Maura Murray

Snowy wrote:

looks like someone took a powder and has come back as .... a beacon of light. lol
caution: children at play

I don't think Maura was abducted there's no evidence of that. If she went into a car with a stranger she would want to call her family first for support because she was a wreck and to tell them that she is alright. By knowing the cellphone radius will give us an idea or how likely a call could have been made. If a call was made a ping would have registered with a tower. And there would be a record.

If there is a small radius of cellphone blockage it. It could mean two things that there is a local killer in a small radius which given the facts highly unlikely, or maybe a call didn't have to be made because the driver of the vehicle that picked her up was family or friend so no. All needed to be made.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
2004. No cell service in that area and I don't know if we know about the cell charger though, there was talk of one in the car. Do you mean did she take it when she ran from the car?
Bill

You don't know for a FACT that She ran from the scene.!

The only person We know ran for sure was Forrest, Forrest Gump.

Run Forrest, Run.!

Unless You know something different ....like maybe You were chasing Her down the road.(Speculation, not accusation).

John

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think Maura was abducted there's no evidence of that. If she went into a car with a stranger she would want to call her family first for support because she was a wreck and to tell them that she is alright. By knowing the cellphone radius will give us an idea or how likely a call could have been made. If a call was made a ping would have registered with a tower. And there would be a record.
If there is a small radius of cellphone blockage it. It could mean two things that there is a local killer in a small radius which given the facts highly unlikely, or maybe a call didn't have to be made because the driver of the vehicle that picked her up was family or friend so no. All needed to be made.

much of what you are attempting to discuss, and especially the ping, has been extensively reviewed on this site over many years. the bottom line is that speculation is useless, given too many variables are unknown.

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
no physical sign of abduction
or a struggle.
she was not present shortly after she was seen at the site of the crash
therefore,
she more than likely, most probably, left / ran from the scene.

Snowy.....Were You with Bill or were You driving?(Speculation, not accusation).

John

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
no physical sign of abduction
or a struggle.
she was not present shortly after she was seen at the site of the crash
therefore,
she more than likely, most probably, left / ran from the scene.

A dog did pick up her scent for a 100 yards and then lost it. If she ran at a three foot stride for just one mile her foot would touch the ground 1800 times. And not a scent found. In five miles that is over 9000 times. If she went into the woods the stride would be shorter and even more scent left behind.

She was in an old beat up car and to make that journey probably made it with the assurance of another person following her. She could have went into another car.

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
much of what you are attempting to discuss, and especially the ping, has been extensively reviewed on this site over many years. the bottom line is that speculation is useless, given too many variables are unknown.

This whole forum is speculation if we had the facts the forum wouldn't exist. I would like to discuss the speculation if anyone is interested.

Snowy, I think your asterisk key might be stuck on your computer. You might want to check that out. Just trying to help.

I did not realize that we knew for a FACT that she ran from the car. I know you love whether something is fact or opinion, just stating no fact there, we have no idea whether or not she ran from the car, could have, maybe not- unless you were there you probably don't know.

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Snowy.....Were You with Bill or were You driving?(Speculation, not accusation).
John

why are you so intentionally obtuse over so many years? i mean....really.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
This whole forum is speculation if we had the facts the forum wouldn't exist. I would like to discuss the speculation if anyone is interested.

i will trouble you to read a few pages back....WTF/Bill authored a post that carefully explains the history of this forum.
there are very active discussions on websleuths, various FB pages, and JRenner's blog where there might be less resistance to redundancy.
perhaps you can appreciate the frustration of ...... repetition without an option for outcome or resolution.
it's all been tried and done.
trust me.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
A dog did pick up her scent for a 100 yards and then lost it. If she ran at a three foot stride for just one mile her foot would touch the ground 1800 times. And not a scent found. In five miles that is over 9000 times. If she went into the woods the stride would be shorter and even more scent left behind.
She was in an old beat up car and to make that journey probably made it with the assurance of another person following her. She could have went into another car.

she walked or ran from the scene of the crash; there is no physical evidence of a struggle associated with an abduction or violence; it is unknown whether she accepted a ride with a stranger or someone known to her someone, nor has been proven that she did; she has disappeared.
it is a cold case; the official investigation is in the hands of law enforcement.

Laurieisgone wrote:

I did not realize that we knew for a FACT that she ran from the car.

the only probable distinction is walked or ran; she left her car; there were no signs of violence to suggest abduction, according to common knowledge over many years.

buh-bye for now. gotta go.
enjoy the ride.

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't know for a FACT that She ran from the scene.!
The only person We know ran for sure was Forrest, Forrest Gump.
Run Forrest, Run.!
Unless You know something different ....like maybe You were chasing Her down the road.(Speculation, not accusation).
John

I know she ran from the scene as well as I know the reason that the airbags were deployed in her car was because she had a front end accident. Cause and effect. I didn't need to see her crash her car to KNOW it happened. Just like the people who drink before an accident are the ones we find nowhere near the car after. With no signs of struggle, no one hearing screams, no blood or any other evidence around the car. And people were watching and listening. Yep, she ran.

If I see a broken window and a rock inside I don't imagine the window shattering was an act of god, and the rock was just sitting there as a witness. The smallest, least complicated, least convoluted theory that explains the evidence is likely the answer. You know it as Occam's razor. Use it, it is your friend.

So fact. No. But, as a starting point, it makes perfect sense. It is the least convoluted of the theories I have heard and it fulfills all the known evidence. I refuse to entertain that "she was abducted by a UFO" story. I'm sticking with ran from the scene unless some other evidence comes to light.

Bill

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
why are you so intentionally obtuse over so many years? i mean....really.

I am not "Difficult to understand: IF You are capable of comprehension. You only like to understand "What You believe" Get outta that Box and think, think, think. Lose the Gortons Hat..!

John

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
the only probable distinction is walked or ran; she left her car; there were no signs of violence to suggest abduction, according to common knowledge over many years.

If LE feels this theory the strongest then why are they not still searching for the body? Wouldn't this be the easiest way to close the case? No grand juries needed. The body wouldnt be in a whole or hidden if she died by the elements.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
If LE feels this theory the strongest then why are they not still searching for the body? Wouldn't this be the easiest way to close the case? No grand juries needed. The body wouldnt be in a whole or hidden if she died by the elements.

and I might add why have any Persons of interest if the only thing she did was run from the car after the accident. LE has a person or persons of interest right? They're looking into things apparently. If it was so cut and dry why would they bother with all of this, still an active case right? Much easier for everyone involved to just say hey- it happens, accident, she ran, it was cold, she died. Period. That's not what is going on it seems. Maybe they don't share Bill's view of it.

Jenkins wrote:

In my experience the people who are actually good at what they do are humble bc they know how good they are, how many searches they've been in charge of,'how many missing people/planes they've found. People who are experts in there field don't need to brag, their work speaks for itself.

right on! betcha the wannabe searchers here couldn't find their own wee willy winkies in a snow storm.

Laurieisgone wrote:

<quoted text>
and I might add why have any Persons of interest if the only thing she did was run from the car after the accident. LE has a person or persons of interest right? They're looking into things apparently. If it was so cut and dry why would they bother with all of this, still an active case right? Much easier for everyone involved to just say hey- it happens, accident, she ran, it was cold, she died. Period. That's not what is going on it seems. Maybe they don't share Bill's view of it.

Correct! And maybe they have worked with the canines before and trust if the scent was lost after 100 yards then the scent trial ended . Therefore they think she left via car.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
If LE feels this theory the strongest then why are they not still searching for the body? Wouldn't this be the easiest way to close the case? No grand juries needed. The body wouldnt be in a whole or hidden if she died by the elements.

Not sure how much you know and have read. If she is out there, which is likely she would be bones only and scattered everywhere.

I assume you mean “wouldn’t be in a hole”. No she wouldn’t. If she was, she might be easier to find and there might be more evidence available then if she was in a hole.

So the question is where do you search? She might have been spotted 5 miles away. So do you start the search there or at the car? How far was she capable of traveling? She was an athletic girl, in good shape. If that wasn’t her on the road five miles away, let’s assume we want to search? If she got lost in the woods, either five miles from the car, or at the car. If a blind panic overcame her, how far would she travel. One mile, ten miles, twenty miles? Assume just five miles, that is almost 80 square miles to search. In that terrain. And what if we needed to start the search 5 miles down the road. Another 80 square mile search area. So, do you still think it would be a simple matter to find her? And the more interesting question is, could she have traveled ten or more miles, before exhaustion and hypothermia overtook her? Now we are trying to search over 300 square miles. The truth is she could be anywhere in that forest. Until she pops up, we are not going to have any answers to this.

Bill

Someone just mentioned recently that if she had gone into the woods the scent for the dog would have been stronger, not sure where I just read that. It could have been here or Renner's site. There's a lot to read and sometimes it's easy to forget where you saw what. So the dog lost the scent. why?