Maura Murray

kitten wrote:

<quoted text>
I also doubt vagrants could stay in the house with family living across the street. The culprits of the mess are either Fred or his brother Danny/his wife. That area of Weymouth is fairly nice-- not rich, but taken care of well. Surprising that a house was allowed to fall into such disrepair.
I guess one way to find out who made the gross mess is to determine who owned the dog. I'm choosing not to believe it was a human eating dog food, just cannot deal with that idea. If the dog was Danny's, it stands to reason the mess is his, too.
I was honestly surprised by this article. Fred always struck me as pretty fastidious. Though first impressions are nearly always wrong. Makes me want a shower.

I thought Danny was in jail?

NHwoodsman52 wrote:

"The lack of snow as stated also makes for a good case as to why Maura may not have been able to be tracked. Searchers would have a difficult to impossible task finding any sign, without 100% snow cover your not going to see tracks. Even with snow, tracks can fade rapidly especially in sunlight. Two days or more can make a huge difference in identifying or even finding tracks. I think PI Healy said they searched a 5 mile area, if memory serves me right Forcier believed he saw her about 7 miles away putting her outside of the initial search area."
\
Especially seeing the first search did not start til Wednesday 2/11/04. IF they would have looker more that night they may have seen tracks. But seeing they ONLY WENT TO THE CORNER OF BHE. I WONDER WHY. For what reason would the preliminary search that night have gone up Peters rd. and back towards the store and Swiftwater circle......BUT NOT any further than the corner of BHR. Well that is because the town line for Bath is right there.

"Oh we better not go any further to look we will get in trouble for going out of our jurisdiction."

LE did not DO ALL THEY COULD THAT NIGHT.

Forcier came forward on April 29th 2004. LE did search the area in which Forcier had stated He saw a PERSON running down the rd. that night in an Easterly direction Approx 4 to 5 miles from the scene.

Plus family members as well as the PI's with search and rescu dogs also did this area.

Head Tremors wrote:

NHwoodsman52 wrote:
"The lack of snow as stated also makes for a good case as to why Maura may not have been able to be tracked. Searchers would have a difficult to impossible task finding any sign, without 100% snow cover your not going to see tracks. Even with snow, tracks can fade rapidly especially in sunlight. Two days or more can make a huge difference in identifying or even finding tracks. I think PI Healy said they searched a 5 mile area, if memory serves me right Forcier believed he saw her about 7 miles away putting her outside of the initial search area."
\
Especially seeing the first search did not start til Wednesday 2/11/04. IF they would have looker more that night they may have seen tracks. But seeing they ONLY WENT TO THE CORNER OF BHE. I WONDER WHY. For what reason would the preliminary search that night have gone up Peters rd. and back towards the store and Swiftwater circle......BUT NOT any further than the corner of BHR. Well that is because the town line for Bath is right there.
"Oh we better not go any further to look we will get in trouble for going out of our jurisdiction."
LE did not DO ALL THEY COULD THAT NIGHT.

Who does have jurisdiction for Bath? Do they have their own PD?

Head Tremors wrote:

"Oh we better not go any further to look we will get in trouble for going out of our jurisdiction."
LE did not DO ALL THEY COULD THAT NIGHT.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc, then it IS a duck. That's right, Duckie, blame the police. They have always been the whipping boy of the ducks. A better alternative might be to thank LE for all the hard work they did.

George wrote:

I'm having sex.

I´m afraid Maura was too. With her dad.

Head Tremors wrote:

NHwoodsman52 wrote:
"The lack of snow as stated also makes for a good case as to why Maura may not have been able to be tracked. Searchers would have a difficult to impossible task finding any sign, without 100% snow cover your not going to see tracks. Even with snow, tracks can fade rapidly especially in sunlight. Two days or more can make a huge difference in identifying or even finding tracks. I think PI Healy said they searched a 5 mile area, if memory serves me right Forcier believed he saw her about 7 miles away putting her outside of the initial search area."
\
Especially seeing the first search did not start til Wednesday 2/11/04. IF they would have looker more that night they may have seen tracks. But seeing they ONLY WENT TO THE CORNER OF BHE. I WONDER WHY. For what reason would the preliminary search that night have gone up Peters rd. and back towards the store and Swiftwater circle......BUT NOT any further than the corner of BHR. Well that is because the town line for Bath is right there.
"Oh we better not go any further to look we will get in trouble for going out of our jurisdiction."
LE did not DO ALL THEY COULD THAT NIGHT.

After seeing the wine in plain view and red liquid in the car I think they most likely thought it was just another driver under the influence that left the scene to avoid a DWI. Since the car had MA plates they may have thought that person may have come from Mountain Lakes, where many out of staters have camps and second homes, and that the driver was headed back there for help.
There was no evidence of any crime taking place (except maybe an intoxicated driver leaving the scene of an accident) so in my opinion they did everything they should have that night by putting out a BOLO to all the responding units.
The LE also knew that the driver had just passed several houses and a store where they could have gone for help. JMO

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
I´m afraid Maura was too. With her dad.

Other, far more likely possibilities, among many:

1. Kevin, a local homeless bodybuilder who worked for a Philips St property owner (very near SW), saw her and kidnapped or killed her.

2. Her disappearance and presumable murder was payback for something.

3. She wandered alone and despondent into the Haverhill/Bath NH woods and died.

4. She simply died, but was not murdered, in the Amherst MA area, and someone didn't want to be associated with her death.

5. She had a UMass sports rival - but not in track.

6. Someone she knew well borrowed her car, hit Vasi, and wanted Maura quiet. Things got out of hand.

Maybe mr Renner could verify Maura was at the art gallery Sunday? Can it be confirmed that someone other than Fred saw her after she entered the motel room after the Hadley accident?

I had an interesting conversation a few days ago with a guy about the Tina Sinclair and Bethany Sinclair disappearance. This is a guy with a very short fuse, nearly irrational, likes to ride around the Valley (W. MA, S. VT and NH), has some swords, lives a solitary life, has expressed interest in "spraying down" a McDonald's, parks alone in remote places, and immediately knew exactly who Bethany Sinclair's father was. He even knew a guy named Gary. Sharon's husband? This guy would definitely give you the chills. But is he guilty of anything to do with the Sinclair disappearance? Doubtful.

My guess is that the mother and daughter (Sinclair) ran for their lives. Just disappeared to save themselves. They seem to have considered Eugene Van Bowman a threat. But that doesn't mean that all threats are rationally understood by the one who runs or that these threats originate domestically. Some do, some do not.

Regarding sightings... 2-3 years ago a young woman who looked exactly like Maura Murray, except slightly older and heavier (a few years aged), sat down in a public place at about a 90 degree angle to me (I could see her profile). She did this maybe 3-6 times, about 8 feet away, then after a few minutes she got up and walked past me and gave me this "knowing" smile. It "seemed" deliberate on her part, but I have no way of actually knowing this.

Despite my familiarity with Maura's disappearance, there is absolutely no reason to think this woman was Maura Murray. If she had lived next door to me for 6 months and I regularly spoke with her face to face, then that would be different, but just seeing someone, even up close, a few times, side and front views, for a few minutes, is nearly useless.

There are just too many possibilities. The public cannot do much that is useful. Maybe a little, but not much. LE is on a very separate track and is only interested in a confession or some kind of physical or very, very credible evidence. And I doubt that much attention is paid to her case by LE anyway. They have too many more solvable cases of truly known homicide in front of them. Maura is just a disappearance, endangered or not.

hannah_b wrote:

Maybe mr Renner could verify Maura was at the art gallery Sunday? Can it be confirmed that someone other than Fred saw her after she entered the motel room after the Hadley accident?

Yes, but that's not useful. They are not looking for anyone like this. It's already been investigated. I had a lengthy conversation last Memorial Day weekend with a MA PI who is very familiar with the case right from the beginning. He has tons of local, state, and federal contacts. He's very smart, well-trained, and highly respected. His office is immediately next to the motel. In fact, he was far more interested in asking me whether I killed Maura than talking about anything else. I would say he met with me specifically to ask me whether or not I killed her. He himself may not believe I did, but he may have been asked by Maura's family to ask me anyway. Or he may be working for someone else. Or it may just be his own interest in the case. Hard to say why he wanted to talk with me and ask me this question. It had to have been possible in someone's mind that the answer could have been yes.(Just for the record, the answer was a flat-out no.) The PI's question tells me they are still looking at something in the Amherst area, and that they do not consider anyone in Maura's family to be guilty.

But the PI did say exactly what has been said many times before. Maura was seen on video at a local ATM just before she disappeared. Whether this is true or not, I don't know.

There are only three art galleries I can think of (although there are many small ones on the UMass campus): Hampshire Gallery (a UMass gallery in SW), the Birthright/LAOS-connected gallery at the Carriage Shops on N. Pleasant St., and the former Michaelson's between Bank of America and Hastings.

Frankly, Mr. Renner seems to either have overlooked some things in Amherst, or he will cover them later.

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
Who does have jurisdiction for Bath? Do they have their own PD?

According to the web site of the Town of Bath, NH, there is a separate PD in Bath.
Speaking of jurisdictions, Route 112 is meandering in and out between the jurisdictions of Bath and Haverhill on its alignment between the intersection with US302/NH10 to the west and a point slightly to the east of the Route 112/Bradley Hill Road intersection close to the Weathered Barn Curve.
The village of Swiftwater and the Mountain Lakes area are, apparently, part of the Town of Bath while other stretches of Route 112 in the immediate area are within the jurisdiction of the Town of Haverhill.
Confusing, to say the least. Whether this had any bearing at all on the handling of Maura´s case in the immediate aftermath of her accident at the Weathered Barn Curve is of course a completely different matter.
Wikipedia´s entry for Bath, NH, as well as the web site for the Town of Bath, NH, are excellent sources for more information on this particular point.

Beagle wrote:

I had an interesting conversation a few days ago with a guy about the Tina Sinclair and Bethany Sinclair disappearance. This is a guy with a very short fuse, nearly irrational, likes to ride around the Valley (W. MA, S. VT and NH), has some swords, lives a solitary life, has expressed interest in "spraying down" a McDonald's, parks alone in remote places, and immediately knew exactly who Bethany Sinclair's father was. He even knew a guy named Gary. Sharon's husband? This guy would definitely give you the chills. But is he guilty of anything to do with the Sinclair disappearance? Doubtful.
My guess is that the mother and daughter (Sinclair) ran for their lives. Just disappeared to save themselves. They seem to have considered Eugene Van Bowman a threat. But that doesn't mean that all threats are rationally understood by the one who runs or that these threats originate domestically. Some do, some do not.
Regarding sightings... 2-3 years ago a young woman who looked exactly like Maura Murray, except slightly older and heavier (a few years aged), sat down in a public place at about a 90 degree angle to me (I could see her profile). She did this maybe 3-6 times, about 8 feet away, then after a few minutes she got up and walked past me and gave me this "knowing" smile. It "seemed" deliberate on her part, but I have no way of actually knowing this.
Despite my familiarity with Maura's disappearance, there is absolutely no reason to think this woman was Maura Murray. If she had lived next door to me for 6 months and I regularly spoke with her face to face, then that would be different, but just seeing someone, even up close, a few times, side and front views, for a few minutes, is nearly useless.
There are just too many possibilities. The public cannot do much that is useful. Maybe a little, but not much. LE is on a very separate track and is only interested in a confession or some kind of physical or very, very credible evidence. And I doubt that much attention is paid to her case by LE anyway. They have too many more solvable cases of truly known homicide in front of them. Maura is just a disappearance, endangered or not.

Tina & Bethany did not run from Bowman. They most likely were killed by him. To say this is remotely connected to Maura is a stretch Beagle. Please.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, but that's not useful. They are not looking for anyone like this. It's already been investigated. I had a lengthy conversation last Memorial Day weekend with a MA PI who is very familiar with the case right from the beginning. He has tons of local, state, and federal contacts. He's very smart, well-trained, and highly respected. His office is immediately next to the motel. In fact, he was far more interested in asking me whether I killed Maura than talking about anything else. I would say he met with me specifically to ask me whether or not I killed her. He himself may not believe I did, but he may have been asked by Maura's family to ask me anyway. Or he may be working for someone else. Or it may just be his own interest in the case. Hard to say why he wanted to talk with me and ask me this question. It had to have been possible in someone's mind that the answer could have been yes.(Just for the record, the answer was a flat-out no.) The PI's question tells me they are still looking at something in the Amherst area, and that they do not consider anyone in Maura's family to be guilty.
But the PI did say exactly what has been said many times before. Maura was seen on video at a local ATM just before she disappeared. Whether this is true or not, I don't know.
There are only three art galleries I can think of (although there are many small ones on the UMass campus): Hampshire Gallery (a UMass gallery in SW), the Birthright/LAOS-connected gallery at the Carriage Shops on N. Pleasant St., and the former Michaelson's between Bank of America and Hastings.
Frankly, Mr. Renner seems to either have overlooked some things in Amherst, or he will cover them later.

How could this PI have personally seen the ATM video? According to Healy in Renner´s interview, not even the PIs have been allowed to see it.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
The PI's question tells me they are still looking at something in the Amherst area, and that they do not consider anyone in Maura's family to be guilty.

Since when do PI's give out information on cases when they are questioning someone? Referring to the last portion of your statement. "they do not consider anyone in Maura's family guilty" You got fact based on the questions asked of you?

Sorry..You got THAT fact..need edit feature on topix

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
Tina & Bethany did not run from Bowman. They most likely were killed by him. To say this is remotely connected to Maura is a stretch Beagle. Please.

Regarding the 1st two paragraphs of post 5738 above: I did not imply that there is even a remote connection between the Sinclair disappearance and the Maura Murray disappearance. I don't believe any connection exists. I'm simply using an aspect of one disappearance (Sinclairs) to make a point about another (Maura's). That's all. It's sometimes useful to compare similar things in order to learn something new. The U.S. Civil War and the Russian Revolution. The 1873 Panic and the Great Depression. Sometimes if you look at something unconnected but similar, you learn something about the original object of your interest.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 discuss something else entirely - the sightings (so-called) of Maura. My point is clear. It is very easy to think you have seen someone once or twice because you have seen his/her photo. But seeing someone in a grocery store or pumping gas, or even, in the example I gave, right in front of you a few times, is not reliable.

Paragraph 5 simply says that Maura may have disappeared for many different reasons, and that a forum seems to have limited usefulness. I'm not saying a thread/forum has no usefulness, but it seems pretty limited, especially after 7-8 years.

I hope the above explanation helps readers better understand post 5378.

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
How could this PI have personally seen the ATM video? According to Healy in Renner´s interview, not even the PIs have been allowed to see it.

I have no idea how the MA PI could have seen the video. I do not even know whether he himself saw it. As is said in post 5739, "But the PI did say exactly what has been said many times before. Maura was seen on video at a local ATM just before she disappeared. Whether this is true or not, I don't know." How could I have been clearer?

IOW, the PI SAID that Maura was in the video. He did not say he himself viewed the video. I specifically said in post 5739, "Whether this is true or not, I don't know." This should make my statement about what the PI said quite clear.

But to make really sure it's clear... The MA PI SAID Maura was in the video. He SAID it convincingly, but he is very skilled at his art. He never SAID he himself viewed the video.

Beagle,What brought the PI to ask you that question?what amherst angle was he working?Is he still active on the case?

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
Regarding the 1st two paragraphs of post 5738 above: I did not imply that there is even a remote connection between the Sinclair disappearance and the Maura Murray disappearance. I don't believe any connection exists. I'm simply using an aspect of one disappearance (Sinclairs) to make a point about another (Maura's). That's all. It's sometimes useful to compare similar things in order to learn something new. The U.S. Civil War and the Russian Revolution. The 1873 Panic and the Great Depression. Sometimes if you look at something unconnected but similar, you learn something about the original object of your interest.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 discuss something else entirely - the sightings (so-called) of Maura. My point is clear. It is very easy to think you have seen someone once or twice because you have seen his/her photo. But seeing someone in a grocery store or pumping gas, or even, in the example I gave, right in front of you a few times, is not reliable.
Paragraph 5 simply says that Maura may have disappeared for many different reasons, and that a forum seems to have limited usefulness. I'm not saying a thread/forum has no usefulness, but it seems pretty limited, especially after 7-8 years.
I hope the above explanation helps readers better understand post 5378.

I only questioned the Sinclair comments. And I did so because you continually throw them in the discussion. You usually imply that these cases are connected. I respect most of your commentary, but sometimes you are way out in left field.