Maura Murray

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
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?

I don't presume to know how every PI or publicly employed detective works. However, it is not at all unusual for detectives to make a series of assertions (true or false) about a case in order to progress the conversation/interrogation. For example, a detective might want to know some fact that will be helpful, so he says (somewhat Hollywood style) "We know you were at the pier at midnight, we saw you talking to her with a rock in your hand because we got it on tape, we know you sped away because we got witnesses." And so on. Sometimes what detectives say is true, sometimes not.

As I said before, the PI would not have asked me if I killed Maura unless they thought my answer - in either words or body language - could possibly be yes. This means that at least one MA PI, and/or his client(s), believe that someone not related (family) to Maura is or could be guilty. It means that in the eyes of someone very familiar with Maura's disappearance a member of Maura's family is not the only person of interest.

What I am saying is that if they asked me if I killed Maura, then someone is including the western MA area as an area of interest, and they are not excluding non-family members. This seems simple and clear.

It's also possible that there is a concerted effort to blame someone else. Maybe the PI is being paid to push this belief, even if it's false. Maybe he's acting out of pure selfless interest. Dunno. But he did say he never works for free.

MauraComeHome wrote:

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

Funny question coming from someone on the Cape, with that moniker. Just sayin'

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

So was Carl Yastrzemski. And some of his throws and ABs were terrrible. Point well taken.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

We still can´t be sure it was Maura on that video (my personal belief is she did leave Amherst to meet up with somone, maybe Fred).
That PI is full of crap. Con artists are convincing. It´s their job to be. Next time you see him, throw an egg at his face and say hello from me.

It would seem there is interest in an amherst angle if the PI sought out a virtual stranger(Beagle)....how many others have been approached with this question?Did you work at Umass or something?

yup,I'm on the cape....As of last night,after Renners blog,I may be a little more cautious in Falmouth.LOL

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't presume to know how every PI or publicly employed detective works. However, it is not at all unusual for detectives to make a series of assertions (true or false) about a case in order to progress the conversation/interrogation. For example, a detective might want to know some fact that will be helpful, so he says (somewhat Hollywood style) "We know you were at the pier at midnight, we saw you talking to her with a rock in your hand because we got it on tape, we know you sped away because we got witnesses." And so on. Sometimes what detectives say is true, sometimes not.
As I said before, the PI would not have asked me if I killed Maura unless they thought my answer - in either words or body language - could possibly be yes. This means that at least one MA PI, and/or his client(s), believe that someone not related (family) to Maura is or could be guilty. It means that in the eyes of someone very familiar with Maura's disappearance a member of Maura's family is not the only person of interest.
What I am saying is that if they asked me if I killed Maura, then someone is including the western MA area as an area of interest, and they are not excluding non-family members. This seems simple and clear.
It's also possible that there is a concerted effort to blame someone else. Maybe the PI is being paid to push this belief, even if it's false. Maybe he's acting out of pure selfless interest. Dunno. But he did say he never works for free.

Thank you for clarifying. Also the Carl Y. comparison was quite amusing.:)

MauraComeHome wrote:

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

Not sure why. Might have had something to do with a phone bill potentially related to the Molly Bish case. He had worked on the Bish case as a MA state police detective. He said he was no longer "on" the Murray case. But he clearly knew about it from the beginning. If Renner has talked with him, I'm not aware of it. The PI may have just been trying to spook me, but I kind of doubt that. There may be a concerted effort to deflect interest in one possible suspect (or POI) by making an innocent person (like me) look guilty. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened. So maybe the MA PI is working for someone (for example, a wealthy father) who doesn't want his son caught. Or the PI is working for someone else. Or for an attorney. Or for no one. Maybe he's just a decent, good guy who thought it would helpful if I talked with someone. Maybe UMass is interested from some kind of perspective. Really, really not sure. I have some of the puzzle pieces, others have many more, but I doubt everyone has all the pieces that are available.

The MA PI posted on the Amherst Topix thread for me to give him a call. I forget the exact post, but it was posted in double maybe about Feb or March 2011. I didn't meet with him until the Friday before Memorial Day weekend. About 1PM at Target in Hadley. Unless the post has been deleted, you can still see his invitation to me. It says something like, "Beagle/Amherst. Let's chat. I believe you know how to contact me." Something like that.

MauraComeHome wrote:

It would seem there is interest in an amherst angle if the PI sought out a virtual stranger(Beagle)....how many others have been approached with this question?Did you work at Umass or something?

No, I've never worked at UMass. I would guess there is an interest in an Amherst angle, too, but not to the exclusion of other "angles." Someone took an very intense interest in the Corolla crash, that's for sure.

Night all.

ok looking for someone to respond to of my earlier posts. I will try and explain myself better.

If mauras car spun and was facing west against the snowbank, and Ba who lives just east of the crash site stopped and got out of his bus to talk to maura. Wouldn't he be facing the passenger side window as she was in the drivers side against the snowbank. He said he was 15-20 feet away. How would BA have spoke to maura if he was facing the passenger side of her car and she was stuck behind the airbag. Was the passenger window down? otherwise not possible if you are familiar with the layout of things.

how has it been determined there was "intense" interest in the Corrolla crash?

jwb wrote:

ok looking for someone to respond to of my earlier posts. I will try and explain myself better.
If mauras car spun and was facing west against the snowbank, and Ba who lives just east of the crash site stopped and got out of his bus to talk to maura. Wouldn't he be facing the passenger side window as she was in the drivers side against the snowbank. He said he was 15-20 feet away. How would BA have spoke to maura if he was facing the passenger side of her car and she was stuck behind the airbag. Was the passenger window down? otherwise not possible if you are familiar with the layout of things.

It seems Maura could get out of the car from the drivers side, even if with some difficulty:
"Maura struggled to get out of her Saturn because the car door was hitting against a snowbank." (M. Conway article)
As I understand it, she was talking to him over the car roof. She wasn´t stuck behind the airbag, as they quickly deflate after being deployed.

Bumping for Maura wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

to make it even more confusing, Mountain lakes is actually in both Bath and Haverhill. there are only a few of the properties in Mountain Lakes in Bath though--it is primarily Haverhill.

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
It seems Maura could get out of the car from the drivers side, even if with some difficulty:
"Maura struggled to get out of her Saturn because the car door was hitting against a snowbank." (M. Conway article)
As I understand it, she was talking to him over the car roof. She wasn´t stuck behind the airbag, as they quickly deflate after being deployed.

That might be the case that she spoke to him over the roof although I don't remember reading anything that stated that. It is a possibility however. I am sure that information is in the police report.

What's to say that Maura was even going to her dads motel room that night? Liz D is the group leader according to James Renner. Fred told the group of girls not to talk. Maybe this is why Liz cannot recall who all was at the party Sat night?
But even to this day, I wonder if someone knew of a possible hook up after the party? Or that Maura would possibly be going to a friends place, but being as the accident was so close to the motel, everyone just assumes she did head for the motel.

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
That might be the case that she spoke to him over the roof although I don't remember reading anything that stated that. It is a possibility however. I am sure that information is in the police report.

TAKEN FROM MM FACEBOOK PAGE>:
Meanwhile, across the street, neighbor Virginia Marrotte was standing in her kitchen with her husband, John, who was peeling an orange.

"From our kitchen window we saw a car down the road with trouble lights flashing and someone walking around the car," Virginia Marrotte wrote in response to a set of questions sent for this series.

"From our kitchen window we saw a car down the road with trouble lights flashing and someone walking around the car," Virginia Marrotte wrote in response to a set of questions sent for this series.
John Marrotte told the same story to private investigator John Healy after the incident and added that he believed he saw Maura's car back up parallel to the road, indicated by the car's rear lights.

While the Marrottes were watching from their kitchen window they observed another neighbor arrive on the scene in a school bus.

Arthur "Butch" Atwood is a former Taunton, Mass., resident, who worked as a school bus driver for First Student Inc., the second largest school bus operator in the U.S. according to the company website.

Atwood lived with his wife, Barbara, in a log-cabin style home 210 yards east of the Westmans at 4 Wild Ammonoosuc Road. Atwood was on his way home after dropping off students following a ski field trip. His home is on the town line with neighboring Bath.

Atwood stopped by the scene of the accident and saw a young woman alone in the car whom he later identified as Maura Murray. Her dark hair was hanging down, not in its customary bun, though Atwood said he could clearly see her face. She was "shook-up," but not injured, he reported to police.

here's the link

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php...

What I don't get is that Virginia and John see someone walking around the car. But. And.....they see Butch pull up in his bus.

As you read, you see that Maura was alone in the car as quoted by Butch. Who was walking around the car?

One more try.

J and V were watching this person walking around the car. They stopped looking when Butch pulled up.

When Butch pulled up, she was either Back in her car, still in her car, with someone else walking around the car.