Maura Murray

Snowy wrote:

and Wowzer is patiently waiting for details about Anne's search party ahead of the search via the infamous dispatch broadcast.

Nope Snowy I'm no longer waiting for any answers or details. It's not going to happen. I've come to the conclusion I'd get a better response asking the local moose questions.

They knew they had not passed
her as they
drove east to the accident site during their response to the “911” call. The
Woodstock police
were not notified nor asked to send an officer to intercept her by driving west in the
direction in
which she was approaching.
333333333333333333333333333333 333333333333333333333333333333 333333333333333333333333333333 333333333333333333
About that, being at the car one minute and gone the next. It just dawned on me (again, but different this time), couldn't Maura have just as easily been heading East when she spun around? The W-Mans heard an accelleration and a thud. But if Maura was trying to get up and go again.....maybe after being stuck, stalled, sitting in that area where the dogs lost her scent, well, she may have tried one more time toget back on the road. Not sure why that would matter, except to say that the scent trail stopped right there, people think she got into a car, but maybe that was nothing more than getting out of the car for a sec right there where the trail ended. Those gloves were new. She only tried them on for all we know. This could explain how she came to a stop. Tim says it doesn't happen like that. So I'm thinking backwards, and that she revved it up and spun out, maybe even into the trees like they say.......still facing East, not going West at all. Could this change anything, like where she might have already been and/or was going from there. Looking at travel time, starting at 4:30 most likely from UMASS to......where.........see what I mean? Was there, could there have been some time missing? And if she really was the one seen running and dodging along to the West, maybe she was returning to where she had just left.
(Food for thought while on a diet)

I remember who let the cats out now. But if I said anything spiderman ooOOoo would have a stroke.

Fred letter to Governor wrote:

They knew they had not passed
her as they
drove east to the accident site during their response to the “911” call. The
Woodstock police
were not notified nor asked to send an officer to intercept her by driving west in the
direction in
which she was approaching.
333333333333333333333333333333 333333333333333333333333333333 333333333333333333333333333333 333333333333333333
About that, being at the car one minute and gone the next. It just dawned on me (again, but different this time), couldn't Maura have just as easily been heading East when she spun around? The W-Mans heard an accelleration and a thud. But if Maura was trying to get up and go again.....maybe after being stuck, stalled, sitting in that area where the dogs lost her scent, well, she may have tried one more time toget back on the road. Not sure why that would matter, except to say that the scent trail stopped right there, people think she got into a car, but maybe that was nothing more than getting out of the car for a sec right there where the trail ended. Those gloves were new. She only tried them on for all we know. This could explain how she came to a stop. Tim says it doesn't happen like that. So I'm thinking backwards, and that she revved it up and spun out, maybe even into the trees like they say.......still facing East, not going West at all. Could this change anything, like where she might have already been and/or was going from there. Looking at travel time, starting at 4:30 most likely from UMASS to......where.........see what I mean? Was there, could there have been some time missing? And if she really was the one seen running and dodging along to the West, maybe she was returning to where she had just left.
(Food for thought while on a diet)

I believe you´re mixing up west and east in this instance.
If I understand you correctly you´re suggesting that Maura might have been driving west on Rte 112 from Lincoln/Woodstock, rather than in the opposite direction as generally presumed.
Am I getting you right on this point?
If yes, then I agree that there is no publicly known evidence to suggest that Maura could not have been travelling in the opposite direction to the one generally presumed.
As far as I know, there are no known sightings of Maura anywhere on her presumed journey from Amherst to Swiftwater.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Anne I know you have said you heard a second accident that night on your scanner which there is no record of anywhere and no one else seemed to hear but I don't remember you ever saying you also heard on your scanner an earlier search going on.
I thought you had said that you had some friends in the area who told you that there were some looking for her earlier.
Can you tell me what brand scanner you have as you seem to hear things on yours that no one else hears on theirs. I want one for Christmas.

wowzer, I did not say I heard a second accident on the scanner. Someone else theorized that and it certainly could be a possibility. I heard female slid of the road earlier than official times. I have no idea who the people were looking for this female. I had a friend living nearby but noone I knew was looking for the young female. I hope this helps clear it up for you.

Euroobserver wrote:

<quoted text>
As far as I know, there are no known sightings of Maura anywhere on her presumed journey from Amherst to Swiftwater.

yes, no one has confirmed with absolute certainty that Maura was ever in NH, although her belongings and car were.
to the points that there has also been no publicly known evidence that she was a victim of homicide, and there has been no discovery to suggest she committed suicide, then the third option is that she is alive, somewhere.
however, why is Brianna Maitland also missing and, similarly, her body not found?

Did you mention the broken clock?

Anne wrote:

<quoted text>wowzer, I did not say I heard a second accident on the scanner. Someone else theorized that and it certainly could be a possibility. I heard female slid of the road earlier than official times. I have no idea who the people were looking for this female. I had a friend living nearby but noone I knew was looking for the young female. I hope this helps clear it up for you.

Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is more likely the correct one. I would bet it was the same accident.

Anne wrote:

<quoted text>wowzer, I did not say I heard a second accident on the scanner. Someone else theorized that and it certainly could be a possibility. I heard female slid of the road earlier than official times. I have no idea who the people were looking for this female. I had a friend living nearby but noone I knew was looking for the young female. I hope this helps clear it up for you.

no, Anne. you once stated you knew of the others searching for this female, but have steadfastly refused to name them and/or their relationship to you. Wowzer then encouraged you to bring your information forward to authorities.
anyone have a whole, working theory, yet? Fred Leatherman did, and no one liked it. Beagle had several, and no one liked them.'bout time for the pbb/ducks to advance a full theory, not just personal accusations against local residents and authorities.

ravetown wrote:

<quoted text>
Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is more likely the correct one. I would bet it was the same accident.

Not even Kant or Einstein would agree with that

High Bandwidth Radio wrote:

<quoted text>
Not even Kant or Einstein would agree with that

Why? Did Kant and Einstein usually agree with people, but they would definitely not agree with this? Do you think it is more likely that there was a previous accident/search, and that there is no documentation of it whatsoever?

ravetown wrote:

<quoted text>
Why? Did Kant and Einstein usually agree with people, but they would definitely not agree with this? Do you think it is more likely that there was a previous accident/search, and that there is no documentation of it whatsoever?

Occam's razor just doesn't work in this case. We can't just rely on taking the simplest explanation based on the so-called documentation when we don't even know if we can rely on that documentation. Also, occam's razor has been inconsistent because the simplest explanation usually yields only subjective knowledge/opinions, not universal knowledge. If we both use this theory, we will get different results. I'm not saying that such an approach wouldn't be helpful, but to respond to someone's post and indicate that it doesn't have potential truth value by citing occam's razors is a little sophomoric.

What may be constructive is to apply this technique to work out a theory as to what happened. If everyone here did that, and did so constructively, thoughtfully, and with respect, maybe this dialogue would be useful. For whom, I don't know? And that's exactly the problem.

If I apply occam's razor, I would come to the theory that, based on the fact that LE doesn't seem to be doing a lot to solve the case these days, they have a WELL CONSTRUCTED ALBEIT INCOMPLETE THEORY as to what happened, but that they lack the evidence to charge anyone with a crime because a body was never found.

Anne is obviously full of it. She's probably Givemeabreak who, if you paid attention has contradicted herself on major observations several times.

This is all is just a crap trap in which they blame anybody they can, anybody that just happens to come up with a theory that matches what they know really happened.

Why does Anne keep saying she heard a second accident on the radio?

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
no, Anne. you once stated you knew of the others searching for this female, but have steadfastly refused to name them and/or their relationship to you. Wowzer then encouraged you to bring your information forward to authorities.
anyone have a whole, working theory, yet? Fred Leatherman did, and no one liked it. Beagle had several, and no one liked them.'bout time for the pbb/ducks to advance a full theory, not just personal accusations against local residents and authorities.

Snowy, I could not possibly identify voices on a radio transmission., unless they identified themselves.

Anne, your obviously lying.

Anne wrote:

<quoted text>Snowy, I could not possibly identify voices on a radio transmission., unless they identified themselves.

Something I am not clear on. Are you saying two independent things?

1) You actually heard girl slid off the road

2)independently, you know a group of people (that you don't know) were actually looking for her

OR are you saying people were looking for her based on the fact that you heard this scanner chatter. Thank you for a clarification in advance.

Destroy her with logic, Sara.

High Bandwidth Radio wrote:

<quoted text>
Occam's razor just doesn't work in this case. We can't just rely on taking the simplest explanation based on the so-called documentation when we don't even know if we can rely on that documentation. Also, occam's razor has been inconsistent because the simplest explanation usually yields only subjective knowledge/opinions, not universal knowledge. If we both use this theory, we will get different results. I'm not saying that such an approach wouldn't be helpful, but to respond to someone's post and indicate that it doesn't have potential truth value by citing occam's razors is a little sophomoric.
What may be constructive is to apply this technique to work out a theory as to what happened. If everyone here did that, and did so constructively, thoughtfully, and with respect, maybe this dialogue would be useful. For whom, I don't know? And that's exactly the problem.
If I apply occam's razor, I would come to the theory that, based on the fact that LE doesn't seem to be doing a lot to solve the case these days, they have a WELL CONSTRUCTED ALBEIT INCOMPLETE THEORY as to what happened, but that they lack the evidence to charge anyone with a crime because a body was never found.

I totally agree with you, if we applied occam's razor to the case in general, it doesn't do much good at this point. But in the previous accident/search theory, it's much more reasonable to think that this was likely the same one, and only accident and search.

If there was a previous accident, it doesn't really change anything as far as the situation that the case is currently in. Unless you are thinking that there is a huge cover up for the first accident, which i find highly unlikely.

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text> third option is that she is alive, somewhere.

This was in ref to Maura, but.....on the day Brianna went missing, she parted ways from her mother for a bit and came back visibly shaken. I suppose she could be held against her will, even now, if at all.

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text> however, why is Brianna Maitland also missing and, similarly, her body not found?

I wanted to respond mainly to this. A short while before Bri went missing, she had been to a party where the girls got physical with her. Knowing martial arts, and not wanting to hurt anyone, she chose to go to a vehicle outside and sleep, wait for her friends to finish partying, saying goodbye. Some say it had to do with this party, that Bri went missing. Wrong circle of friends they say. Some came forward to say Bri was held for awhile in a basement and then put down. If so, I'd imagine these people didn't keep her in one piece.
One month and 10 days after Maura went missing, so did Brianna. Odd to me is that they both had something shake them up beforehand.