Maura Murray

Also, I think whatever was troubling her was way too much to stay and deal with a minor accident. She didn't hurt anyone or anything that I can tell of monitary value. she was already troubled shook up to leave amherst. I think waiting for police to say sorry i roughed up some trees is really the least of the worries.. you and i are friends so i am sorry not trying to be mean. I am just trying to put things in percpective here - and those are two negaitives towards someone we don't even know - and is not here to defend herself. when I ask for fred murray's work schedule.... its his CHOICE to just let me stew.. .. OR he knows how to get ahold of me. He could tell me to GO POUND SAND or buzz off - but he has a choice. Maura is a missing person - a friend, daughter a sister niece a granddaughter........ obviously a kind person you can see that from the Hanson girls on ID. breaks my heart

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
Dawn - please email me at: h_an_na_h@hotmail.com

will do.. its 207 here I get home around 730.. not sure what time it is in sweden then.. I will email you then. K.. Dawn

mcsmom wrote:

IMO WW's "red herring" has nothing to do with Ricky's post, and everything to do with a poster on websleuths regarding the undercarriage damage to Maura's car.......

can you post the link to webslueths? I couldn't find a current one only one back from may.. which I posted lady grays msg about the car not having problems until after jan.. i wont comment any further.. but how it broke down in basically 3 weeks when she wasn't driving it.. urgh... frustrating .. no facts.. anyway... pls post the webslueths current thread - remember you have to cut it half for it to show up on topix.. thanks ds

Dawn wrote:

<quoted text>
can you post the link to webslueths? I couldn't find a current one only one back from may.. which I posted lady grays msg about the car not having problems until after jan.. i wont comment any further.. but how it broke down in basically 3 weeks when she wasn't driving it.. urgh... frustrating .. no facts.. anyway... pls post the webslueths current thread - remember you have to cut it half for it to show up on topix.. thanks ds

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.p...

Dawn wrote:

<quoted text>
can you post the link to webslueths? I couldn't find a current one only one back from may.. which I posted lady grays msg about the car not having problems until after jan.. i wont comment any further.. but how it broke down in basically 3 weeks when she wasn't driving it.. urgh... frustrating .. no facts.. anyway... pls post the webslueths current thread - remember you have to cut it half for it to show up on topix.. thanks ds

dawn that post was recent from Lady Gray just a few days ago.

Whitewash....

Stick to what You do best....Take pics. Cause you certainly have NO GRASP OF THE OBVIOUS.

The car WAS NOT ON THEIR FRONT LAWN. It was in the road.....

Smith put it in his acc. report and Brad and Abby said it was in the road. Hmmmmmmm.

So where the hell was the car.....?

White Wash wrote:

Same in NH so you are right!
She hit those trees and had backed around and was
pull off to the side of the road when Atwood came upon the
accident she was private property/right of way of the road!
But the point being missed is she LOCKED THE CAR and WALKED AWAY of her own free will after causing damage to someone's property!
Rather it large or small! It's against the law to LEAVE THE SCENE of and ACCIDENT involving PRIVATE PROPERTY!
I love how you heard for how long she never just left! Her HS friends tell a story on ID how she ditched them and school for a day in the city of Boston by herself!
<quoted text>

not sure what the big deal is here, WW. i agree with you...IF she was at the scene where her car was found after a collision, and given there was no evidence of a struggle to suggest she was taken away from that location against her will, and that her car was found to be locked, then it can be presumed she left the scene of an accident. you add that the accident involved private property.
it is unknown whether or not she was a 'victim' until she is found.

Whitewash....

OK just one more time..

"The saturn was Westbound in the Eastbound lane. What do You not comprehend about this statement and drawing by Sgt. Smith in his acc. report, Along with a statement from Brad K. and Abby about it being in the road and they could not figure our WHY SHE DIDN'T DRIVE IT AWAY.

Lane is 20 Ft. wide but does not run into OR ONTO anyones property. Like I said the state has a 33 Ft. right of way.

YOU go measure and see where that puts You. I would dare to say that the saturn was on legal state property.

----------
White Wash

Lebanon, NH


#1581
2 hrs ago

Doesn't say where in that lane does it!!

Lane is pretty dam wide and runs into private property doesn't it
"in the middle of no where"

Run out in the road and measure for us will ya!

Whitewash....

So where is the photographic evidence. It must be the pix that LE took that night at the scene. How many are there, what do they show.

NOW THOSE PIX I WOULD LIKE TO SEE....

--------

White Wash

Lebanon, NH


#1558
7 hrs ago

yada yada

Shack attack awesome!

Why you have zero interest in anything that anyone else!

All I know is that one Maura Murray sent an email to her Prof. she was off for a week!
She withdraw money and left town.
She didn't notify her family or friends.
She didn't accept Atwoods help!
She locked her car and left.

I am PLACING ALL BETS on the photographic evidence to prove that car was not in the road an on private property when it was removed.

Calypso Soldier wrote:

OK Whatever....

Whether they are on their front lawn or not...yada yada.

The question was to Whitewash:

Where did Lavoies actually pick the car up from ?

It was not on their lawn it was in the road wasn't it?

WOWZER... Do You know where the car actually was that night seeing YOU LIVE SO CLOSE.

I am who I am.

mcsmom

Vernon Rockville, CT

#1583
3 hrs ago


!
<quoted text>

White Wash wrote:

Are you kidding?

That is all of Marrotte's property!
Really HOW THE HELL DID ATWOOD GET A BUS by it then?

--------

Atwood was pulled up beside Muara's car....This makes his bus headed EASTBOUND IN THE WESTBOUND LANE.On the wrong side of the road.

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
dawn that post was recent from Lady Gray just a few days ago.

Lady Gray

Care to explain for us? Because your post didn't make sense compared to what Sharon said on ID? She said she was having car troubles since christmas.

In section 20/21 of Sgt. Smiths accident report concerning the accident with the saturn titled:

--Apparent physical condition--

There are 10 choices for this section.

Sgt. Smith has circled; "HAD BEEN DRINKING"

Even when this accident report was filled out days later, Smith can not claim this to be true if he never saw her. No matter what was recovered at the scene or in the car can any way be known for sure to be ingested by the driver.

Also Smith can not be certain that it was indeed MAURA MURRAY driving the vehicle.

Dawn wrote:

<quoted text>
Lady Gray
Care to explain for us? Because your post didn't make sense compared to what Sharon said on ID? She said she was having car troubles since christmas.

Would I "care to explain?" Hahaha, you sound like a school teacher! If the post doesn't make sense, then you may get in touch with Sharon because, as it says on Websleuths, I posted what she said. Copied exactly "verbatim" word for word.

Sorry....

Should have said Atwood was Eastbound in the Westbound lane partially blocking the traveled portion of the Westbound lane.

Calypso Soldier wrote:

In section 20/21 of Sgt. Smiths accident report concerning the accident with the saturn titled:
--Apparent physical condition--
There are 10 choices for this section.
Sgt. Smith has circled; "HAD BEEN DRINKING"
Even when this accident report was filled out days later, Smith can not claim this to be true if he never saw her. No matter what was recovered at the scene or in the car can any way be known for sure to be ingested by the driver.
Also Smith can not be certain that it was indeed MAURA MURRAY driving the vehicle.

Let's see, the witness stated he saw a young female behind the wheel and that no other person was in the vehicle.
Sgt Smith said he saw a box of wine behind the drivers seat in plain view and he could also see red liquid on drivers side door and ceiling of the car. Then when the car was moved a bottle of liquid with a strong odor of alcohol was found under the car.
Smith didn't circle the very first one that read "under the influence" because there was no driver but with the evidence that was seen and found I think it's safe to say that the apparent physical condition of the driver is that they had been drinking.
The key word here is "apparent".

Wowzer wrote:

"Let's see, the witness stated he saw a young female behind the wheel and that no other person was in the vehicle."
----------
It has never been confirmed that it was Maura behind the wheel.

Even with the witness statement, it does not confirm that it WAS MAURA FOR A FACT.

Smith has Maura as the operator and says apparently had been drinking.

It would never stand up in a court of law. It is only speculation.

IF it was not put out that night that a female was seen at the car then:

Fred Murray being the owner would have been indicated as the driver and it would say He had been drinking.

Just something to swallow.

Calypso Soldier wrote:

Wowzer wrote:
"Let's see, the witness stated he saw a young female behind the wheel and that no other person was in the vehicle."
----------
It has never been confirmed that it was Maura behind the wheel.
Even with the witness statement, it does not confirm that it WAS MAURA FOR A FACT.
Smith has Maura as the operator and says apparently had been drinking.
It would never stand up in a court of law. It is only speculation.
IF it was not put out that night that a female was seen at the car then:
Fred Murray being the owner would have been indicated as the driver and it would say He had been drinking.
Just something to swallow.

I suspect that if you bring Smith into court and he swears to his accident report. After a full explanation of the events and evidence, and what the witnesses saw, any reasonable jury would likely believe that Maura was driving Maura's car and that she was likely drunk when she crashed and ran from the scene because of it.

They wouldn't let me on the jury though because I have seen this happen too often personally. I would be "tainted" by actual first hand knowledge. No defense lawyer would let me in.

Bill

There is STILL REASONABLE DOUBT. A good lawyer would never settle for a conviction and a good jury should NEVER convict if there IS REASONABLE DOUBT.

Even ATWOOD SAID "It Didn't look like her" after being shown a photo of Maura.

A jury would also have to take this into consideration.

REASONABLE DOUBT

The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

Has anyone ever got the idea that maybe Smith DID see Maura. "Where's the girl". Maybe the first accident female slid off road and got into a private vehicle. I know everyone keeps saying there wasn't a first accident, but I am not fully convinced. Just a thought.