Maura Murray

There is no way this car hit a tree....Seriuosly now.!

http://www.mauramurraymissing.com/Documentsco...

Oooops...Seriously

K-9 handler wrote:

There is no way this car hit a tree....Seriuosly now.!
http://www.mauramurraymissing.com/Documentsco...

Agreed

K-9 handler wrote:

There is no way this car hit a tree....Seriuosly now.!
http://www.mauramurraymissing.com/Documentsco...

I am still not convinced that a point object like a pole or tree didn't do this damage. I can see damage from top to bottom in the same general area and the crinkling effect that occurs when an object buckles. And I still see nothing to indicate that ANY metal came in contact with the car. A tree with something lower like a solid ice pack COULD have caused that in my opinion. Didn't say did, but could have.

Could the expert display some photos to back up his theory? Since he went in person to examine the car I would think he must have photos he took during his investigation that would convince a juror that it wasn't a tree or snowbank that did the damage and point to what did. Most experts could do this. Is that unreasonable to ask?

Bill

Somewhere it was mentions that the guardrails near Swiftwater were hit. That might explain the gash. Thr report has box checked for no apparent damage to the car making it undrivable. What then was the big deal when Fred and Billy started it up and it was fine. Some have said this gash got there later, same for the windhield. So here's what I wonder. Did Fred see his car, the same way it looks in these pictures when he went there the day after arriving. And one more time, PLEASE.

Where were the extra gloves.

just me wrote:

Somewhere it was mentions that the guardrails near Swiftwater were hit. That might explain the gash. Thr report has box checked for no apparent damage to the car making it undrivable. What then was the big deal when Fred and Billy started it up and it was fine. Some have said this gash got there later, same for the windhield. So here's what I wonder. Did Fred see his car, the same way it looks in these pictures when he went there the day after arriving. And one more time, PLEASE.
Where were the extra gloves.

Pretty Please. Why can't we get a straight answer - 6 years later.

Wowzer? Can you answer about the car since your our only local who is still here. By chance did you get to personally see the car right after the accident? Thank you in advance.

such a shame WW was run off she could call her uncle and get the facts.

just me wrote:

Where were the extra gloves.

Where were the extra gloves found - specifically?

Another key question.

Bill

WTF-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Where were the extra gloves found - specifically?
Another key question.
Bill

ditto.. bump

WTF-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I am still not convinced that a point object like a pole or tree didn't do this damage. I can see damage from top to bottom in the same general area and the crinkling effect that occurs when an object buckles. And I still see nothing to indicate that ANY metal came in contact with the car. A tree with something lower like a solid ice pack COULD have caused that in my opinion. Didn't say did, but could have.
Could the expert display some photos to back up his theory? Since he went in person to examine the car I would think he must have photos he took during his investigation that would convince a juror that it wasn't a tree or snowbank that did the damage and point to what did. Most experts could do this. Is that unreasonable to ask?
Bill

If the expert doesn't have photos. Could you please take the trip from Littleton to Twin Mountain to get some closer shots? For the good of the group this would be much appreciated. Also - did we ever find out of H1 had a hitch? I drive a ford explorer and they do sit high.

Whatever that car hit, it had to be sticking out from its base about 8 to 10 inches. Also whatever it was, it was relatively small, maybe about the size of baseball. I am pretty sure of both of these statements. Other than that, I have no idea what it actually was.

ross wrote:

Whatever that car hit, it had to be sticking out from its base about 8 to 10 inches. Also whatever it was, it was relatively small, maybe about the size of baseball. I am pretty sure of both of these statements. Other than that, I have no idea what it actually was.

You are getting closer ross. It was very likely about the diameter of a baseball or a little larger but didn't extend only 8 to 10 inches. It extended from the ground to above the height of the hood (or higher). It was not made of metal. Something like a tree.

Bill

WTF-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
You are getting closer ross. It was very likely about the diameter of a baseball or a little larger but didn't extend only 8 to 10 inches. It extended from the ground to above the height of the hood (or higher). It was not made of metal. Something like a tree.
Bill

Well, I don't mean 8 to 10 inches from the ground. I mean something like a stub from a tree would be sticking out about that many inches from the base of the tree.

Dawn wrote:

<quoted text>
If the expert doesn't have photos. Could you please take the trip from Littleton to Twin Mountain to get some closer shots? For the good of the group this would be much appreciated. Also - did we ever find out of H1 had a hitch? I drive a ford explorer and they do sit high.

I would not knowingly go within 20 miles of that fu**ing car if you paid me 1 million dollars. I want nothing to do with any evidence or possible evidence or to meet any of the people involved in this abortion. There was a time when I would have gladly been involved with the SAR aspect of this disappearance, as I have others searches, not anymore, not for years.

I had an explorer also and know how high they sit. The damage was NOT caused by a metal on metal collision. Anyone else who would like to take more photos and post them. Under the car as well as pulling back things checking first to see if the damage was caused by the crash or the car being moved or the years it has sat there are welcome to try. I would prefer to see the "experts" photos and hear his explanation why he came to the conclusion he has.

Bill

WTF-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I would not knowingly go within 20 miles of that fu**ing car if you paid me 1 million dollars. I want nothing to do with any evidence or possible evidence or to meet any of the people involved in this abortion. There was a time when I would have gladly been involved with the SAR aspect of this disappearance, as I have others searches, not anymore, not for years.
I had an explorer also and know how high they sit. The damage was NOT caused by a metal on metal collision. Anyone else who would like to take more photos and post them. Under the car as well as pulling back things checking first to see if the damage was caused by the crash or the car being moved or the years it has sat there are welcome to try. I would prefer to see the "experts" photos and hear his explanation why he came to the conclusion he has.
Bill

Not you Bill.. k-9 he is the one in littleton. gheez.

Dawn wrote:

<quoted text>
Not you Bill.. k-9 he is the one in littleton. gheez.

OK. I have and still drive through or near that area somewhat frequently. I thought you were referring to me.

But like I said...

Bill

On a good note, at least that piece of s**t Steven Hayes was found guilty. It should take no time to judge him requiring a quick trip back to the manufacturer as a defective product. Hopefully very soon. His partner is next. Should be another easy trial considering the amount of evidence they have on him as well. Two of the most useless pieces of s**t to ever walk the face of the planet.

Unfortunately, it doesn't bring what appears to be three very productive, totally innocent citizens back.

If it was up to me I'd give the father three days and nights with both of them tied up and the father with nothing but an ice pick and a can of lighter fluid to do what he wanted. But, we are now "civilized", we can't be doing things like that.

Bill

The gloves were on the list of items recovered from the car. I do not know if they were in the passenger compartment or the trunk. I would guess they would be in front with the person they belonged to.
I do have pix of the Haverhill cruiser and will be putting them up for viewing soon. These pix are t just confirm the fact that the Explorer does have a tow hitch. They do not in any way insinuate any wrong doing by LE.
Ross....
The car did not hit the tree or trees as the accident report shows 3 trees. It did not happen, the damage to the car is just not consistent with hitting a tree. I have seen the car firsthand several times.
The damage to the car was not done by the towing company. They use a flatbed rolloff truck and only hook the winch under the vehicle to the frame.

WATERBURY, Vt.(AP)— Vermont State Police say a body found by hunters over the weekend is that of a missing 78-year-old grandmother.

Police announced Tuesday that an autopsy concluded the body is that of Pat O'Hagan of Sheffield.

The manner of death was ruled a homicide, but police wouldn't release the cause of death.

The body was found in Wheelock, Vt., about 10 miles from O'Hagan's Sheffield, Vt., home. She was reported missing Sept. 11 and police believe she was abducted.

Few new details were revealed at a news conference Tuesday afternoon. State Police Major Ed Ledo said police know the cause of death, but were not going to say for fear of compromising the investigation.

Police said it would be several weeks before the results of a toxicology report was complete. O'Hagan's body was identified using dental records.

Ledo would not say whether there was a suspect or suspects.

----=-=-=-
I hope they catch the animal who did this.

K-9 handler wrote:

The gloves were on the list of items recovered from the car. I do not know if they were in the passenger compartment or the trunk.

So the answer is unknown. Don’t know how long they were there If they are a mans or womans. Who they might have belonged to. Or even where they were located.

K-9 handler wrote:

I do have pix of the Haverhill cruiser and will be putting them up for viewing soon. These pix are t just confirm the fact that the Explorer does have a tow hitch.

I have seen it. You can put a hitch on just about any vehicle. The picture has been shown before. I am not sure what it proves other than you can put a hitch on a Explorer. I hope we are not doing the whole trailer hitch thing again. I thought we wasted plenty of time on that before.

K-9 handler wrote:

The car did not hit the tree or trees as the accident report shows 3 trees. It did not happen, the damage to the car is just not consistent with hitting a tree. I have seen the car firsthand several times.
The damage to the car was not done by the towing company. They use a flatbed rolloff truck and only hook the winch under the vehicle to the frame.

The officer on the scene. Has a sketch he made at the scene. It shows trees and the car tracks. The car tracks go to the trees at an incoming angle and have a reflection angle from where the car bounced back off of the trees. That and the damage to the car make me believe that is how the damage occurred. I have that accident report filled out by the officer on the scene. If anyone wants it, let me know. If anyone has a place to put it, I’ll be happy to do that. If anyone wants I can see about putting on Advocates site.

Bill

I explained about the gloves.

Someone asked about a pix.

The car did not hit the tree. No Sorry, just didn't happen.

Goodbye and Good luck