Maura Murray

Congratulations wrote:

<quoted text>
Finally someone with the guts to speak out and tell the truth. A voice against the mob mentality. It takes courage.

Glad you enjoy your own posts.

Jenkins ok here is the page where the cell phone link originated from.

http://www.mauramurraymissing.com/Documentsco...

Congratulations wrote:

<quoted text>
Finally someone with the guts to speak out and tell the truth. A voice against the mob mentality. It takes courage.

It takes courage to HIDE BEHIND a moniker on the internet and spout off cruel and hate filled posts. THINK AGAIN.!

John

I never said there was a malicious coverup ie. The cops were involved. I actually said that I like to give them the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't do such a thing.

What I'm saying is, based on the actions of LE that night, it's fairly obvious that they knew something wasn't right with that accident scene. The cops that night clearly did not think this was simply a car that slid off the road.
Clearly at some point between the time they were at the accident and the family arrived someone in LE decided to play down the foul play angle and pretend that they thought it was a 61 yr old man in the car who had gone snowmobiling.
In Nh cars slide off the road all the time and people, sober people, catch a ride back to town rather than waiting for LE to show up which can sometimes take a long time up Nh.
Very rarely does a cop stay on scene for 2+ hours if they think someone just slipped off the road.

As to my other post about the extra damage done to the Saturn while in possesstion of LE I was asking if it could be evidence of a coverup, Which it very well could.
How and why could that car possibly get so much more damaged while parked at troop f? That is unless the cops did it themselves or allowed someone to. & why the hell would they allow someone to damage the car more?
Are we supposed to think Its a coincidence that now the damage looks more consistent with hitting a snowbank then it did originally?

How is it safe to say the red ligh came from a cell phone if her phone didn't have a red light?
Also, as the poster said above, if she did change the setting from blue to red you would only see it if she got cell service in the area, which has been deemed impossible and from my experiences in the area even today I agree it's impossible.

This seems like it could be a major thing.
FW thought it was a man smoking but then was late convinced it was a light from a cell phone.
Well wouldn't it be fairly Inportant if we could prove her phone didn't have such a light?

Jenkins wrote:

How is it safe to say the red ligh came from a cell phone if her phone didn't have a red light?
Also, as the poster said above, if she did change the setting from blue to red you would only see it if she got cell service in the area, which has been deemed impossible and from my experiences in the area even today I agree it's impossible.
This seems like it could be a major thing.
FW thought it was a man smoking but then was late convinced it was a light from a cell phone.
Well wouldn't it be fairly Inportant if we could prove her phone didn't have such a light?

Here's my logic on the light:
Butch Atwood saw Maura at the crash site. Maura had a cell phone. Maura didn't smoke, Maura can't change sex from male to female. Only one person was reported missing from the crash site and that is Maura. I therefore reason it to be Maura. Thats how I say it is safe to say it is Maura.

Jenkins wrote:

As to my other post about the extra damage done to the Saturn while in possesstion of LE I was asking if it could be evidence of a coverup, Which it very well could.
How and why could that car possibly get so much more damaged while parked at troop f? That is unless the cops did it themselves or allowed someone to. & why the hell would they allow someone to damage the car more?
Are we supposed to think Its a coincidence that now the damage looks more consistent with hitting a snowbank then it did originally?

The only way to ever look at and judge the damage is to reconstruct the accident. Since we can't unmelt snow and bring the snow mounds that she crashed into back to Feb 9th 2004 form. I'd say any damage assesment is sepeculative at best. I don't think that LE is bringing the new recruits in from troop F and telling them to "hit the car with a sledgehammer and join us in the cover up."

Yes Jenkins it would be very important if we could prove her cell didn't have such a light.

Laurieisgone wrote:

Yes Jenkins it would be very important if we could prove her cell didn't have such a light.

Even if her cell phone didn't have such a light it would probably mean that their was a mistake in the eyewitness account. I think the light on the cell phone has no signifigance to the case.

Laurieisgone wrote:

Yes Jenkins it would be very important if we could prove her cell didn't have such a light.

If I had just received a brand new flip phone with a color display for Christmas I probably would not have opted to make the display orange.

In the dark, at 75 feet away, it's easy to tell the difference between a lit cigarette and a cell phone with a color display. We tried it and there's no confusing the two.

It's interesting that the PI team came to the conclusion that the accident at the weathered
Barn was most likely staged.

jwb wrote:

Jenkins ok here is the page where the cell phone link originated from.
http://www.mauramurraymissing.com/Documentsco...

The link shows the camera, alright. I wonder if Maura was taking a picture of the damage to the car, and they saw the bit of red due to picture taking. Mine is set to no light, silent flash. Us undercover grannies never know when we're gonna need a picture, lol

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
If I had just received a brand new flip phone with a color display for Christmas I probably would not have opted to make the display orange.
In the dark, at 75 feet away, it's easy to tell the difference between a lit cigarette and a cell phone with a color display. We tried it and there's no confusing the two.

I just stood inside my kitchen and looked through the window at my sister smoking 15 feet away in the dark garden.

I saw no light, red or otherwise, and I have great vision with my contacts in.

Either we're talking a reefer the size of a rolled up newspaper, the 'red light' was something else entirely (and bigger than a phone) or this couple were mistaken in their recolection.

On the balance of probability (and assuming they don't habitually peel oranges with all their lights out as some sort of dexterity test), I'm inclined to suspect the latter.

I understand the compulsive nature of a mystery and no one is immune to wanting to be the 'special' person to crack a case. However, natural though it is, such curiosity IS egotistical and needs to be checked when it starts causing all kinds of mayhem with good old fashioned common sense.

Step away from the light...

AcidHouseMartin wrote:

<quoted text>I just stood inside my kitchen and looked through the window at my sister smoking 15 feet away in the dark garden.I saw no light, red or otherwise, and I have great vision with my contacts in.Either we're talking a reefer the size of a rolled up newspaper, the 'red light' was something else entirely (and bigger than a phone) or this couple were mistaken in their recolection.On the balance of probability (and assuming they don't habitually peel oranges with all their lights out as some sort of dexterity test), I'm inclined to suspect the latter.
I understand the compulsive nature of a mystery and no one is immune to wanting to be the 'special' person to crack a case. However, natural though it is, such curiosity IS egotistical and needs to be checked when it starts causing all kinds of mayhem with good old fashioned common sense.
Step away from the light...

15 feet? Your may want to get those contacts checked out!

Jenkins wrote:

It's interesting that the PI team came to the conclusion that the accident at the weathered
Barn was most likely staged.

I believe once an airbag is deployed it is registered in the cars computer. I'm sure you can check the 911 call from FW and the airbag deployment.

I would also find it very interesting for anyone who wasn't there to be able to say that something was staged or not. PIs were not at the live crash site, and unless they brought in some very smart people to draw this out I doubt it.

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
15 feet? Your may want to get those contacts checked out!

I could see a massive golden orb. It was the reflection of my ceiling light.

15 feet, through glass, from a lit room, in the dark?

Maybe I could do with a few extra carrots but a cigarette at 75 feet??

More likely, if anything, they forgot their microwave was behind them or it was the reflected glow of the infamous orange!

Det Columbo wrote:

The damage to the saturn is consistent with hitting an object higher than the front bumper.
That object pushed in the hood and crumpled it towards the Left passengers side indicating the blunt force came from the saturn hitting the object on the right front drivers side.
What the saturn came into contact with and when that occurred is inconclusive at this point.
Did the vehicle have a push bar or brush guard on the front an maybe even pushed the car slightly backwards to where it was found.?
Just thinking "Nose To Nose" here.
John

John, where the hell have you been? It was a trailer hitch, don't you remember????

You are totally clueless. That damage was caused by a point object, such as a tree on the drivers side. The damage extends from hood to the below the bumper. Look at the way the parking light is pushed in. How is that damage going to come from a collision on the passenger side of the car. Totally clueless. Everything is easily explained by a tree contacting the front of the bumper/lens/hood in a single collision. Again, you keep hearing hoof-beats and you insist on saying, not horses, not even zebras. You insist it's unicorns. Remember, we keep going over this, the simplest explanation that explains the evidence is usually the correct one. We call that Occam's razor. You keep trying to get to New Hampshire from Michigan by taking the short cut through Virgina.

Bill

Just me--paris wrote:

<quoted text>The link shows the camera, alright. I wonder if Maura was taking a picture of the damage to the car, and they saw the bit of red due to picture taking. Mine is set to no light, silent flash. Us undercover grannies never know when we're gonna need a picture, lol

I think taking a pic of her car was the last thing she was thinking about. JMO

how about the idea that Maura had an emergency flashlight and what FW saw was the lit up red platic back end?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
John, where the hell have you been? It was a trailer hitch, don't you remember????
You are totally clueless. That damage was caused by a point object, such as a tree on the drivers side. The damage extends from hood to the below the bumper. Look at the way the parking light is pushed in. How is that damage going to come from a collision on the passenger side of the car. Totally clueless. Everything is easily explained by a tree contacting the front of the bumper/lens/hood in a single collision. Again, you keep hearing hoof-beats and you insist on saying, not horses, not even zebras. You insist it's unicorns. Remember, we keep going over this, the simplest explanation that explains the evidence is usually the correct one. We call that Occam's razor. You keep trying to get to New Hampshire from Michigan by taking the short cut through Virgina.
Bill

with all respect wth, Columbo did say damage to the drivers side and not the passenger side.