Maura Murray

mcsmom wrote:

Bill....I think Smith thought she might have been injured because he asked if "she'd shown at Cottage".
"Had they located the party, or had she shown at Cottage"
The interesting word here that he used is "party".
Definition of party as used by law enforcement:
In a police report, the police name each citizen involved in an incident. The officers also note witnesses, bystanders and relatives as parties.
IMO, I think Smith is looking for another witness he knows exists. At this point however, he issues the BOL as her being on foot.
IMO he must have some description of "the party" since he knows they saw something pertaining to the incident.
Monaghan is also looking for someone on foot. As is SBD.

I always expected that checking the hospitals would have been part of the routine in checking for victims of a car crash who left the scene. Party, I believe, can be both single and multiple.

Bill

Bill, yes single and multiple. However, in previous transmissions on the GC log that night, Smith communicates a single person as either subject, passenger, or individual.

mcsmom
do you think since he used "party" he KNOWs there was more than one person? I think that is what you are saying but don't want to put words in your mouth..:-)

WTF...

You don't need to explain it again. I get what You are saying. It still does not change the fact that "Smith released them from the scene" and yes indeed they left the scene. Even IF they left by their decision....Smith told them to go, don't need you.

I have to agree after seeing the pics of the car, going the the scene and actually looking at the car in person that it did not hit a tree or trees. The front lower spoiler is only detatched from the upper valance support and the MAIN DAMAGE to the hood and light is what sustained the most damage.

The Saturn traveling at a rate of speed approximately 25 MPH would have hit the snowbank with the lower spoiler first which would have broken or shattered it in such cold weather. The car would have to jump a 2' snowbank to get to the trees. This did not happen.

If you look Closely at the accident report You will notice that Smiths drawing indicated the vehicle left the roadway from the eastbound lane, went up the snowbank, hit the tree and ended up back in the road, not in the ditch facing westbound in the eastbound lane. This is not possible.

The damage to the vehicle is on the DRIVERS SIDE ONLY, so this would mean the car would have to hit the tree with the drivers side (correct). going by Smiths drawing this is not what occured. The car would have to jump the bank with the nose headed upward and then the car would have to nose dive into the tree. This did not happen.

The damage to the cars spoiler could have been caused by hitting the snowbank but the damage to the light, hood and fender was not caused by hitting the tree or trees. The tree the car SUPPOSEDLY HIT is a large pine tree approx. 30" around and the damage to the hood of the car is DEFINITELY NOT CONSISTENT with hitting a tree especially one as large as the one the Saturn was supposed to have come in contact with.

The damage to the saturn was more likely caused by hitting a mailbox post, truck bumper, guardrail, or some other such shaped object that caused the light assy. and hood to be pushed back at an angle towards the center of the car. The extent and size of the hood damage is not consistent with it hitting a tree or trees. There was no bark or pitch on the vehicle anywhere so this really solidifies the fact that the car did not hit the tree or trees.

Calvin

Calypso Soldier wrote:

I have to agree after seeing the pics of the car, going the the scene and actually looking at the car in person that it did not hit a tree or trees. The front lower spoiler is only detatched from the upper valance support and the MAIN DAMAGE to the hood and light is what sustained the most damage.
The Saturn traveling at a rate of speed approximately 25 MPH would have hit the snowbank with the lower spoiler first which would have broken or shattered it in such cold weather. The car would have to jump a 2' snowbank to get to the trees. This did not happen.
If you look Closely at the accident report You will notice that Smiths drawing indicated the vehicle left the roadway from the eastbound lane, went up the snowbank, hit the tree and ended up back in the road, not in the ditch facing westbound in the eastbound lane. This is not possible.
The damage to the vehicle is on the DRIVERS SIDE ONLY, so this would mean the car would have to hit the tree with the drivers side (correct). going by Smiths drawing this is not what occured. The car would have to jump the bank with the nose headed upward and then the car would have to nose dive into the tree. This did not happen.
The damage to the cars spoiler could have been caused by hitting the snowbank but the damage to the light, hood and fender was not caused by hitting the tree or trees. The tree the car SUPPOSEDLY HIT is a large pine tree approx. 30" around and the damage to the hood of the car is DEFINITELY NOT CONSISTENT with hitting a tree especially one as large as the one the Saturn was supposed to have come in contact with.
The damage to the saturn was more likely caused by hitting a mailbox post, truck bumper, guardrail, or some other such shaped object that caused the light assy. and hood to be pushed back at an angle towards the center of the car. The extent and size of the hood damage is not consistent with it hitting a tree or trees. There was no bark or pitch on the vehicle anywhere so this really solidifies the fact that the car did not hit the tree or trees.
Calvin

Just curios Calvin. When did you see the car? Was it shortly after it happened or recently?
How do you know that it could'nt have happened? If a mailbox post or a guardrail could have done it then why could'nt a smaller tree have caused the damage?

I saw the car shortly after it happened, within a few months.

Well supposedly the tree that Smith marks in his report and shows the family that tree would imply that the saturn hit that tree according to Smith. I don't believe that.

Next : A smaller tree COULD POSSIBLY cause this damage under the right circumstances, but NOT LIKELY AT ALL. You still have the lower spoiler detail to deal with and the fact that EVERYTHING would most likely be pushed in to the extent the hood was. Especially with the large tree.

I have live in New England all my life and have seen plenty of accidents with cars hitting a tree or trees. But I have never come across this type of damage result from hitting a tree.

IF the saturn hit that BIG 30" Pine Tree the damage to the car would be more substantial, such as the light assy. and the upper grille assy. as well as the valence support would have more damage.

There was no glass or parts of the car found at the scene. That is odd.

Where is the fiberglass piece of the drivers side front fender that is broken and gone? It was not at the scene or found in the vehicle.

Calypso Soldier wrote:

I saw the car shortly after it happened, within a few months.
Well supposedly the tree that Smith marks in his report and shows the family that tree would imply that the saturn hit that tree according to Smith. I don't believe that.
Next : A smaller tree COULD POSSIBLY cause this damage under the right circumstances, but NOT LIKELY AT ALL. You still have the lower spoiler detail to deal with and the fact that EVERYTHING would most likely be pushed in to the extent the hood was. Especially with the large tree.
I have live in New England all my life and have seen plenty of accidents with cars hitting a tree or trees. But I have never come across this type of damage result from hitting a tree.
IF the saturn hit that BIG 30" Pine Tree the damage to the car would be more substantial, such as the light assy. and the upper grille assy. as well as the valence support would have more damage.
There was no glass or parts of the car found at the scene. That is odd.

You may want to look at the police report again because the picture shows a stand of three smaller trees that she hit. There were tire impressions in the snow which I would guess shows that her car had contact with the smaller tree. She didn't hit that big pine.
It also states that the witness stated to the police that there was a young girl behind the wheel and no other people in the car. It also says she told the witness not to call the police.
I also have lived in New England all of my life and I've slid off these roads more than once myself.

Calypso Soldier wrote:

Where is the fiberglass piece of the drivers side front fender that is broken and gone? It was not at the scene or found in the vehicle.

And you know this for a fact? Did you ask the tow company or the police to see if they might have taken it?
Did you go back to the scene in the spring after the snow melted and before the sides of the roads are cleaned up to see if it might have been hidden in the snow? Just wondering.

Thank You for pointing that out about the 3 trees. I was wondering if someone would pick up on this. So why did LE tell them that it was the big pine tree if it was a stand of 3 pines, which I might add are still too lg. to have caused that damage.

The family was at the scene on Wed. the 11th and checked the area completely, no sign of any accident debris. When there is an accident and there is any glass debris it is usually swept to the side of the road, but in this case the debris would have been over the snowbank near the tree, NO DEBRIS. If the fiberglass piece was picked up by LE or towing co. it would have been placed in the car, not just discarded or taken by LE or towing co.

The area around the scene had been looked at exstensively in the days following the accident by family, friends, LE and searchers. The whole area and roadside including near the stand of 3 trees.

The damage to this saturn is clearly closer to Mauras saturn damage and this car did not hit a tree.

http://www.google.com/imgres...

Saturn REARENDS an SUV. This looks closely familiar to Mauras saturn damage.

http://www.car-accidents.com/2006-Auto-story/...

I do not know where the idea of a 30" tree came from. I have stated for years that the tree would likely be around 8 to 10 inches in diameter give or take.

I hope everyone examines closely the two photos. I would like to point out the crinkle effect that occurs over an over in these types of hoods where the contacts occur. I would also like to point out the buckling that occurs in these types of hoods which appears in the middle of the hood.

Remember when the red herring that a trailer hitch caused this damage?

There is a clear line of damage in a vertical plane on the left side of the car. Damage occurs from the ground in a vertical plane to the spoiler, bumper, and hood. There is no evidence of any metal on metal contact.

Any 8 to 10 inch diameter tree could have easily caused this damage. The officer stated in a legal document that is what happened. So far, I still have not heard, seen, read, or had anyone conjure anything to make me believe otherwise.

Bill

Calypso Soldier wrote:

The family was at the scene on Wed. the 11th and checked the area completely, no sign of any accident debris. When there is an accident and there is any glass debris it is usually swept to the side of the road, but in this case the debris would have been over the snowbank near the tree, NO DEBRIS. If the fiberglass piece was picked up by LE or towing co. it would have been placed in the car, not just discarded or taken by LE or towing co.
The area around the scene had been looked at exstensively in the days following the accident by family, friends, LE and searchers. The whole area and roadside including near the stand of 3 trees.

Wow. I don't know how many car crashes you have been at but the ones I have been at, stopped counting well after a hundred. No matter what they are. Whether they are high speed crashes including high speed rollovers on the interstate or little tiny fender benders. The fire department, tow companies and sometimes the highway department use brooms to clean up the roadway, for hundreds of feet sometimes and sand for fluid spills. A slow speed crash like this, the few broken pieces would likely have just been put in the car or in the trash. No surprise.

Bill

I didn't need authority, the car was unsecured by police.

Whoever You are.

Seems to me somebody isn´t happy with discussions as of late and is trying very hard to disrupt, desperately throwing red herrings in every direction. The exact same posts was posted yesterday at Websleuths. Posters should question who this person is and why he is doing what he´s doing and why at this specific point in time, nearly 7 years after the fact.

Taxi that hit a lg tree.

http://www.arlingtoncardinal.com/200...near-s...

hannah_b wrote:

Seems to me somebody isn´t happy with discussions as of late and is trying very hard to disrupt, desperately throwing red herrings in every direction. The exact same posts was posted yesterday at Websleuths. Posters should question who this person is and why he is doing what he´s doing and why at this specific point in time, nearly 7 years after the fact.

I think it's the same person that has told more than one lie thru the years and when confronted would never give any information that would verify his statements.
The same person that said things happened around this area that didn't really happen. What is his agenda? I have no idea but he's got more red herrings than the ocean. Yes it does make you wonder why he's doing what he's doing. This stuff has been rehashed so many times before. jmho