Maura Murray

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm confused. You are saying you don't believe this? I just told you I have personally witnessed a 120 pound deer disappear in 3 days. I think that the only reason that a 1000 pound moose would actually last three weeks is because of the skittishness of animals around the roadway.
Bill

oops...i was just typing a similar message below.

so, if she wasn't in the corolla, was it some other girl that went back to Freds motel room from the crash and he did't know it wasn't Maura? I don't think so.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, the accident report says she was driving. This is excellent indication that Maura was at the scene of the Corolla crash when the responding officer showed up. But it doesn't mean she was driving. Maura may have been a passenger. Maura may have been up the street at SW and someone else may have crashed the Corolla and then called Maura to come down and cover for him/her.
There has also been reported - only reported - that thee was difference of about an hour from time Maura left the little party at SW to the time of the Corolla crash. The driving time from SW to the Corolla crash scene is maybe two minutes.

An easy jog back to retrieve her phone at the party....

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm confused. You are saying you don't believe this? I just told you I have personally witnessed a 120 pound deer disappear in 3 days. I think that the only reason that a 1000 pound moose would actually last three weeks is because of the skittishness of animals around the roadway.
Bill

I'm not saying she didn't kill herself in the woods, I'm saying that it comes off highly unlikely to me that she ran off into the woods with her backpack of alchol and started popping pills with mississippi mudslides and died. I just see other more simple explanations.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>Tom it takes about 3 weeks for an approximate 1000 lb moose to disappear after being killed by an automobile and left on the side of the road. Nothing left, not even one bone. That is a true fact.
F&G will push a carcass off the road if it isn't in view of the public or near homes and let nature take care of it. It will feed bobcats, bear, coyotes, fox, turkey vultures and several other species of wildlife. Just throwing this out for whatever it's worth.

once i really understood and comprehended this information, i could let go of believing she is just hidden from view for nearly 8 years, and simply hasn't been discovered. the fact that nature takes its course, without exception, suggests to me the real possibility that if she ever did enter woods, anywhere....in NH, VT, MA or ME, it is unlikely she would be found....maybe even 2-3 years into her disappearance. hard facts and realities.

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not saying she didn't kill herself in the woods, I'm saying that it comes off highly unlikely to me that she ran off into the woods with her backpack of alchol and started popping pills with mississippi mudslides and died. I just see other more simple explanations.

Got you. I don't know for certain if she intended to ORIGINALLY go to NH to commit suicide but it is possible. I do think that she was already on the edge with stresses in her life. What I think is also possible is that the crash may have pushed her over the edge and either intentionally, she went to commit suicide from the car accident or accidentally she ran off, got lost in the woods and succumbed to hypothermia are both possibilities.

Bill

other items such as her coat/shoes backpack or booze would take longer to decompose than the body

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not saying she didn't kill herself in the woods, I'm saying that it comes off highly unlikely to me that she ran off into the woods with her backpack of alchol and started popping pills with mississippi mudslides and died. I just see other more simple explanations.

Interesting, because quite frankly that is the absolute most likely, simpliest explanation. Perhaps not to you, based on yout experience in whatever you do and whatever you have seen in your life.

However, having done this for 22 years, it is the most likely, most plausible explanation of what happened to Maura, that she is on those woods somewhere dead.

I have said it before, I will repeat. My estimate, and the estimate of those who have also worked this case, is that it is about 98% likely she perished alone in those woods. About 1.5% she was abducted and killed, and only about .5% she is alive living a life somewhere under an assumed name.

Thats pretty darn accurate, I think your experience may be lacking.

Just my opinion.

Outside air temperatures can impact the decomposition process. Warmer outside temperatures in late spring, summer, and early fall stimulate bacteria and speed up decomposition. Low winter temperatures will slow or temporarily stop the composting process.

jwb wrote:

other items such as her coat/shoes backpack or booze would take longer to decompose than the body

This is true, in fact those items would not really decompose at all. They would however be scattered to the extent that considering the scope of the possibly search area, it would be akin to finding a needle in a hay field. Thats the part that is so hard to translate to people who have never been party to a wilderness search, the scope and magnitude of that area is enormous and finding small items becomes nearly impossible.

Again, remember the article I referenced where the elderly woman from Waterville Valley walked into her backyard and disappeared? She was searched for by hundreds of people within hours of when she went missing and the seacrh continued nearly 24/7 for weeks after.

She was finally discovered by accident 7 weeks later less than 2 miles from where she went missing.

Now multiply that area by about 1000. Thats kind of my point, what seems like it should be easy to find is in fact nearly impossible to find due to the size of the area.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting, because quite frankly that is the absolute most likely, simpliest explanation. Perhaps not to you, based on yout experience in whatever you do and whatever you have seen in your life.
However, having done this for 22 years, it is the most likely, most plausible explanation of what happened to Maura, that she is on those woods somewhere dead.
I have said it before, I will repeat. My estimate, and the estimate of those who have also worked this case, is that it is about 98% likely she perished alone in those woods. About 1.5% she was abducted and killed, and only about .5% she is alive living a life somewhere under an assumed name.
Thats pretty darn accurate, I think your experience may be lacking.
Just my opinion.

If LE feels this certain that she was not abducted( 98.5%) then why are they unwilling to release any information to the family? I am not doubting your logic or opinion , but curious as to an answer to my question.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting, because quite frankly that is the absolute most likely, simpliest explanation. Perhaps not to you, based on yout experience in whatever you do and whatever you have seen in your life.
However, having done this for 22 years, it is the most likely, most plausible explanation of what happened to Maura, that she is on those woods somewhere dead.
I have said it before, I will repeat. My estimate, and the estimate of those who have also worked this case, is that it is about 98% likely she perished alone in those woods. About 1.5% she was abducted and killed, and only about .5% she is alive living a life somewhere under an assumed name.
Thats pretty darn accurate, I think your experience may be lacking.
Just my opinion.

I just don't understand why she would run that deep into the woods to avoid the police. The woods deep enough to hide on the outskirts of the road.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
No nerves. Just common sense and a liberal application of Occam.
Bill

I am so sick of you spouting off about "OCCAM"....Why don't You think for Yourself. The narrow minded take awhile to get things. Just saying.

John

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
I am so sick of you spouting off about "OCCAM"....Why don't You think for Yourself. The narrow minded take awhile to get things. Just saying.
John

Without OCCAM's Razor we would have to be explainging to people that Bigfoot didn't pick her up at the car accident and run off into the woods. And then when we would say Bigfoot doesn't exist we would be asked to prove that he doesn't exist.

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
If LE feels this certain that she was not abducted( 98.5%) then why are they unwilling to release any information to the family? I am not doubting your logic or opinion , but curious as to an answer to my question.

Because until they find a body it is still an open investigation, that's how it works. What benefit would there be to releasing the information? So the keyboard detectives and internet superslueths can figure it all out on then interwebz?

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
I just don't understand why she would run that deep into the woods to avoid the police. The woods deep enough to hide on the outskirts of the road.

I don't think she ran that deep into the woods to avoid the police, I think she went into the woods to be alone at the end. This is exactly what her father first thought when contacted by the HPD.

Either that or she went into the woods with the intent to commit suicide and got lost and/or disoriented in the dark and was unable to get out before she succumbed to the elements.

Those are the two most likely scenarios IMO.

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
I am so sick of you spouting off about "OCCAM"....Why don't You think for Yourself. The narrow minded take awhile to get things. Just saying.
John

If I was listening to you, I wouldn't know shit, would I? I have been trained in physics, higher math and the physical sciences as a mechanical engineer. I have programed computers professionally for decades. They follow strict rules of logic. I can smell bullshit from miles away.

What really strikes me as incredibly odd is someone who is supposed to be a professional investigator is offended by one of the most basic of rules of logical thought.

Strange indeed.

Bill

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
So an animal walks off with her body. I'm assuming that there would be blood for a dog to track. Scattered bones would leave more of a scent. You can make up almost every theory and say almost anything could have happen. "With large predators and/or scavengers in the area two nights is more than enough time" You know are a zoologist to be able to tell me how an animal can destroy a body and leave nothing behind.
I thought we were going along with Occam's Razor and looking for more plausable scenarios. So a predator walks off with her body and than hides it bones and all from the police and search parties.

Tom, why don´t you google it.

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
I am so sick of you spouting off about "OCCAM"....Why don't You think for Yourself. The narrow minded take awhile to get things. Just saying.
John

Again, I continue to repeat that I just don't believe for a second you were ever a cop or are a PI.

Think for yourself? Narrow Minded? You sound like one of those wacko conspiracy theorists, UFO's, BigFoot, etc.. I refuse to believe you are what you claim to be, sorry but I do.

Back on topic, look obviously, anything is possible. It is possible that Maura was not driving that night in Haverhill, but it is extremely unlikely. Less than .001% based on the circumstances and the ID by Butch. So it is possible, anything is possible, but really is it worth discussing?

I mean, why not consider that Maura was kidnapped weeks before at UMass by scientists performing cloning experiments?

Why not consider that she was in fact killed in a tragic sperlunking accident at West Point and the Army was covering up by using a stand in lookalike?

Or perhaps she was in fact a CIA operative who needed to disapear to perform sensitive wet work in the Mid East?

Right? Why not consider every and any possibility? Think for yourself, don't be narrow minded right?

Or......Perhaps this is the way the logical, intelligent mind works when faced with an unkown. Maybe the mind analyzes and assesses the MOST LIKELY possibilities, based on available knowledge and past experience and makes determinations of likely possibilites to pursue those theories until either exhausted or proven correct.

Scientific analysis is the foundation and basis of all human knowledge because it works.

jwb wrote:

so, if she wasn't in the corolla, was it some other girl that went back to Freds motel room from the crash and he did't know it wasn't Maura? I don't think so.

She may have been a passenger in the Corolla and the driver left or Maura may have switched places with her. Or him. Maura may not have been drunk or very drunk. She may have taken the place of the driver before Hadley PD arrived. Then, if news accounts are correct, she would have gone with the tow truck driver to the motel. That's very obvious.

I can understand Maura having crashed the Corolla if this was the first time she took that route. Or if she was drunk. Or if she was texting, maybe. But it's not a route that you would take, especially if your trip was important, if you had never taken it before. She would almost certain taken University Dr to Russell St. to the motel.

The assertion you made was that if the responding officer ID'd Maura then she must have been driving the Corolla and therefore proceeded to the motel with the tow truck driver. Obviously, Maura almost definitely went to the motel with the tow truck driver. No one is disputing that. But that does not mean she was driving the car. It only means that she told the Hadley officer that she was the driver. Who knows what else she may have told him.

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
How am I clueless? You just state the body is ripped up. Like what do the animals do rip it up into easy to carry pieces? There would be evidence of a body being ripped up. Someone just stated that they used dogs to smell for dead bodies. If an animal can smell her dead body then so should a trained dog. Where as this theory of "animals breaking her up into easy to carry pieces without leaving a trace" is plausable I think it is doubtful. I thought we were focusing on more likely scenarios.

A search dog is trained to ONLY go for the scent of living people. The dead body or parts of it would have been traceable only if they searched with a specially trained cadaver dog, a dog trained to ONLY respond to the scent of human remains (blood even if degraded does not contain cadaverine), and of course the cadaver dog would have to be used in the right location. I believe we can assume with a fair degree of safety that IF Maura´s body is somewhere out in the woods, it is nowhere near where the car ended up. I have worked with SAR dogs for close to 15 years, my instructor had done work with cadaver dogs, and we had classes about cadaver dogs as well.