Maura Murray

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I have respect looking4amoose for what you do. Thanks.
Bill

Thanks Bill, I love what I do

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>No Citi, I do not see Fred there every weekend searching the way the media has protrayed it. I did not see Fred....my husband talked to people later who were involved in renting the Lodge to the group saidd it was Fred and his cohorts. If I had seen him, I would've let the dog loose on him. There are clearly posted Beware of Dog signs as well as no trespassing signs posted.....had my dog torn his ass up it would not have been my fault.

As you stated in this posting that your husband talked to people later who were involved in the renting the Lodge to the group said it was Fred and his coherts. But in your posting 18303 you stated As I said I was not there,my husband was. These statements are confusing to me because they are saying two different things. The only residential house and residential propery searched during the October 2006 search conducted by the PIs was the AFrame in which they recieved permission by the owner of this property.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>As you stated in this posting that your husband talked to people later who were involved in the renting the Lodge to the group said it was Fred and his coherts. But in your posting 18303 you stated As I said I was not there,my husband was. These statements are confusing to me because they are saying two different things. The only residential house and residential propery searched during the October 2006 search conducted by the PIs was the AFrame in which they recieved permission by the owner of this property.

Let me clarify---I am not my husband........I was not there---he was. I do not always travel with my husband....not sure why that isn't clear to you. We are not attached at the hip. and no, my property was searched.....perhaps I am right near the A Frame......the A frame is not alone by any means..........there are at least 5 houses in close proximity to it. Would you fucking like pictures?

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>As I said, I was not there, my husband was. No there was no chat---my husband tried to ask questions but aparently the 110 lb pitbull was enough for them to take cover maybe? We have an electric fence so the dog didn't go beyond it. There were no search dogs; just people. He was agitated because of the movement in the yard of strangers---he's much more sensitive up there than here because of the abundant scents that are in the area that are not in his daily repertoire of smells.

Wait, your husband tried to ask questions to an alleged search team that took cover? What, did he see a gaggle of people running away, or is this story of yours a complete work of fiction? I guess if anyone in the area sees someone traipsing across their land or if someone connected with the case dies it's Fred's fault. Makes perfect sense to me.

Apparently this is the woe-is-me, blame the Murray family for everything forum. And I thought we were here to try and find out what happened to Maura.

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>Let me clarify---I am not my husband........I was not there---he was. I do not always travel with my husband....not sure why that isn't clear to you. We are not attached at the hip. and no, my property was searched.....perhaps I am right near the A Frame......the A frame is not alone by any means..........there are at least 5 houses in close proximity to it. Would you fucking like pictures?

Looking4amoose posting 18303"we have an electric fence so the dog didnt go beyond that" With this statement you are saying that nobody entered your yard.Looking4amoose-"He was agitated because of the movement in the yard of strangers."But yet you have stated that your dog did not go beyond your yard because you have an electric fence.If a stranger was in your yard a pitbull would of attacked them.

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>Let me clarify---I am not my husband........I was not there---he was. I do not always travel with my husband....not sure why that isn't clear to you. We are not attached at the hip. and no, my property was searched.....perhaps I am right near the A Frame......the A frame is not alone by any means..........there are at least 5 houses in close proximity to it. Would you fucking like pictures?

The only residential house and residential property that was searched with permission by PIs in the Mountain Lakes was the AFrame.

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
Wait, your husband tried to ask questions to an alleged search team that took cover? What, did he see a gaggle of people running away, or is this story of yours a complete work of fiction? I guess if anyone in the area sees someone traipsing across their land or if someone connected with the case dies it's Fred's fault. Makes perfect sense to me.
Apparently this is the woe-is-me, blame the Murray family for everything forum. And I thought we were here to try and find out what happened to Maura.

Originally Looking4amoose stated that someone got in a car and drove off. Now she is stating that her husband tried to ask questions. Trust me anyone who was ever willing to talk to Fred he would always talk with them. He has been desperatley seeking out info concerning his daughters disappearance. Looking4amoose has stated that her husband talked to people later who were involved in the renting of the lodge and then stated that her husband was there. These statements are contradictory.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text> Looking4amoose posting 18303"we have an electric fence so the dog didnt go beyond that" With this statement you are saying that nobody entered your yard.Looking4amoose-"He was agitated because of the movement in the yard of strangers."But yet you have stated that your dog did not go beyond your yard because you have an electric fence.If a stranger was in your yard a pitbull would of attacked them.

Citi--the electric fence is UNDEGROUND. Unless the PI's were wearing collars, they would not be affected by it.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Originally Looking4amoose stated that someone got in a car and drove off. Now she is stating that her husband tried to ask questions. Trust me anyone who was ever willing to talk to Fred he would always talk with them. He has been desperatley seeking out info concerning his daughters disappearance. Looking4amoose has stated that her husband talked to people later who were involved in the renting of the lodge and then stated that her husband was there. These statements are contradictory.

Citi--I am not going to argue with you. My husband was there=--he tried to stop the searchers...they ignored his requests...he then spoke to the Mtn lakes Committee that collects the rent for the Lodge--they informed him what the searchers were doing. ENOUGH SAID. Give me your email address and I will email you pictures of my houe....it will look VERY familiar if you have been to the A Frame.

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>Citi--I am not going to argue with you. My husband was there=--he tried to stop the searchers...they ignored his requests...he then spoke to the Mtn lakes Committee that collects the rent for the Lodge--they informed him what the searchers were doing. ENOUGH SAID. Give me your email address and I will email you pictures of my houe....it will look VERY familiar if you have been to the A Frame.

You're kinda puttin' yourself out there on Topix - where you live, what you do for a living, etc.
---
I'd never read, before, that your land was trespassed upon by the searchers. And that they ignored your husband when he told them to stop! That's a huge issue - why didn't he call the police, or ? I live in an urban area so this isn't really something that come up in my life. It's unfortunate that this happened. Especially considering that your dog was so injured - they must've been relatively close to your home, to get your dog so riled up, yes? And even after his injury (which sounds quite serious)- the searchers still persisted? You'd think an injured animal (blood, etc) would incline them to leave. Then again, I'm not clear on the timeline....did your husband go out there and tell them to leave, THEN the dog got hurt? Or vice versa?

Did she enter the woods or not?

Ive done lots and lots of reading on the case and no one has been able to give me any reason to think she's actually in the woods near the scene.
Yes it is theoretically possible if she is in te woods she wouldn't have been found by now, searchers can not search every square inch and it is possible she's lost in the woods if she got in the woods.
The thing is that it doesn't appear she entered the woods.
Listening to everything that scarinza has said about this is the only thing that he sounds confident about. Pretty mich everything else he gives rather ambiguous answers, but not on that point.
He specifically says that they r confident she didnt enter the woods, a least not near the scene.
I think he's right.
If she is in the woods it could be nearly impossible to find her but in reality how far could she have really gotten? She was wearing no clothing that's ok for winter.
It's not like someOne, anyone, even the best winter mountaineer in the world could get far into the woods without boots gloves or a jacket, it's just impossible.
That's what seperates this case from other cases where people got lost in the woods and it took years to find them. They were able to get into the woods.
During the winter there's no trails entering the woods from the rd. The road has giant snowbanks. Just climbing the snowbank she would've ended up with her shoes full of snow and her hands freezing. She was already shivering when the sbd saw her so does anyone really think that some girl who was shivering from being outside in the cold for 5 minutes could then walk down the road, climb a giant snowbank and then walk miles into the woods with no boots or gloves?
I'm sorry but does anyone actually honestly believe that's what happened? Really?
All the whole being able to cover her tracks so no one could see her trail leading into the woods?

Also the river runs along the road for miles until u go up into the notch, so this eliminates one direction of travel into the woods.
Since there's basically no way she's deep in the woods she would be close to the road.

It's just unbelievable that she is in te woods anywhere near the accident scene.
I have to agree w the poster above, based on all known facts it is most likely that she got abducted.
Nobody has even come close to saying a convincing reason that she is in those woods.
Just bc it's hard to find someone lost in a vast wilderness does not really apply here if u think about it.
She can't b in a vast wilderness, in reality theres not that big of an area she could even b if she entered the woods near te crash and died

Jenkins, I really just have to disagree that she *couldn't* be in the woods. I will agree that she probably didn't go into the woods very near the accident scene, as that area has been apparently very thoroughly searched in one way or another. But if she got 8 or 10 miles on out the road to the east, she could have gone into the woods far enough that she might never be found, and I'm not sure that the searches were very extensive out that far from the accident scene, if in fact it was searched at all. I think I recall that some searching was done in the area of the junction of Rt 112 and Rt 116 where they intersect which is roughly 5 miles from the accident scene and is where the CW says he saw someone walking. But was the area past that point searched? I don't know.

Personally, I tend to think she didn't go into the woods. With the hiking and camping experience she had in the general area, she probably knew how easy it is to become lost. If she wanted to commit suicide, then maybe yes, she did go in the woods. I'm not convinced she wanted to commit suicide.

Additionally, it's possible that she had warm winter gear in the car. There is the matter of that "flurry of activity at the trunk" which no one has an explanation for but could have been Maura getting out winter boots, a heavy jacket or sweatshirt/hoodie to put on under her coat, and snowpants. We don't know what she kept in her trunk. Presumably she had a backpack with her that disappeared with her -- if she normally kept her school books in it, those were left in the car so what was in the backpack when she left? Could be she stuffed warm clothes into it and took off down the road to where she could change, if her intention was to hike the rest of the way out Rt 112 east. Since we don't know what she did, this seems as likely to me as any other scenario and more reasonable than many.

Advocate wrote:

I agree with pretty much all Your saying here.
What I was trying to say is that she isn't in te woods near the accident scene.
Yes she could've run up 112 or miles and then entered the woods but is this believable at all?
She ran/walks 10 miles up into the notch and then enters the woods? At that point how far could she really have gotten into the woods?
Once u get up into the notch that's some seriously rough terrain.
Nobody could walk very far up there without snowshoes and proper winter gear.
Also this whole theory is based on the premise that she was up there to commit suicide. U don't enter the woods miles from an accident in te winter unless u r planning on dying.
I know some people have theorized she went up to a mountain to drink herself to death, like Fred told his kids he would do(wtf?!?! He really said that to his kids?!)
That is just a ridiculous theory IMO. It's the middle of winter, near impossible to even OMB a mountain without serious gear. On top of that wouldn't that b the slowest most torturing suicide ever?
& she had nothing even close to enough liquor to drink herself to death, come on.
She sent a note to her teachers claiming a death in the family. There is only one reason to do that, so she could have an excused abscene and come back to school.
This is UMass, not some highschool where they call you parents if u miss school for a day.
They don't come looking for u, they don't do anythif except mark u absent.
Saying there's a death in the family is one of the knot ways to get excused absences in some programs, like nursing where u aren't allowed to miss class.
If she was planning on suicide there would b absolutely no need to send an email to teachers, what would she care if she got excused she's dead?
The whole she's in te woods senatoo just doesn't make sense on so many levels, and on top of that there was 2' of snow on the ground and scarinza flew the entire length of 112 looking for a trail leading into the woods, he saw absolutely nothing.
Through flir u can actually see footprints.
Her tracks leading into the woods from the rd would be visible.
It's def possible she had some sort of winter jacket in her trunk. We know she didnt take any pairs of her gloves. Even if she had a jacket she certainly wasn't prepared to b able to get deep into the woods.
If she was in the woods this shouldve been a relatively easy search to accomplish.
There's only so many ways she could've went to even get into the woods, & I seriously doubt if he got into the woods she could've made it more than a mile. Oh yea, & she would've had to cover her tracks. Maybe she knew how to backtrack and throw of trackers from all her military training at WP. Lol
& again, if u believe she's in the woods then u believe she went up there to kill herself, I don't c any other explanation for her to be in the woods.
If she is in the woods deep I agree that it's extremely difficult to locate someone. But just bc it's very hard to find someone in a vast wilderness, that does not mean she's there.
At this point nobody has even come close to convincing me she might b in the woods

I've said it before but was pelted with nuts: Even if it were possible to prove she left the scene in a car it's a whole other leap to assume whoever gave her a lift harmed her.

Someone could have taken her to a location she requested and dropped her off entirely unharmed before going about their business and never giving her another thought. They could have been from anywhere in the country and may never have heard about Maura's disappearence.

Harm could have come to her hours, days, weeks after the accident after a series of lifts, chance meetings or rash descisions not necessarily in the immediate aftermath of the crash.

This is where I feel so much for the family: if LE had looked for her thoroughly as soon as they found her car the trail would've been shorter, fresher and less complicated. As it is, anything could have happened.

I think this says more about how missing adults are treated the world over than it does about individual officers or forces but the lack of urgent response. Does seem to hamper positive outcomes time and time again.

Jenkins wrote:

Did she enter the woods or not?
Ive done lots and lots of reading on the case and no one has been able to give me any reason to think she's actually in the woods near the scene.
Yes it is theoretically possible if she is in te woods she wouldn't have been found by now, searchers can not search every square inch and it is possible she's lost in the woods if she got in the woods.
The thing is that it doesn't appear she entered the woods.
Listening to everything that scarinza has said about this is the only thing that he sounds confident about. Pretty mich everything else he gives rather ambiguous answers, but not on that point.
He specifically says that they r confident she didnt enter the woods, a least not near the scene.
I think he's right.
If she is in the woods it could be nearly impossible to find her but in reality how far could she have really gotten? She was wearing no clothing that's ok for winter.
It's not like someOne, anyone, even the best winter mountaineer in the world could get far into the woods without boots gloves or a jacket, it's just impossible.
That's what seperates this case from other cases where people got lost in the woods and it took years to find them. They were able to get into the woods.
During the winter there's no trails entering the woods from the rd. The road has giant snowbanks. Just climbing the snowbank she would've ended up with her shoes full of snow and her hands freezing. She was already shivering when the sbd saw her so does anyone really think that some girl who was shivering from being outside in the cold for 5 minutes could then walk down the road, climb a giant snowbank and then walk miles into the woods with no boots or gloves?
I'm sorry but does anyone actually honestly believe that's what happened? Really?
All the whole being able to cover her tracks so no one could see her trail leading into the woods?
Also the river runs along the road for miles until u go up into the notch, so this eliminates one direction of travel into the woods.
Since there's basically no way she's deep in the woods she would be close to the road.
It's just unbelievable that she is in te woods anywhere near the accident scene.
I have to agree w the poster above, based on all known facts it is most likely that she got abducted.
Nobody has even come close to saying a convincing reason that she is in those woods.
Just bc it's hard to find someone lost in a vast wilderness does not really apply here if u think about it.
She can't b in a vast wilderness, in reality theres not that big of an area she could even b if she entered the woods near te crash and died

I agree completely, I do not understand why people on this forum seem to think she entered the woods but I do not feel it is probably at all. The police searched the area numerous times and with all of the hikers in the area she would have been found by now if that is what happened. Why don't It did not snow for three days after the accident so the initial search would have revealed footprints in the accident scene area. If she did walk/run down the road why would she then enter the woods? It is pretty clear that what the police are saying is accurate

AcidHouseMartin wrote:

I've said it before but was pelted with nuts: Even if it were possible to prove she left the scene in a car it's a whole other leap to assume whoever gave her a lift harmed her.
Someone could have taken her to a location she requested and dropped her off entirely unharmed before going about their business and never giving her another thought. They could have been from anywhere in the country and may never have heard about Maura's disappearence.
Harm could have come to her hours, days, weeks after the accident after a series of lifts, chance meetings or rash descisions not necessarily in the immediate aftermath of the crash.
This is where I feel so much for the family: if LE had looked for her thoroughly as soon as they found her car the trail would've been shorter, fresher and less complicated. As it is, anything could have happened.
I think this says more about how missing adults are treated the world over than it does about individual officers or forces but the lack of urgent response. Does seem to hamper positive outcomes time and time again.

I see your point but I think that it is unlikely they did not hear about her being missing after the fact. However; it is possible but unlikely in my mind. I think whoever picked her up abducted her. The family posted fliers for a 100 mile radius and it was on the news for days. Additionally this case is not national with much more publicity than most cases. I'm pretty sure whoever she got a ride with or came into contact was the person who is responsible for Maura's disappearance.

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
You're kinda puttin' yourself out there on Topix - where you live, what you do for a living, etc.
---
I'd never read, before, that your land was trespassed upon by the searchers. And that they ignored your husband when he told them to stop! That's a huge issue - why didn't he call the police, or ? I live in an urban area so this isn't really something that come up in my life. It's unfortunate that this happened. Especially considering that your dog was so injured - they must've been relatively close to your home, to get your dog so riled up, yes? And even after his injury (which sounds quite serious)- the searchers still persisted? You'd think an injured animal (blood, etc) would incline them to leave. Then again, I'm not clear on the timeline....did your husband go out there and tell them to leave, THEN the dog got hurt? Or vice versa?

Seriously, I am done talking abotu it because no matter what I say, it is argued by Citi--its been that way for soem time now. Several people here know who I am, where I live.......where my other homes are---not a big deal. People know that I assciate professionally with more than 1 of Maura's high school and/or college friends...and I think that's what gets me so much resistance from the people who are not willing to look at alternatives to "a local scumbag" cause. I'm done with this whole thing....I obviously have no business being here or stating the truths that I know. With that being said, I hope that someday the truth is discovered....but I'm sure, one way or another, the truth will get argued.

anonymousone wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree completely, I do not understand why people on this forum seem to think she entered the woods but I do not feel it is probably at all. The police searched the area numerous times and with all of the hikers in the area she would have been found by now if that is what happened. Why don't It did not snow for three days after the accident so the initial search would have revealed footprints in the accident scene area. If she did walk/run down the road why would she then enter the woods? It is pretty clear that what the police are saying is accurate

Most people on this forum, who have done their research, would agree with you that she was most likely picked up by a vehicle and there was foul play involved. There is no evidence that she went into the woods near the crash site. A Canine SAR team, Nancy Lyon and her Belgian Malinois combed the area on February 12, but could find no evidence that Maura entered the nearby forests. A Troop F (NHSP) seconded Bloodhound traced her scent 100 yards eastward to just before Bradley Hill Road where the trail ended in the middle of the road, suggesting she entered a vehicle.

She's not been heard from since and yet her overnight bag was left in the car. Apparently she was fastidious about her dental hygiene but her toiletries were left behind suggesting that she wasn't planning on being away from the Saturn for long, certainly not overnight. Her AAA card was in the car's console so she probably didn't even leave the vicinity of the vehicle to call for a tow because she would have had to recite her membership number to the operator. A well-respected local resident saw a suspicious Red Truck lurking in the area 20 minutes before Maura vanished and the occupant(s) appeared to be looking for someone yet didn't speak with that witness (RobinsonOrdway) to ask if she'd seen anyone. So, you're absolutely spot on in your analysis of the facts IMO.

Some of the blame-the-victim sentiment on this forum is backlash because many people (not just family) perceive that the locals didn't do enough that night to help a stranded girl. As you can see there exists some long-standing personal tiffs between posters that goes back to older discussion boards that are extremely petty and have absolutely nothing to do with finding out what happened to Maura. And then, predictably, there are there the misogynists who feel that the young woman got what she deserved and that she must have been hormonal, unbalanced or suicidal and made poor choices, and thus is deserving of her fate.

Many posters who agree with your point of view are currently taking a backseat role or are elsewhere awaiting new information on this disappearance.

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
Most people on this forum, who have done their research, would agree with you that she was most likely picked up by a vehicle and there was foul play involved. There is no evidence that she went into the woods near the crash site. A Canine SAR team, Nancy Lyon and her Belgian Malinois combed the area on February 12, but could find no evidence that Maura entered the nearby forests. A Troop F (NHSP) seconded Bloodhound traced her scent 100 yards eastward to just before Bradley Hill Road where the trail ended in the middle of the road, suggesting she entered a vehicle.
She's not been heard from since and yet her overnight bag was left in the car. Apparently she was fastidious about her dental hygiene but her toiletries were left behind suggesting that she wasn't planning on being away from the Saturn for long, certainly not overnight. Her AAA card was in the car's console so she probably didn't even leave the vicinity of the vehicle to call for a tow because she would have had to recite her membership number to the operator. A well-respected local resident saw a suspicious Red Truck lurking in the area 20 minutes before Maura vanished and the occupant(s) appeared to be looking for someone yet didn't speak with that witness (RobinsonOrdway) to ask if she'd seen anyone. So, you're absolutely spot on in your analysis of the facts IMO.
Some of the blame-the-victim sentiment on this forum is backlash because many people (not just family) perceive that the locals didn't do enough that night to help a stranded girl. As you can see there exists some long-standing personal tiffs between posters that goes back to older discussion boards that are extremely petty and have absolutely nothing to do with finding out what happened to Maura. And then, predictably, there are there the misogynists who feel that the young woman got what she deserved and that she must have been hormonal, unbalanced or suicidal and made poor choices, and thus is deserving of her fate.
Many posters who agree with your point of view are currently taking a backseat role or are elsewhere awaiting new information on this disappearance.

Frostman exactly what is supposed to be done for someone who crashes her car probably because she was drinking, and then leaves the scene. She already refused help from butch. She was in control of her actions up until after she left her car which was her right to do? The locals couldn't go down their and restrain her from leaving.

If she was hitching a ride from a stranger she should know that she probably wouldn't make it back until morning so she probably would have brought her overnight bag.

There is just as much evidence of her going off into the woods as there is of her getting a ride.

I know it sucks to blame the victim but we also have to look at this objectively. Maura did not help herself that night by leaving school and telling no one or drinking when she was driving. and fleeing the scene of a crime. this Ofcourse is just my opinion.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>Frostman exactly what is supposed to be done for someone who crashes her car probably because she was drinking, and then leaves the scene. She already refused help from butch. She was in control of her actions up until after she left her car which was her right to do? The locals couldn't go down their and restrain her from leaving. If she was hitching a ride from a stranger she should know that she probably wouldn't make it back until morning so she probably would have brought her overnight bag. There is just as much evidence of her going off into the woods as there is of her getting a ride. I know it sucks to blame the victim but we also have to look at this objectively. Maura did not help herself that night by leaving school and telling no one or drinking when she was driving. and fleeing the scene of a crime. this Ofcourse is just my opinion.

I wasn't judging the witnesses, local residents or LE, I was explaining my perception of the woe-is-me, blame the victim sentiment that appears to run rampant on this forum.

Unless you have evidence that there was Maura's DNA on the Coke bottle found underneath the Saturn then you don't know she was drinking from it do you? She wasn't cited for a DUI at the Hadley crash, so I doubt she was under the influence. AnonymousOne said there were lots of beer cans etc. along that stretch of Route 112 and eastward.

My sense is that Maura refused help from the SBD because she thought she could call AAA directly and was unaware that there was limited cell service in the area. Why else would her auto card be out and in the console of the car? The fact that the dog followed Maura's scent 100 yards down the road in the path and direction of the prevailing winds might mean that Maura did not leave the vicinity her vehicle. Who said she was hitching a ride? Quite possibly someone grabbed her while she was outside her vehicle or they offered her a ride into town with the promise of bringing her back straightaway.(Think Red Truck sighting by RO.)

Maura was fleeing the scene of a crime? At least we agree on one thing -- that there was a crime involved. I don't think you're looking at the few known facts objectively or possibly you haven't read all the available information that is out there. Perhaps you just find it convenient to jump on the Maura-mongering bandwagon?