Maura Murray

Dawn wrote:

Red truck.......... red herring or not....... Do we have a year of the truck? i know wooden slats.. but what year?

I never saw a year of the truck noted by RO. She did spend a couple weeks looking for this truck. It was the day of the 2006 search by PI's that she posted the report of the red truck info. Following this report she did an interview with the NHSP trooper whom she knew and was in that area, the night of 2/09/04; I believe it was for a college paper she was working on. IMO, RO was a reliable witness on that night.

Anne wrote:

<quoted text>We do not know her destination that night. We do not know she was drinking. I believe she knew exactly where she was headed. You're right when you state the crash changed her plans IMO.

You and I will need to disagree. She was drinking, even her family finally conceded that was very likely. What we don't know was her state of inebriation. I think it likely, like her father said that she was headed to Bartlett but we don't know that for sure. Even Fred says that was where she was headed so you can argue with him about that.

I don't doubt she knew where she wanted to go, I'm less convinced she knew how to get there and the family hasn't said anything to convince me she knew what she was doing.

Bill

Anne wrote:

<quoted text>Thank you elsewhere, I understand your point. I also get the screaming headache.

You and EWB, I'll tell you what I tell my boys. Tylenol for headaches, Midol for cramps.

Don't forget, its just entertainment, nothing to get excited about.

Personally, I have found these last few months very calming. Very little activity. Mostly reasonable questions. Very, very little activity from the hemorrhoid. The primary goal of mine.

Bill

WTF-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Before you go, could you explain what you mean by "Both of which differed." What differed and how? He made two opposing statements or he said different things at different times? I don't know what that means.
Is it possible for you to post that on a site or email it to me?
Thanks,
Bill

Hi Bill,

Dr. Godwin reviewed both Maura and Brianna's cases.

He stated that the person(s) responsible for Brianna's disappearances were likely persons who knew her and were local.

In Maura's case he stated Maura's was a stranger abduction, a crime of oppportunity. There's more but HP Alberelli Jr. has written an extensive article about Maura's and Brianna's disappearance that is still available on the internet. I believe that article quotes Godwin's opinions as well as the opinions of other experts, one of which was a former criminal profiler for the FBI who requested to remain anonymous.

oops correction:

It's H.P. Albarelli Jr.

peace out.........

If Maura just walked east and got into a car, why would we have a 350lb SBD running into his house to call 911, which of course is the infamous Hanover call that was not to released.

Evidentiary, evidently.

elsewherebriefly wrote:

oops correction:
It's H.P. Albarelli Jr.
peace out.........

Thanks EWB, I found one article and read it last night. I'll look for others.

Bill

mcsmom wrote:

If Maura just walked east and got into a car, why would we have a 350lb SBD running into his house to call 911, which of course is the infamous Hanover call that was not to released.
Evidentiary, evidently.

I guess I don't understand the statement. Are you questioning SBD's call, or Maura heading East or something else?

Bill

mcsmom wrote:

If Maura just walked east and got into a car, why would we have a 350lb SBD running into his house to call 911, which of course is the infamous Hanover call that was not to released.
Evidentiary, evidently.

Mrs. W-Man evidently stopped looking when she saw "the girl" with the SBD....so when SBD left and "ran" up to the house to call police, he had to have run the whole thing by Barbara,(so she'd know what to say) and then got back on his bus while SHE made the call. I don't know what you mean by this, will you please explain?

Oh, and the other neighbors saw the car backing up parallel to the road, maybe to get away from the trees and out of the ditch after SBD left. Also there was a flurry of activity at the trunk, they said. And they would know because of the car facing west, the trunk would be mostly what they saw. They also said someone was walking around the car.

Meanwhile, Mrs. W-Man was able to say that she just saw "the girl" at the car 1-2 minutes before police came. CS came rushing over to ask where "the girl was, the one with the rag in her tailpipe". That's what she said in an interview. Why say it like that? Where's the girl might be enough info for someone who was a distance away and in her house. I'm thinking more had to be said and this comment is getting too much attention from whatever the conversation was.

My point is if you release one log, why not the other?

There was an inital 911 call made by SBD, Hanover dispatch called back and spoke to Barbara, evidently SBD was back on the bus.

The Hanover log is not being released because it is evidence in an ongoing investigation.

What could have been said on that 911 call that would lend itself part of the investigation?

elsewherebriefly wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Bill,
Dr. Godwin reviewed both Maura and Brianna's cases.
He stated that the person(s) responsible for Brianna's disappearances were likely persons who knew her and were local.
In Maura's case he stated Maura's was a stranger abduction, a crime of oppportunity. There's more but HP Alberelli Jr. has written an extensive article about Maura's and Brianna's disappearance that is still available on the internet. I believe that article quotes Godwin's opinions as well as the opinions of other experts, one of which was a former criminal profiler for the FBI who requested to remain anonymous.

link to the article
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/A...

mcsmom wrote:

My point is if you release one log, why not the other?
There was an inital 911 call made by SBD, Hanover dispatch called back and spoke to Barbara, evidently SBD was back on the bus.
The Hanover log is not being released because it is evidence in an ongoing investigation.
What could have been said on that 911 call that would lend itself part of the investigation?

Thanks.. I totally forgot about the "other log" You're right. What could be in the transcripts.. something obviously and not just - there is a car off the road. If that was the case it would have been released.

mcsmom - where does Hanover roll up to? is it a different county?

mcsmom wrote:

My point is if you release one log, why not the other?
There was an inital 911 call made by SBD, Hanover dispatch called back and spoke to Barbara, evidently SBD was back on the bus.
The Hanover log is not being released because it is evidence in an ongoing investigation.
What could have been said on that 911 call that would lend itself part of the investigation?

OK, someone is confused. It could be me. I thought that SBD tried calling 911. The call couldn't go through because of the network was tied up. He tried for a while and then called Hanover dispatch (maybe on the routine line??) or had someone call it. They transferred the information to Haverhill by radio or phone I don't know.

I also don't know if the Hanover log was ever requested. It wouldn't seem to me to have any information of actual use. The Hanover dispatcher says in the dispatch record that the line was tied up that SBD was calling on which verifies his statement.

Bill

Peri wrote to Stelzin, and she recieved a letter from his office.

Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:16 am Post subject: Strelzin's letter

Just received word from Strelzin, that the Hanover logs have not been
released with the others because they are evidentiary, these are not
his exact words, but these logs will not be forthcoming, they have been
exempt from freedom of information.

we are wearing purple today for the 7 young boys who committed suicide due to bulling and are gay.. and they passed out purple ribbons.

I need to email Kelli....... we a national day for the missing.. maybe it already exists.. if so I work for fortune 100 company and celebrate diversity .. its not recognized here. I will do what I can to make it happen at least here where i work. I will let you know what I find out from project jason.

with facebook/twitter the word can really get out quickly...

mcsmom wrote:

Peri wrote to Stelzin, and she recieved a letter from his office.
Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:16 am Post subject: Strelzin's letter
Just received word from Strelzin, that the Hanover logs have not been
released with the others because they are evidentiary, these are not
his exact words, but these logs will not be forthcoming, they have been
exempt from freedom of information.

This might have been because of the lawsuit is my thought. I suspect that once the lawsuit was filed everything related to her was considered evidentiary. In lawsuits attorneys generally use very broad brushes rather than risk releasing something that they don't want released.

Normally, at least in CT, logs are available for anyone to look through. The state police log is available in the front lobby, anyone can look through it the following day.

Bill

The Grafton county log was released as a result of the lawsuit. Hanover was excluded because of evidentiary value.

LE has firm statements they will not deviate from

SHE INTENDED TO LEAVE

SHE HAD STRESS FROM PERSONAL ISSUES

and nice add EWB.. we know the police HAVE names of other witnesses - however, they won't give tht info to her dad... now. why is that? what could have been conveyed in that short amount of time.

beagle.......... what do you know about

charles river labs?