Maura Murray

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
How is ANY of this relevant to anything? I'm openly gay, couldn't care less what anyone here might think about that. I don't know this dead woman or anything about her, but this is crazy. Can we go back to talking about the rag in the tailpipe now?:-\

I understand where you are coming from, but please know that the only reason I'm making an issue out of this, is because of the snide 'did you see the comments she made on other sites!' I neither dispute Snowy/Paris's other points, nor have any information on them. Several have posted about Silky's moderating skills/investigation skills, and it's been essentially negative. I'm sure Snowy's right in that respect.

I do not agree with the other portion, and I guess it's unfortunate that this was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back, in this situation. I'm just fed up with rolling my eyes and lettting the cattiness go. I apologize for derailing the thread, but honestly, I think it deserved mention.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow!!! You people must have more time on your hands than I do because there's no way I could take the time to reread over 15,000 posts nor would I want to.Hats off to you.

I read this while working on a split screen. You've dedicated 8 years of your life to this and other threads/forums and fighting the ducks. I think on a comparative scale, you'd win for 'more free time'.

just me wrote:

<quoted text>What? How dare you. I do not lie, period. I stick to my guns, my dependable tried and true guns until I know differently. I have been misinformed and when i find that out I am right there ready to go with the right gusto. and you my dear relative in E weamouth would say something like this. You don't want me in this conversation. I know who you are.

have you ever noticed the conversation goes downhill when there is nothing of substance to discuss? which is most of the time. lol

anyway, i've come to regard you as a highly dedicated poster, and a compassionate individual who is committed to examining information and ideas.
thanx for your efforts to inform.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you ever see the forums/sites that she frequented?

What does it have to do with anything? You tell me, Wowzer. You brought it up in the first place.

Why would you bring it up, if it's so irrelevant?

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
I read the reason why she said she remembered. And it still is hard to believe that someone can remember months later right to the minute what they heard word for word on a scanner. Sorry I don't buy it. I'd love to see it proven as fact. If that can be done then I would be more than happy to apologize.
I'm not saying I did but how do you know if I did or didn't step out my door that night?

I remember he saying the reason she remembered was because of someone at the house or something that made it stick in her mind that it was that specific day. Again, I can't call it fact because it was never shown in the log. If it is in the log anyone who has it could prove it. I am trying to understand why someone wouldn't. And more importantly. It would explain why Maura was likely running even harder at the second accident causing enough damage that the car wasn't drivable. And it still is Maura at the WB accident at 1927. She was seen there. So what mystery some people want to attach to an earlier accident and trying to claim there was some 20 something minute window is crap. She was seen at 1927 at her car, at the accident where her car was found.

Bill

Crap. The first line should read

I remember her (Anne) saying...

Bill

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm slow? Wow. You really are a classy broad, you know that? You can't even refute what I say, so instead, you attempt to insult me. Well, that isn't going to work. It simply illustrates that you cannot refute what I say with facts. And, if you knew how to read, you would know that I took issue with you and your cronies commentary on SILKY'S POSTS ON OTHER SITES - NAMELY, HAVING TO DO WITH HER SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
I asked what the relevance of her sexually-oriented posts on another forum, have to do with her moderation. I don't dispute anything to do with her skills as a moderator. You are not the only one who has stated they were lacking. I believe you. HOWEVER....I don't see, will never see, what her sexual orientation has to do with it.
Go back and re-read the posts. It's clear. You just want to change the subject, to silky's moderating issues - and the two are not mutually exclusive.
Nice try, Lynne.

you brought up the subject of sexual orientation; no one else.
must be a very slow day in your little world.

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
Um.....yes, you did. Wowzer asked if you had read her forum posts on other sites, and you replied:
<quoted text>
So don't accuse me of lying.

I said I was wrong later, I wished you'd have seen it. I did not call you a liar, as though to sum you up. I said it wasn't true. I was in reality shocked when i dug further (like 2 weeks of hard core reading), but only stated a bit to Wowzer. From there I drifted to that Beths parents were there over Christmas having had called Beths bldg mgr on the 25th to do a wellness check. The date of death was listed Dec 27th for some odd reason, yet Beth was found stooped over her bed on the 25th. Anyway, it was you quoting me as saying "bizarre" and that I was feeding into it that was on MY mind. I'm apologising right and left today, but come on now, please understand me.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
I come home after a nice day and find this mess. Your moniker is very fitting.
First what I was referring to had nothing to do with lesbians but more to do with bizarre behaviour. And I also wasn't referring to just a lesbian site either.
I couldn't care less who's a lesbian and who isn't.That has nothing to do with anything.
Simply Sarcasm you were the one to mention she was a lesbian. Just read your post. It is you that's making a huge deal over it.
And it's obvious that you aren't a new poster. You're an oldy with a different name or you wouldn't know all that you do.
So lay off the lesbians because one of my best friends is gay and I couldn't care less. It's a persons actions and not their sexual preference that counts in life. Nuff said about this.

Of course, I MUST be someone else. It's not feasible that there are multiple people who disagree with you. Sorry, I've never posted here under a diff. name than this and SimplyCaustic.

just me wrote:

She's wrong everyone. I hope she's not just trying to make me look bad when she says the below:
Instead of mentioning on a PUBLIC TOPIX FORUM 'oh did you see the forums that silkyboxerz visited! omg! bizarre!'.
You brought it up. You mentioned it repeatedly on Topix. But I should be more discreet.
Logic - lacking.

See, I didn't say you were lying.

Pillow Talk LR wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no politically correct way to say this. You are a liar!

How about this one e weymouth.......Beth was reading up on Indelicato and Helena knew it. Wanna play some more?

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
you brought up the subject of sexual orientation; no one else.
must be a very slow day in your little world.

Actually, no. That's why I was gone from the thread for several hours. I'm sure you missed me terribly.

It's disappointing that the substantive, cogent posts you and Wowzer made way back in the beginning of the thread, and on the other forum (the forumer21 one) have disintegrated into what you currently post. I suppose I can't claim to know what my posts would be like, years from now, but hopefully not as jaded.

Just me--paris wrote:

<quoted text>
See, I didn't say you were lying.

My apologies. You said I was 'wrong' and that I was trying to 'make you look bad.' In reality, I was neither. I was stating that you guys shouldn't have brought up the issue of her posts on other forums, and that they were bizarre, etc. and then expect no one to Google and try to figure it out - thinking it was of some relevance. That's all, Paris.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Well for what it is worth. I am similar age, have been going to the White mountains regularly for 25 years now, vacations, camping, hiking, kayaking, etc. Though I live in CT for work, I actually own a condo and a House in NH for almost 20 years and I love NH. I have lived in different countries and several states and I CHOOSE to live in NH. I don't know the Haverhill area as well as I know the forest and towns East of I-93 but I know it well enough having been through it often enough. NH is where my wife and I hope to retire. And have been coming to whenever we have free time for these last 25 years. I was a Sargent in charge of a Scout platoon in an infantry battalion in the army and have been involved with SAR and teaching SAR for many years. I have been involved in SAR activities with NH SAR agencies several times in both the SAR and wilderness medical capacity. So I do know the area, and the people.
And you can actually make that circle around Haverhill very large and go back many years and still not come up with more than a dozen murders in that area in 50 years. We will have to agree to disagree with what is considered "close proximity" because I still own a map and have driven the roads in question and what constitutes a crime wave.
In memory of SBD
Bill

Hope you don't mind, Bill, but I'm bringing forward this old post so some of the new people here (myself included) are aware of your knowledge and expertise. It's nice to know, who to pepper with questions.
Speaking of which....:)
If you had to wager a guess, would you think that Maura's backpack, and/or other personal items, could feasibly be found one day - or would they likely be destroyed by the elements or so beat up, that they'd be rendered unrecognizable?

Just me--paris wrote:

<quoted text>I said I was wrong later, I wished you'd have seen it. I did not call you a liar, as though to sum you up. I said it wasn't true. I was in reality shocked when i dug further (like 2 weeks of hard core reading), but only stated a bit to Wowzer. From there I drifted to that Beths parents were there over Christmas having had called Beths bldg mgr on the 25th to do a wellness check. The date of death was listed Dec 27th for some odd reason, yet Beth was found stooped over her bed on the 25th. Anyway, it was you quoting me as saying "bizarre" and that I was feeding into it that was on MY mind. I'm apologising right and left today, but come on now, please understand me.

I didn't see it, and that's my mistake. You don't have to explain yourself to me (re: Silky). I suppose I just took it to heart, because I hate to speak ill of the dead. No harm, no foul.

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
If you had to wager a guess, would you think that Maura's backpack, and/or other personal items, could feasibly be found one day - or would they likely be destroyed by the elements or so beat up, that they'd be rendered unrecognizable?

I am speculating to a degree but certainly man-made items can last a very long time. Some backpacks are made out of cotton or cotton duck. They would deteriorate pretty rapidly but the hardware on them could last a long time, especially brass. It is more common that many hiking backpacks are usually made out of nylon. Certain types of nylon can harden over time if continually exposed to sunlight and can deteriorate but if covered under leaves, needles can last a very long time. Plastic and brass buckles, glass can also last tremendous amounts of time. The biggest problem is identifying those items if found as evidence. Depending on what is seen, many people may not even realize what they are looking at or even think it could be important and pay it no mind at all.

JMHO,

Bill

VoiceOfReason wrote:

<quoted text>
I find the possibility that the log was 'altered' to cover something sinister to be extremely unlikely,though nothing is impossible I guess.
It would be helpful if you could quote the link to the log gap so I could know what you are referring to, so we are talking about the same thing.
Thanks

The link was already posted by a couple different posters a page or 2 back.
I also find it very unlikely that the log was altered for a sinister purpose but it's very confusing as to why there would be this gap.
Is this common in grafton county or anywhere?
I just find it extremely odd that the log is missing the time before the crash, which is exactly the time in question about a possible earlier crash.
I'd say the more important question is why does the log state that she was travelling eastbound and her car was found facing westbound on the westbound side of the road, when we've been told all along that the car was facing westbound on the eastbound side of the road.
How is there so many questions about one simple car accident?
First of all the family was shown the wrong spot to where the car crashesd( near the big pine tree when it was actually 400' down the road)
& now we come to find out it was on the other side of the road?
What is going on here? At best it's bad recording/police procedure...but when there's a beautiful young college girl missing on top of it it begins to look potentially sinister.
Again, I'm not saying this is proof of anything. Clearly you'd never be able to prove anything either way by looking at these logs.
I'm just asking what the hell is going on here?
Is it common for police logs to be missing hours of times and have glaring inconsistencies?
Who would even have the power to change/remove things from the log, would the chief of Haverhill even b able to do that?
As with most things about this case the more info you see, the more questions it raises.
You would think the the police logs would at least not be a question.
Then you got columbo saying he's seen te entry for an accident st 7:03. Did this really happen or is he just making it up? Pretty f'd up to make something like that up IMO, but when it comes to this case I wouldn't put it past people.

It's very possible that her backpack or some other belongings have been found but never were turned in to LE bc whoever found them thought that someone just lost them and had no idea it could b related to a dissapearance.

We have to remember that contrary to popular belief on this board that most people have never heard of Maura or this case, including locals.
I lived in the area for 12 ys and no one I ever mentioned this case to ever heard of it, including my roommate who lived in woodsville his entire life.
It sucks but it's true, the average Joe on the street in Nh has never heard of Maura Murray or her disappearance

VoiceOfReason wrote:

<quoted text>
The rag in the tailpipe is in my opinion only relevant as to the events that occured AFTER the car was disabled on the snowbank.
I say this because there is no way the rag could have been placed there at any time PRIOR to the crash.
If the rag was secure enough to NOT blow out the tailppe, then it would have preveneted the car from running at all. It would not have left the location where the rag was inserted, not even a few feet.
If the rag was in the tailpipe but the engine was able to run, then the rag could not have stayed in the tailpipe unless it was caught on a piece of something that secured it. That was not the case.
Therefore the rag must have been placed there "post crash". Which means it was put there by Maura, based on the witness report that there was some movement at the rear of the car immediately post crash.
I speculate that either she was making some hasty effort to provide an escuse for the accident, or perhaps she was trying to use the rag as a signalling device on the rear of the car, which was what was visible from the roadway. I also consider that she may have made some hasty attempt to commit suicide via asphyxiation.
I think the rag is relevant only with relation to what Maura was thinking/doing in the minutes right after the crash.
I dare anyone to place a rag in the exhaust of a car and have the rag stay put while the engine runs. It can't happen.
Just my opinion.

your post appeals to my sense of logic. thank you for your ideas.
you appear to be a VOR!

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
What does it have to do with anything? You tell me, Wowzer. You brought it up in the first place.
Why would you bring it up, if it's so irrelevant?

Wow for a new poster with only 37 replies under your belt I'd say you certainly have your panties in a wad over a bunch of strangers on an internet site.
You're the one keeping this going and looking to pick a fight and it's not going to be with me.
Sing along everyone....tra la la la la