just me
United States
|
Lost and not found wrote: Don't you folks think that the investigators have all of the knowledge known..? Much more than the speculation that exists on this silly blog.... No, it doesn't appear that way. And just like police, they are willing to track down anything that might be of help.
|
Since: Nov 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
just me wrote: I can tell you I read it somewhere in the news in those earliest days and then I never saw it again. My recall was that it was a woman who spoke with Maura about calling AAA and was removed from the scene of the weathered barn. Like it happened BEFORE she got there. I remember it well because of what was going on for me at the time. Why would anyone eliminate this from view? Maybe it was confirmed and the person could not have been Maura, or the person was never to be found again so they dropped it? It's something like the cottage hospital witness claiming an earlier time going by a scene with noone around. In a different location mind you. Well, here we are again. A conspiracy that never happened. This is how the conspiricy theories start. Someone thinks they remember a non-existant article about someone who was at the crash scene and this article has now been squashed. Seems mysterious. If it did exist, and I am not saying it did. It may have been inaccurate and that is why it was never repeated. I have been here since the first MMM forum. The only "couple" who had any involvement with seeing Maura is as I remember, the two who viewed the accident scene from their home. They never went to the car. The only person to have contact with Maura at the crash scene was SBD. And no SBD and his wife were not a couple because SBD's wife as far as I remember never saw Maura. If these other people existed I don't remember EVER hearing about them. Anyone remember any other person/couple who talked with Maura at the crash scene? The only woman that talked to Maura before the crash was the owner of one of the condo in Bartlett that Maura may have been trying to rent. That woman doesn't remember the conversation with Maura if it took place. Bill
|
Since: Nov 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Lost and not found wrote: Don't you folks think that the investigators have all of the knowledge known..? Much more than the speculation that exists on this silly blog.... Yes they do and more. Remember, this is for entertainment purposes. A few of us stay to help keep things from spinning out of control with innuendo that eventually seems to become fact and at least one person who has made it her mission to malign the people of the area with lies and twists in logic that would make a LSD user blush. She seems under control now but the price to keep her under control is eternal vigilance. Interest in the case still brings people who speculate, sometimes wildly about what might have happened. The latest in this has been the revival of the non-tree collision theory and a fascination with trailer hitches. It is always more useful to imagine that boogey men exist rather than believe that a young woman might have made a bad judgment call. Driven while likely impaired. And then instead of waiting at the car for public safety people, who were on the way. Decided to run from the scene and possibly get a ride to escape from the area. Several of us are still here to help keep some perspective on things and the rumors from running wild. Just think of some of us as fact checkers. Bill
|
just me
Minneapolis, MN
|
WTF-the-original wrote: <quoted text> Well, here we are again. A conspiracy that never happened. This is how the conspiricy theories start. Someone thinks they remember a non-existant article about someone who was at the crash scene and this article has now been squashed. Seems mysterious. If it did exist, and I am not saying it did. It may have been inaccurate and that is why it was never repeated. I have been here since the first MMM forum. The only "couple" who had any involvement with seeing Maura is as I remember, the two who viewed the accident scene from their home. They never went to the car. The only person to have contact with Maura at the crash scene was SBD. And no SBD and his wife were not a couple because SBD's wife as far as I remember never saw Maura. If these other people existed I don't remember EVER hearing about them. Anyone remember any other person/couple who talked with Maura at the crash scene? The only woman that talked to Maura before the crash was the owner of one of the condo in Bartlett that Maura may have been trying to rent. That woman doesn't remember the conversation with Maura if it took place. Bill It wasn't that this woman spoke to Maura at the crash scene by the WB. PI's keep implying there were two accidents in that area. Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. But I did read it Bill, and I agree it may have been dropped because it didn't matter. People come on to this Topix ever so often to bring certain things up, AGAIN. I fall for it everytime. This doesn't really entertain me though and it's a drag when people veer away from the topic at hand. There were two couples that witnessed the accident. One we know well, and the other who saw the flurry of activity while peeling the orange. Her husband,(the orange peeler), was the one who commented on the way SBD parked his bus. When a PI comes here and seems confused about what's what and who's who, I tend to think they could use a brush up as well. Anyway, thanks for pointing this out about the couple or lone woman who stopped at the scene,~ PURELY SPECULATION and of little no no importance.
|
just me
Minneapolis, MN
|
WTF-the-original wrote: <quoted text> Yes they do and more. Remember, this is for entertainment purposes. A few of us stay to help keep things from spinning out of control with innuendo that eventually seems to become fact and at least one person who has made it her mission to malign the people of the area with lies and twists in logic that would make a LSD user blush. She seems under control now but the price to keep her under control is eternal vigilance. Interest in the case still brings people who speculate, sometimes wildly about what might have happened. The latest in this has been the revival of the non-tree collision theory and a fascination with trailer hitches. It is always more useful to imagine that boogey men exist rather than believe that a young woman might have made a bad judgment call. Driven while likely impaired. And then instead of waiting at the car for public safety people, who were on the way. Decided to run from the scene and possibly get a ride to escape from the area. Several of us are still here to help keep some perspective on things and the rumors from running wild. Just think of some of us as fact checkers. Bill The people who do this on the forum are the ones who believe there was a first accident, that the car didn't get damaged right there. They seem to want to imply boogie men for the most part. Agreed?
|
Since: Nov 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
just me wrote: <quoted text>It wasn't that this woman spoke to Maura at the crash scene by the WB. PI's keep implying there were two accidents in that area. Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. But I did read it Bill, and I agree it may have been dropped because it didn't matter. People come on to this Topix ever so often to bring certain things up, AGAIN. I fall for it everytime. This doesn't really entertain me though and it's a drag when people veer away from the topic at hand. There were two couples that witnessed the accident. One we know well, and the other who saw the flurry of activity while peeling the orange. Her husband,(the orange peeler), was the one who commented on the way SBD parked his bus. When a PI comes here and seems confused about what's what and who's who, I tend to think they could use a brush up as well. Anyway, thanks for pointing this out about the couple or lone woman who stopped at the scene,~ PURELY SPECULATION and of little no no importance. OK, now I get what you are talking about. There was a poster here who absolutely swears that there was a report of a previous accident that she heard on the scanner. That is where the speculation of a prior accident came from. No one, to my knowledge has been able to prove a prior accident or that Maura was involved. I as well as some others have advanced the theory that IF there was an earlier accident, it might have been Maura. And that her fleeing that accident caused the second accident. All of that is speculative because none of the logs listed the previous accident or anyone being dispatched for a previous accident to my knowledge. For what that is worth. Bill
|
Since: Nov 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
just me wrote: <quoted text>The people who do this on the forum are the ones who believe there was a first accident, that the car didn't get damaged right there. They seem to want to imply boogie men for the most part. Agreed? Well there is no proof that the first accident occurred but the person who claims she heard it on the scanner is adamant about the time and location of that incident. There is no other proof. I do know I have been to more than one accident scene where the person was intoxicated and they had a previous accident and then running hard from that first accident they had another accident sometimes worse than the first accident. Again, all speculation in this case and no evidence (the logs etc) to confirm that this happened or that it was Maura involved in a prior accident occurred. Bill
|
Euroobserver
Eskilstuna, Sweden
|
If only more or less established "facts" are allowed to be regurgitated on these pages, then this Topix thread might just as well shut down for good. Some speculative theories surely must be "allowed" here in order to keep the ideas flowing! Fact-checkers are a good thing, but implied censorship of what is deemed allowed to write here...NOT so! That smacks way too much of the old MMM forums, where divergent opinions, theories and discussions were discouraged. I can see a similar development slowly appearing on this Topix forum as well and I deplore that. Topix is supposed to be free of moderators, but I guess itīs human nature to try to influence the way discussions and debates are going...
|
Sara
Hamilton, Bermuda
|
Judged:
2
1
Euroobserver wrote: If only more or less established "facts" are allowed to be regurgitated on these pages, then this Topix thread might just as well shut down for good. Some speculative theories surely must be "allowed" here in order to keep the ideas flowing! Fact-checkers are a good thing, but implied censorship of what is deemed allowed to write here...NOT so! That smacks way too much of the old MMM forums, where divergent opinions, theories and discussions were discouraged. I can see a similar development slowly appearing on this Topix forum as well and I deplore that. Topix is supposed to be free of moderators, but I guess itīs human nature to try to influence the way discussions and debates are going... There is one person in particular that seems to want to control the way conversation goes, won't mention any names here.
|
Since: Nov 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Euroobserver wrote: If only more or less established "facts" are allowed to be regurgitated on these pages, then this Topix thread might just as well shut down for good. Some speculative theories surely must be "allowed" here in order to keep the ideas flowing! Fact-checkers are a good thing, but implied censorship of what is deemed allowed to write here...NOT so! That smacks way too much of the old MMM forums, where divergent opinions, theories and discussions were discouraged. I can see a similar development slowly appearing on this Topix forum as well and I deplore that. Topix is supposed to be free of moderators, but I guess itīs human nature to try to influence the way discussions and debates are going... No one is preventing speculation. BUT, it should be listed as speculation. You want to consider the UFO theory, go ahead, just label it as theory and then back it up with your facts. As far as mentioning names, mention any names you want. My voice cannot be any louder than any others. If it seems that it is, it may be that I back up what I say with facts. Bill
|
mcsmom
Hebron, CT
|
I'm trying to recall the exact circumstances.... I believe there was an article where LE stated "witnesses" spoke to Maura and referred to a women as being one of the witnesses, another witness of course is SBD. SBD claimed the girl did not appear intoxicated, and stated so in several interviews. Other reports suggested that witnesses claimed the girl appeared intoxicated. The fat question is: Did SBD switch his claim about her being intoxicated or was there in fact another witness that spoke to Maura? I believe in his last phone interview for the Hanson series, SBD claimed she did not appear intoxicated.
|
Dawn
Monroe, LA
|
WTF-the-original wrote: <quoted text> Well, here we are again. A conspiracy that never happened. This is how the conspiricy theories start. Someone thinks they remember a non-existant article about someone who was at the crash scene and this article has now been squashed. Seems mysterious. If it did exist, and I am not saying it did. It may have been inaccurate and that is why it was never repeated. I have been here since the first MMM forum. The only "couple" who had any involvement with seeing Maura is as I remember, the two who viewed the accident scene from their home. They never went to the car. The only person to have contact with Maura at the crash scene was SBD. And no SBD and his wife were not a couple because SBD's wife as far as I remember never saw Maura. If these other people existed I don't remember EVER hearing about them. Anyone remember any other person/couple who talked with Maura at the crash scene? The only woman that talked to Maura before the crash was the owner of one of the condo in Bartlett that Maura may have been trying to rent. That woman doesn't remember the conversation with Maura if it took place. Bill and again another opportunity that technology could have proved if she talked to them or not. The local telco- of the condo unit could have checked to see if they received and incoming call from her wireless number - and it would have shown on their end the total number of minutes and time. Did that match up to Maura's wireless bill ? Where there other calls from UMASS to that number - perhaps using a calling card. For Vermont - that is either ATT/Verizon land - the landline calls would most likely be aable to be still traced today - for their POTS lines - regular phone - us carriers still use only archiac legacy systems........ they store everything and then some.. dont think it was ever done and doubt they will do it today either/
|
just me
Minneapolis, MN
|
Dawn wrote: <quoted text> and again another opportunity that technology could have proved if she talked to them or not. The local telco- of the condo unit could have checked to see if they received and incoming call from her wireless number - and it would have shown on their end the total number of minutes and time. Did that match up to Maura's wireless bill ? Where there other calls from UMASS to that number - perhaps using a calling card. For Vermont - that is either ATT/Verizon land - the landline calls would most likely be aable to be still traced today - for their POTS lines - regular phone - us carriers still use only archiac legacy systems........ they store everything and then some.. dont think it was ever done and doubt they will do it today either/ This is a good, solid lead for police and PI's to follow up on. Also related would be getting that lost voicemail back, the one that Billy saw fit to delete. Once and for all, was this Maura?
|
hannah_b
Sweden
|
WTF-the-original wrote: <quoted text> The only woman that talked to Maura before the crash was the owner of one of the condo in Bartlett that Maura may have been trying to rent. That woman doesn't remember the conversation with Maura if it took place. Bill The only one WE have been told about. Since Fred KNEW Maura was headed to Bartlett, they must have found something that has not been made public.
|
Since: Nov 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
hannah_b wrote: <quoted text> The only one WE have been told about. Since Fred KNEW Maura was headed to Bartlett, they must have found something that has not been made public. That is possible but since WE don't know that, YOU can't state that as fact. Fred said he KNEW that Maura was headed there, likely because they had spent so much time there in the past. WE don't know that there was any other reason he said that other than a fathers intuition. Bill
|
hannah_b
Sweden
|
Article by Gary Lindsley in The Caledonian Record, Feb 13, 2004:
"Witnesses who saw the accident told the police they had seen a lone woman. They also said it didnīt appear the woman had been injured in the accident. When THEY ASKED if she needed help or the police, she reportedly said, "No". She left the scene before police and EMS arrived."
"Witnesses" in the first two sentences seem to refer to the W-mans. But the witnesses in plural referred to in the third sentence, that are said to have spoken to Maura, must refer to other people and not just the lone SBD.
|
Since: Nov 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Try to keep down your excitement but I will be heading up to the NH residence again so will be unavailable for a while. I will try to catch up when I get there. Looking forward to a little relaxation in my favorite state. Been a crappy week. We need some down time. No fears, or worries. Just tranquility, beautiful colors and the sounds of nature.
You all have a sparkling weekend.
Oh, and fruits, nuts, berries would be appreciated for the trip. Be kind, don't be stingy.
I love all you wacky forumites. Well, most of you.
Bill
|
hannah_b
Sweden
|
There is another article which I canīt access in the Caledonian Record, published on June 16, 2004, titled "State police discard runaway theory". Anyone remember what their reasons were?
|
hannah_b
Sweden
|
Have a great weekend, Bill!
|
hannah_b
Sweden
|
WTF-the-original wrote: <quoted text> That is possible but since WE don't know that, YOU can't state that as fact. Fred said he KNEW that Maura was headed there, likely because they had spent so much time there in the past. WE don't know that there was any other reason he said that other than a fathers intuition. Bill Youīre right (as always!). And Iīm not stating anything as a fact. Fred expressed himself AS IF he knew. Which I of course donīt know if he did.
|
|