Maura Murray

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
I knew You would back out of this commitment.
Tomorrow maybe....
John

I nver committed to anything. anyting.

Those poor cats. What more do you expect of me? Everythingi s in the vidoe. https://vimeo.com/88106632

FYI wrote:

<quoted text>
Well it wasn't for the thinking people that it was posted. It was for findy and Jenkins. Thought it might be sparkly enough to draw their attention. I get tired of seeing the crap about the alleged earlier accident, saw this on the FB page and thought it might help.
Back into my corner to hibernate.

It does help FYI. I've been saying for a long time that there was only one accident because of the fact that I was listening that night and didn't hear it, but also because the call would have had to go through the dispatch if it was heard on the scanner. There was no record of an earlier accident. Nothing on the dispatch log and no police report.
One person claimed she remembered hearing the earlier accident weeks or months later which never made much sense. I know I certainly couldn't remember even weeks ago if I heard a minor accident on the scanner what was said and also remember the time it happened.

its the H. o. U. S. E. of N. O. S. E. S.

Everythingi is in the vidoe
Everythingi.
http://vimeo.com/88303640

Good video. great use of comedy. But i didn't make it. Whoever did is challenging the video king (me). But it looks too good for what i can do. but no point to it. it doens't beat the vidoe king. I am the lone king still. Funny, but no point to it.

FYI wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
from the Facebook page:
Helena Dwyer Murray
****-_--_-FYI...I've been given permission to pass this information along. A while ago, a professional accident re-constructionist examined Maura's vehicle. This is his conclusion, based on the condition of the vehicle AND the black box: "He concluded that there was only one event...at the red barn. She hit a snow bank only. No trees and no prior damage to the vehicle."

Interesting, can you link the FB page please so we can read it for ourselves because that's not what weeper said on the old MMM forum, weeper is Frank Kelly.
Interesting he said the exact opposite of what the family is now saying; is this what caused the riff between the family & the NHLI? I find it very strange that Fred ended up butting heads with the NHLI. He already had a bad relationship with the professional investigative agency that was investigating his daughter's case(NHSP) & now a group of retired detectives offer their services to you & you're gonna not get along with them too? Is this guy for real?

Someone on JR's blog has decided, based on scientific fact no less, that James is a "champion" Annette Hayward disagrees and I tend to side with her.
It astounds me how many people over there continue to insist that Renner's motives are altruistic...! Yes all of these innocent people that have been tossed under the bus and exposed to public ridicule for no other reason than they caught JR's fancy, are merely collateral damage that will happen when one is in pursuit of justice for a family that has made it blatantly obvious they don't want his help in finding a woman who very likely, if she is alive, has no interest in being found! A champion?!! what a bunch of ultramaroons. I'm sickened by it more and more every day!
Personally, the very second that James let Green take over his blog, you know when he went to jail for contempt, was the very moment I started questioning his judgement. Not so much the jail time. I understand getting a little hot under the collar concerning protecting ones relatives, but, Green had shown his true colors long before being handed the reins...

Hey if there's actual proof that there was only one accident I'll gladly dismiss the theory, it's just a potential theory that I'm not even sure I believe in the first place, you guys talk about this like I want there to be an earlier accident or something, like I give a shit for some reason.

I believe the simplest theory is probably the correct one. The simplest theory is she crashed her car once & caught a ride from the immediate area. Adding another car crash in there is a whole other layer that makes everything much more complex, I'd gladly throw it out.

But then that brings up the question of why would he lie about that back then? Why would the family allow him to lie about that on their own forum? Who's more believable frank Kelly in '07 or the Murray family in '14? The name of this reconstructionist has never been revealed, neither has any form of report on the matter so all we have is the word of these two people to take & they're saying the exact opposite of each other.

I guess this is just another thing to add to the lost of crap that makes no sense about this case?

This place is boring tonight. What the hell was up with last night?

Lady Gray1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh my sweet Lord of Mercy, this WAS a long shot but I actually saw THIS! And the answer to your question is no......did you send it as a message through the profile? There should be an "envelope" next to my name. Send it this way.

i have sent you a message through your profile here.

Everyone is missing.!

Where did everyone go.?

Feeling UN-Blue today..!

John

Jenkins wrote:

Hey if there's actual proof that there was only one accident I'll gladly dismiss the theory, it's just a potential theory that I'm not even sure I believe in the first place, you guys talk about this like I want there to be an earlier accident or something, like I give a shit for some reason.
I believe the simplest theory is probably the correct one. The simplest theory is she crashed her car once & caught a ride from the immediate area. Adding another car crash in there is a whole other layer that makes everything much more complex, I'd gladly throw it out.
But then that brings up the question of why would he lie about that back then? Why would the family allow him to lie about that on their own forum? Who's more believable frank Kelly in '07 or the Murray family in '14? The name of this reconstructionist has never been revealed, neither has any form of report on the matter so all we have is the word of these two people to take & they're saying the exact opposite of each other.
I guess this is just another thing to add to the lost of crap that makes no sense about this case?

Well....the car didn't hit the tree.

And it is too bad it took Officer Smith 17 minutes to arrive at the scene and HE GOT LOST ON THE WAY....!

Smith should have been able to get there much quicker since He was closer to the scene than what has been revealed.

Valley rd. and Claude's A-frame with His Young GF were right there. Young girls are also someone elses thing as well.

And Smiths' accident report is incorrect. THE CAR DID NOT HIT THE TREES.

WTH believes the acc. report was spot on and EXCELLENT. Huh.

Accident report filled out 6 days later....

John

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Well....the car didn't hit the tree.
And it is too bad it took Officer Smith 17 minutes to arrive at the scene and HE GOT LOST ON THE WAY....!
Smith should have been able to get there much quicker since He was closer to the scene than what has been revealed.
Valley rd. and Claude's A-frame with His Young GF were right there. Young girls are also someone elses thing as well.
And Smiths' accident report is incorrect. THE CAR DID NOT HIT THE TREES.
WTH believes the acc. report was spot on and EXCELLENT. Huh.
Accident report filled out 6 days later....
John

I'd be interested to know just how close he was columbo. Where did he come from?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I always wondered, and tried to get the name of the "accident re-constructionist:". I'm still not buying it. Don't know who "he" is or what his qualifications are. Really? A snowbank? Damaged the hood at a single contact point that high? Now, if you want to tell me that some undercarriage damage was also due to the snowbank in addition to the trees, yea, I can believe that. I still point to Officer Smith's excellent report that shows the vehicle going into and reflected off of the trees. Entirely consistent with the damage seen to the vehicle. Regardless of what someone else of unknown "credentials" guessed about what happened. And I would love to see the black box data. LOVE TO.
Bill

The more and more I hear You refer to "OFFICER SMITH'S EXCELLENT REPORT" it could lead one to think that YOU ARE CECIL SMITH.

I am not saying You are Smith....but You sure have a stiffy over the whole issue. You have been protecting this report forever as IF IT WERE YOUR OWN.

Just stating this.........

John

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
I'd be interested to know just how close he was columbo. Where did he come from?

Well.....It wasn't Your house.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch...

Jupiter? Mars?

Come here my good dogs.

Baby got Bach

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
The more and more I hear You refer to "OFFICER SMITH'S EXCELLENT REPORT" it could lead one to think that YOU ARE CECIL SMITH.
I am not saying You are Smith....but You sure have a stiffy over the whole issue. You have been protecting this report forever as IF IT WERE YOUR OWN.
Just stating this.........
John

Here we are again. Another turd. Produce your expert and his report. The damage is consistent with hitting a tree. The excellent report that was filed, not filled out six days later says it hit the trees. So, I guess Smith following up on information after the initial information was written and before filing the report is another fault you find. Your imaginary consultant who says otherwise should have more than you as a mouthpiece if anyone is to believe what you are trying to sell.

And the report is one of the very few pieces of factual information supplied by an eyewitness to the aftermath of the accident by an impartial observer. Unlike you and others who have a specific agenda. I bring it up so people don't have to keep wading through the turds that you and others keep tossing. And I am astonished that you don't actually believe I am Smith, because you have said things just as stupid in the past.

Bill

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Well.....It wasn't Your house.!

Congratulations!!!! I think this is the first true fact you've ever stated. You are correct, it wasn't my house.
So now do you want to tell us where he was coming from and how far away?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Here we are again. Another turd. Produce your expert and his report. The damage is consistent with hitting a tree. The excellent report that was filed, not filled out six days later says it hit the trees. So, I guess Smith following up on information after the initial information was written and before filing the report is another fault you find. Your imaginary consultant who says otherwise should have more than you as a mouthpiece if anyone is to believe what you are trying to sell.
And the report is one of the very few pieces of factual information supplied by an eyewitness to the aftermath of the accident by an impartial observer. Unlike you and others who have a specific agenda. I bring it up so people don't have to keep wading through the turds that you and others keep tossing. And I am astonished that you don't actually believe I am Smith, because you have said things just as stupid in the past.
Bill

Yada yada....

I did not produce the information. The reconstructionist completed the documentation. This info is in the hands of NHLI and any and all agencies the NHLI shared this info with.

And by law they are required to submit their findings to the authorities.

Just keep protecting Smith, whatever Your true reason may be.

Bill....You are WRONG and that is just the plain truth. The Saturn did NOT HIT THE TREES.

JOHN...Here since 2004 watching Bill protect the protected.

John