Maura Murray

Hey. I am starting to notice a pattern.

No matter what I write. No matter how well thought out and logical. Someone, is giving me peanuts and clueless bulbs. The peanuts are yummy. Not sure what to do with bulbs that don't light or spam.

Anyway, they better stop that because I am easily intimated and I bruise very easily and have no staying power.

Oh, wait a minute. That's not me, that's you. Never-mind.

Bill

K-9 handler wrote:

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

Yes, the explanation is we know nothing about the gloves. Where they came from, who they belonged to, where they were in the car or for how long. That is the explanation.

The car did hit the tree. It is reported in CS police report as hitting the tree. The sketch of the scene by the officer on the scene says the tire tracks go into the snow to the tree and bounce off the tree and the car ends near those tracks. Unless someone can prove otherwise. With something other than speculation. The car did hit the tree.

We have a tendency, maybe because it is the internet, to do things backwards. The simplest explication for the damage to the car is written in a report by a police officer, a person "with no dog in the fight" and his report comes to the conclusion, based upon some pretty straightforward evidence that the car was damaged in an accident by going off the road with tracks leading to the trees and bouncing off and returning to the roadway where the car tracks also go near. Until someone else, comes forward with compelling evidence, that this is incorrect. That should be the working theory and seems the most likely explanation for the damage.

Trying to reverse logic this by simply stating the current evidence and conclusions are incorrect is not how proper investigations are done. If you have a less reasonable, alternate theory, it is incumbent on you, to prove it. Not the other way around.

Good luck to you also, but I am not going away.

Bill

WTF-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>

Good luck to you also, but I am not going away.
Bill

Why?

Just one more thing before I go.

How come the tree or trees had no damage, but yet the car sustained that much damage? Because the car did not hit the tree or trees.

Confused wrote:

<quoted text>
Why?

I like it here. Keeping facts from getting muddled. It has been my calling ever since Shack kept trying to muddy the waters with innuendo and non sequiturs. It is now my calling.

Bill

K-9 handler wrote:

Just one more thing before I go.
How come the tree or trees had no damage, but yet the car sustained that much damage? Because the car did not hit the tree or trees.

Wasn´t it reported to be some damage to at least one of the trees? IIRC it was in the article by Marybeth Conway.

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. 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.

Are these "your" pictures? Or are you posting WW pictures of the cruiser that she put on advocates site? curious.. thanks

WTF-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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 would like a copy.. pretty sure you have one of these peoples emails.. without posting mine here - please contact and they can give you my email or forward.. thanks

Quija, Mason, Snowy, WW, Whiston, BF and Paris

and advocat of course

K-9 handler wrote:

Just one more thing before I go.
How come the tree or trees had no damage, but yet the car sustained that much damage? Because the car did not hit the tree or trees.

That is what you say. I don't know who verified that or the person that did verify knew what they were looking for. I do know that the officer must have seen something to indicate he thought that the car hit it. It is actually in his report. If I get in that area I would take a look but this many years removed from the event.

Bill

K-9 handler wrote:

Just one more thing before I go.
How come the tree or trees had no damage, but yet the car sustained that much damage? Because the car did not hit the tree or trees.

How come the tire marks went up to the trees?

Dawn wrote:

<quoted text>
I would like a copy.. pretty sure you have one of these peoples emails.. without posting mine here - please contact and they can give you my email or forward.. thanks
Quija, Mason, Snowy, WW, Whiston, BF and Paris

They are the ones that had been posted on the MMM site if I remember correctly. I actually don't have any of their emails. If someone has a throw away email address I can send it to that. The only issue I have is making sure the files are scrubbed of any of my personal information. Other than that I have no problem sending the files out.

Bill

K-9 handler wrote:

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

If the car was damaged earlier then the airbag would have deployed with that amount of damage. Didn't the SBD say the bag was deployed when he first got there? How is it possible that she drove the car after the airbag went off?
Common sense tells me that the car hit the trees on that curve and the airbag went off there.

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
Common sense tells me that the car hit the trees on that curve and the airbag went off there.

Common sense is a very uncommon commodity.

Bill

WTF-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Common sense is a very uncommon commodity.
Bill

It sure is.

K-9 handler wrote:

Just one more thing before I go.
How come the tree or trees had no damage, but yet the car sustained that much damage? Because the car did not hit the tree or trees.

Oh, and there wasn't that much damage to the car. From what I can see I have said before that the damage to the car was pretty light and injury to the occupant would likely be light to none if they were wearing their seat-belt.

Many people don't understand that the deformation of the vehicle is how the car dissipates the energy involved in a crash so that energy isn't transferred to the occupants. The car bends to absorb and dissipate the energy so the occupant don't have to. It saves lives but it also makes messes out of the cars.

Bill

Dawn wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Sorry Dawn I didn't see the car right after the accident.
I think it would be near impossible though for the car to have been driven from an earlier accident. If she had hit something earlier the airbag would have deployed. I believe Butch said it was deployed when he got there. The only conclusion that I see is that the damage happened at that curve and the airbag went off there.JMHO

If the headlights were as cockeyed as they say, I wonder how anyone could have driven the car from a supposed first accident.
There's a pole in the pictures, maybe a warning pole and least likely a mailbox. It's as you approach the turn of the weathered barn, on the side of the W-Mans house. I wondered if the car could have "clipped" that first and then spun out of control. Mr W-Man said it (accidents of this nature), don't happen like that. Would be good to hear more on what that means.

The aibag. It's curious that it could go off in the timeframe in which the SBD came along. Unless it's not accurate, another neighbor said the car backed up parallel to the road. And it was found there, 100 or so ft away. I have no way of knowing if this is correct or not. I'd ask the witness to that what they saw first. A car in the ditch, or up on the road, and if it moved again.

My guess is "they" probably moved the car so "they could get at the contents of the car quicker. The snow down in the ditch would make it hard to do, not to mention cold on someone with no boots. Maybe that's when the rag was inserted, otherwise it would be too hot to touch or stuff a muffler with so little room below you