view takes seconds.
Half the book is likely going to be fiction based upon what he thinks he has proven, and hasn't. Probably make a great screenplay though.
Bill

I agree. the investigation if you can even call it that is definitely the week part of JR's game. based on what he has written and the theorized on this case i wonder if this book is even going to truly qualify as non-fiction. I'm sure it will be sold in the non-fiction section but does that mean its all facts?

Not Without Peril wrote:

@ Live from Salem
-- "Where does NH RTE 112 connect Bartlett, NH to Hanson, MA (southeast Massachusetts)? Isn't 93 or 16 a better choice of route?"
Fred lived in Weymouth from the time that Maura was six through her disappearance. He would have either driven to Braintree to take 1-93 or he would have taken route 3 in Weymouth to 1-93 in Braintree.
-- "Did the Murrays frequent the Haverhill, NH area often during vacations and drive to Bartlett, NH (using rte 112)?"
Fred indicated, on Disappeared, that Maura would not have been familiar with the stretch of 112 on which she disappeared. So I would think no.
-- "Why doesn't Fred use his 'dirt-bag' line during the interview?"
Is this a joke?
"Why doesn't Fred explain his whereabouts from the time of MM's disappearance until the noontime chat with Haverhill PD the day after?"
Assuming that he has not, your guess is as good as mine.

Jeez, do you not have a blog dedicated to this case and claim to have conducted some type of investigation? if you knew anything about this case you would know that he was traveling up from Bridgeport Connecticut where he was working not from Weymouth where he was living.
I think asking his whereabouts is a valid question.

another valid question is why didn't he call her on Monday night when she never called him? he claims that she was so reliable about calling him all the time and was supposed to call him at 8 o'clock Monday night but she never did. why wasn't he concerned then? he didn't even try to call her once and not only did he not try to call her nobody was able to get ahold of him until Tuesday afternoon. I wonder what he was doing and why he never tried to call her on Monday night or Tuesday when she didn't call him.

Not Without Peril wrote:

@ Live from Salem
-- "Where does NH RTE 112 connect Bartlett, NH to Hanson, MA (southeast Massachusetts)? Isn't 93 or 16 a better choice of route?"
Fred lived in Weymouth from the time that Maura was six through her disappearance. He would have either driven to Braintree to take 1-93 or he would have taken route 3 in Weymouth to 1-93 in Braintree.
-- "Did the Murrays frequent the Haverhill, NH area often during vacations and drive to Bartlett, NH (using rte 112)?"
Fred indicated, on Disappeared, that Maura would not have been familiar with the stretch of 112 on which she disappeared. So I would think no.
-- "Why doesn't Fred use his 'dirt-bag' line during the interview?"
Is this a joke?
"Why doesn't Fred explain his whereabouts from the time of MM's disappearance until the noontime chat with Haverhill PD the day after?"
Assuming that he has not, your guess is as good as mine.

Not without Peril wrote:***Fred indicated, on Disappeared, that Maura would not have been familiar with the stretch of 112 on which she disappeared***

Funny because last night Fred said on WMUR:
"It's a road to Barlett where I'm sure she was going 'cause she knows it like her backyard,'cause we were in New Hampshire so much, at least four times a year. She was up there every year of her life."
I wonder which it was.

something else I find strange is his claim that he drove through the night to get there on Wednesday morning. Bridgeport is about a four hour drive from where her car was discovered. if your daughter is missing and you are really worried about her you could drive 90mph and maybe make that drive in a little over 3 hours, definitely 3 and a half.

His story is that he first learned about her disappearance late Tuesday afternoon. is he was so worried about her why didn't he leave Tuesday evening? he could have been up there at 10 11 o'clock on Tuesday night instead he waits to leave?
those details don't exactly scream concerned dad to me. One has to wonder if he is a suspect in her disappearance.

"[I]f you knew anything about this case you would know that he was traveling up from Bridgeport Connecticut where he was working not from Weymouth where he was living."

The way that I read the question, it concerned Maura's knowledge of route 112 (i.e., the route she typically took when traveling with Fred). I, of course, know where Fred was when she disappeared. If I made an error, it was in misinterpreting the question.

"I think asking his whereabouts is a valid question."

Sure it's valid, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't know precisely what he was doing. That's why I said that the poster's guess is as good as mine.

Do you have some information that I don't?

"[A]nother valid question is why didn't he call her on Monday night when she never called him? he claims that she was so reliable about calling him all the time and was supposed to call him at 8 o'clock Monday night but she never did. why wasn't he concerned then? he didn't even try to call her once and not only did he not try to call her nobody was able to get ahold of him until Tuesday afternoon. I wonder what he was doing and why he never tried to call her on Monday night or Tuesday when she didn't call him."

I, too. have pondered this.

why does he think she was going to Bartlett? is it just because he and her had spent a lot of time there? she was going the wrong way to get the Bartlett but the right way to get to Lincoln. oftentimes I seem to think that Fred is just talking out of his ass

dontletgo wrote:

why does he think she was going to Bartlett? is it just because he and her had spent a lot of time there? she was going the wrong way to get the Bartlett but the right way to get to Lincoln. oftentimes I seem to think that Fred is just talking out of his ass

I have never understood why he thought that she was going to Bartlett. The only thing that makes sense, to me, is that she planned to go to Burlington and then either changed her mind or had to make a detour.

Personally, I don't think Fred's intention matters very much. He might be "talking out of his ass" or he might have innocently jumped to an unsupported conclusion.

What DOES matter is that we see the error and don't accept the "fact" that Maura was going to Bartlett.

dontletgo wrote:

<quoted text>
Jeez, do you not have a blog dedicated to this case and claim to have conducted some type of investigation? if you knew anything about this case you would know that he was traveling up from Bridgeport Connecticut where he was working not from Weymouth where he was living.
I think asking his whereabouts is a valid question.
another valid question is why didn't he call her on Monday night when she never called him? he claims that she was so reliable about calling him all the time and was supposed to call him at 8 o'clock Monday night but she never did. why wasn't he concerned then? he didn't even try to call her once and not only did he not try to call her nobody was able to get ahold of him until Tuesday afternoon. I wonder what he was doing and why he never tried to call her on Monday night or Tuesday when she didn't call him.

Relax. Everyone is trying here.:)

Not Without Peril wrote:

"I, of course, know where Fred was when she disappeared.

Is this a mistype.?

TO SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
SnowyB, I do not appreciate your bully post. I will post whatever question I want to.
I never thought I would write such a post to you. So please, just scroll!

you are mistaken. my honest assessment, backed by years of observation and participation in the discussion on topix is neither a bully pos, nor was it in reply to you. here ya go -
********

SnowyB | 16 hrs ago
backspace4me wrote:
The questions that has always bothered me and and has never been answered is:
#1..WHO reported seeing the police suv #001 nose to nose with Maura's car?
#2..Which police officer drove this #001suv and why has this not been explained?
Why the big mystery?

rewind. big time.
for whose benefit are you coming back to ask the same questions?
over and over and over?
seriously.
Reply
Report this post

Retired MA Tpr wrote:

Since it's obvious several posters have been following Maura's disappearance for years, could someone please direct me to a site where I can view facts surrounding the case? I started reading all of the posts on this forum from the beginning, but found I was wasting too much time on non-relevant comments and some baseless theories. While many other theories seem to have merit, I like to keep an open mind while reviewing facts. Thanks in advance...

I am not certain that there is anyplace that you will find the unvarnished truth anywhere anymore. Just the facts so to speak. Always thought that there should have been a FAQ posted somewhere by that didn't happen. You best bet (for a decent synopsis) is likely the Wikipedia page on her disappearance.

And if you are able to find someplace that has more information than the Wikipedia page, they are probably making up some of the information. There just isn't that much known information.

Bill

Kirk wrote:

<quoted text>
Is this a mistype.?

I, of course, know where Fred *purports to have been* when she disappeared.

paris wrote:

<quoted text>
Defaming people? You said what about an officer and now you want to talk defamation?
Come on....

In this case it is not Defamation. it be the truth.

The sensitivity on this forum is truly overwhelming. Speechless indeed.