Maura Murray

Judged:

3

3

2

Columbu wrote:

<quoted text>
[R]easonable people [] are here to help us realize that we could not have seen Pomkik's message, because it never existed.
Did you also know we are the same person?

Judged:

3

3

2

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
MY Questions are;
Who are You....?
Who are They...?
John

Judged:

3

3

3

Surely wrote:

These people can be reasoned with. After all, your special. Just don't give them a clue that you think this is bogus. As long as you say what they want, you'll do just fine.
What a contrast.

Judged:

3

3

3

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
So......WHO IS "I"
Are You Sam.....or whatever Your real name is.
Finding this hard to believe...IF You did why would You involve unknown people to You from an internet forum. Even IF You talk to someone on the phone does not make them who they say they are.
MY Questions are;
Who are You....?
Who are They...?
John

Judged:

1

1

1

Jenkins wrote:

Notice how Bill completely just ignores the pertinent questions when it suits him. He talks about 'overcorrection' to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about, he busts out a big word to give it that appearance when in reality he ain't even answering the question posed, but rather carefully dancing around it with big words.
No shit she overcorrected somewhere, we wouldn't be having this conversation if she corrected herself properly. That was NOT the question, the question was HOW WAS THERE DAMAGE TO HER FRONT LEFT??
If she spun put after the corner, like the report states, & ended up ass end into the snowbank, which every witness states, then when did she hit the trees and cause damage to her front left?
It can't be both ways, she couldn't have hit the trees with her front left & then ended up with her rear end into the bank, anybody can tell that's impossible.
And there's the fact that if you spin out around a left hand curve your front left is the least likely corner to be damaged, so why is that the ONLY corner damaged?
Why is it that in this one, little accident report there's such a glaring problem? How can anybody call this document 'excellent'? Anybody saying that is either full of shit, or kind of a total moron.

Judged:

4

4

2

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenky, I find it disturbing that I have to explain to you how an over-correction happens and what the results can look like.
If Maura came around that corner and started to fishtail to the right she would correct by turning the car to the right. If her correction was to large, the car starts to fishtail to the left because of the OVER-CORRECTION. If she can't recover from the over-correction then the car is heading for the trees, if she over-corrected enough it is possible that the slide and movement of the car COULD have hit leading with the drivers side. Or the car may have only hit a single tree considering how shallow the angle was shown in that excellent report. Now the important part of this is that the report only shows the terminal portion of the crash and make no attempt to try to explain how she managed to get the car in that attitude, nor does it need to. You need to learn about something called pertinent past history. Bearing in mind the word pertinent (adj: relevant or applicable to a particular matter). How does it matter how the car got there? Will that solve where Maura is? The report reflects what happened in the terminal portion of the crash and it is laid out in an excellent manner. With all needed pertinent information by a trained impartial, observer, right on an easy to read form. He doesn't make any guesses, just reports what he sees. Someone crashed their car near a corner and then ran from the scene after being seen by several people, almost certainly to avoid a drunk driving charge.
If you need more help with this search out youtube videos. I am sure you are the only one that doesn't know how over-corrections happens.
Bill

Judged:

1

1

1

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
And Billy Boy continues to go on and on to try and keep people straight.
Come on Billy Boy, You know the car didn't hit the tree. Unless You truly are a liar anf full of bullshit. Never been an EMS/EMT/Engineer/ just a NEVER BEEN ANYTHING.
Her Billy Boy can spout his know-it-all words and get people to believe.
The car never hit the tree. What did the car come into contact with.?
Billy Boy knows nothing about the true circumstances behind the damage to the Saturn.
Billy Boy keeps the TREE THEORY going so people will eventually believe the NON-TRUTH.
Why Billy Boy.? You should really just give in to the TRUE FACT....YOU ARE WRONG.!
John

Judged:

5

5

4

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry John.
I'll happily let people judge what I say and what you or Jenkins says about things. They are free to believe whatever they want. I think most thinking people have a handle on this, that is why you two seem to be the only ones repeatedly questioning the report.
Bill

Judged:

4

4

4

Not Without Peril wrote:

<quoted text>
Vanderbilt's lying. Put yourself in his position; his goal is to "trace posters identities." Why would he tell you that? If I wished to trace posters' identities, I wouldn't advertise my "technical know how" and announce my goal. So his goal most likely is not to trace posters' identities. So what is it?
The only thing that makes sense, to me, is that he wishes to portray Ben in a negative light.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
At this point Sam I don't know who's lying and who's telling the truth.
Tyler is correct about who this person said he was because he told me the same.
He also said that he had no contact with Ben and that Tyler got a number of headers from Ben and sent them to him.

Judged:

4

4

3

Gorbachev wrote:

<quoted text>
I never collected headers. I never sent Tyler headers. First it was that he was working with me. Then I said I never had a conversation with the guy, now he says that I sent Tyler headers.
No.

Judged:

3

3

3

Gorbachev wrote:

<quoted text>
I never collected headers. I never sent Tyler headers. First it was that he was working with me. Then I said I never had a conversation with the guy, now he says that I sent Tyler headers.
No.

Judged:

2

2

2

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
In that last line are you really trying to tell me to go read up on this case & then come back?? LOL, you can't be serious can you?
I've been posting aBout this case since '04 on the original MM.com forum before it even became MMM.com , I've probably read every article available on this case, I think if anyone has to read up here it's you.