Maura Murray

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 am not sure you really understand the concept of Occams Razor. The easiest way to look at it is to consider the simplest solution is likely the correct solution unless a more complicated solution can better explain the circumstances. It never says you can’t speculate. But, if you can explain everything simply by a young women crashing her car while driving intoxicated and then running from the scene to avoid the inevitable contact with the authorities, that fully explains everything found at the scene of the crash and reasons for Maura to not be there. If you want to try a theory with alien abduction (or any other theory) then you need to show how that either better explains the evidence found at the scene or is a less complex theory and still explains the current evidence. If you cannot create even an equivalent theory to explain the evidence at the scene, then Occam says you should disregard that theory in favor of the less complex one. It is not designed to actually find an answer, especially an answer that you might like. It is designed to keep from following absurd theories that lead you away from the truth. Occam is good. Occam helps avoid chasing ones tail. Occam hasn’t been around for seven centuries for nothing. It persists, because it works.

What it seems you want to do is to explain the time after she ran from the car by having her dead somewhere by killers unknown and then to solve this “case” with the information occurring before her death at the car crash scene. That becomes the realm of psychics. Except that any thinking person doesn’t believe in psychics. When evidence appears indicating what happened after her fleeing the car crash, then we may actually start applying Occam. Otherwise you are not applying any scientific method, you are just guessing along with the rest of them. It is an incomplete theory because it must be.

Bill

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
"carry on"
intransitive verb
1
: to continue especially in spite of hindrance or discouragement <chose to carry on despite the weather>
(didn't ask you to leave, public forum, you have the right to post here)
You are talking apples & oranges again. Only asked why you regretted posting the info twice. Which you somewhat explained to the best of your ability. Now your dragging in Whiston's post, which I have brought up myself on many occasions.(and obviously agree) You are trying to change the issue. Speak about the BF all you want. Leave out the personal info. until you have proof of the accusations. I can't make myself anymore clear. That is my beef, not discussing the possibility. It could very well be true. Just leave out the personal info.
LE is not stupid, if you know about this, if true, THEY DO. And I'm sure they looked into it.
And don't drag other people into something YOU choose to release.

carry on....

WTF-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not sure you really understand the concept of Occams Razor. The easiest way to look at it is to consider the simplest solution is likely the correct solution unless a more complicated solution can better explain the circumstances. It never says you can’t speculate. But, if you can explain everything simply by a young women crashing her car while driving intoxicated and then running from the scene to avoid the inevitable contact with the authorities, that fully explains everything found at the scene of the crash and reasons for Maura to not be there. If you want to try a theory with alien abduction (or any other theory) then you need to show how that either better explains the evidence found at the scene or is a less complex theory and still explains the current evidence. If you cannot create even an equivalent theory to explain the evidence at the scene, then Occam says you should disregard that theory in favor of the less complex one. It is not designed to actually find an answer, especially an answer that you might like. It is designed to keep from following absurd theories that lead you away from the truth. Occam is good. Occam helps avoid chasing ones tail. Occam hasn’t been around for seven centuries for nothing. It persists, because it works.
What it seems you want to do is to explain the time after she ran from the car by having her dead somewhere by killers unknown and then to solve this “case” with the information occurring before her death at the car crash scene. That becomes the realm of psychics. Except that any thinking person doesn’t believe in psychics. When evidence appears indicating what happened after her fleeing the car crash, then we may actually start applying Occam. Otherwise you are not applying any scientific method, you are just guessing along with the rest of them. It is an incomplete theory because it must be.
Bill

Bill seriously WTF! I stated why I didn't think it is good to claim that occam's razor works well in this case. It doesn't. What is the simple explanation. It's a good practice when you have facts to go on, but since the facts are in question all we have is speculation. Right? I agree with your definition of occam's razor, but that is precisely not the point I was trying to make. For someone that likes to put down a good logical argument, you seem to put a lot of words into my mouth. How do you know what "it seems" I want to do. Besides you couldn't be further from the truth in thinking I want to reconstruct her so called abduction. I never said I thought there was an abduction.

If we apply occam's razor does what does that do for us? I hate even talking about it because I feel like its pretentious wankery in this case. It won't work because we don't even have a universal sense of what the facts are. Use it and give us your theory.

Change of subject --- I don´t believe this question about Maura checking her voicemail on her way north, posted by Sara on a deleted topix thread on May 18, 2009, ever got answered.

"If she checked her messages, then she must have had a message, which would mean LE or family would know from the phone records who called her right? Who was the message from? That is key and phone records should show this."

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.

Anne you've led the posters that have been here for awhile to believe that you heard a second accident. When I asked how you could remember another accident months back and even the time it occured you said you remembered because a friend of yours was traveling home that night and when you heard the accident on the scanner you were very worried thinking it might be her so you kept trying to call her.
Posters went over this 2nd accident scenerio for months wondering if the damage to the car happened at this previous accident that you heard. Lots of time and thoughts spent on what you said you heard on the scanner.
Now you're saying that someone else theorized it but it could be a possibility.
And the early on search? No need to get into that again as I think I've seen enough bull poopy for one day.
I don't see where it's possible that you were the only one besides someone else in your home to hear these things on the scanner. No reports of an earlier accident. No reports of an earlier search. No dispatch logs. No nothing except for what you heard.
I didn't believe it then and I believe it even less now.

hannah_b wrote:

Change of subject --- I don´t believe this question about Maura checking her voicemail on her way north, posted by Sara on a deleted topix thread on May 18, 2009, ever got answered.
"If she checked her messages, then she must have had a message, which would mean LE or family would know from the phone records who called her right? Who was the message from? That is key and phone records should show this."

if i remember correctly billy had left her a voicemail.. not sure tho.. and IF they got phone records not the BILL it would show who called her. The incoming call would only show if her phone was on. If her phone was off or her battery dead and call came in - that would NOT show on the bill only in the bill records which would come from Sprint.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Anne you've led the posters that have been here for awhile to believe that you heard a second accident. When I asked how you could remember another accident months back and even the time it occured you said you remembered because a friend of yours was traveling home that night and when you heard the accident on the scanner you were very worried thinking it might be her so you kept trying to call her.
Posters went over this 2nd accident scenerio for months wondering if the damage to the car happened at this previous accident that you heard. Lots of time and thoughts spent on what you said you heard on the scanner.
Now you're saying that someone else theorized it but it could be a possibility.
And the early on search? No need to get into that again as I think I've seen enough bull poopy for one day.
I don't see where it's possible that you were the only one besides someone else in your home to hear these things on the scanner. No reports of an earlier accident. No reports of an earlier search. No dispatch logs. No nothing except for what you heard.
I didn't believe it then and I believe it even less now.

I second this..

Anne.. you even replied to me and said you "burst my bubble" because others heard this accident too on the scanner. Now someone "theorized it" We just went over this two weeks ago. it is a yes no question. Did you hear there was an accident on the scanner? yes / no. Where did you hear other people where searching for her earlier ?_________ fill in the blank. I find it quite interesting that some non facts - are OK to post her and others - that people know about - the messenger is killed. I think of gvmebrk - hers made it all the way to the ID show.

High Bandwidth Radio wrote:

<quoted text>
Bill seriously WTF! I stated why I didn't think it is good to claim that occam's razor works well in this case. It doesn't. What is the simple explanation. It's a good practice when you have facts to go on, but since the facts are in question all we have is speculation.

One of us is misunderstanding Occam. Occam works perfectly well in this case. Simply because there are few facts it doesn't mean that Occam doesn't apply or isn't useful. Just because the strength of gravity is less on the moon doesn't mean the law is suspended or less useful.

There are several facts that shouldn't be in dispute though some still dispute them and mostly by not following Occam. Such as who was driving the car. Occam tells us that Maura was driving Maura's car and anyone disputing that should be forced to justify that it wasn't Maura. Something not done by anyone claiming that it wasn't Maura. So Occam again, leads us in the correct direction. It should also be considered fact that the person that ran from Maura's car was Maura, again, unless someone could prove their more convoluted theory somehow fits the facts better.

The man smoking question. I am now convinced that the smoking man identification was because that witness (only one witness) probably saw steam from Maura's breath and thought that was smoke. That is a simpler explanation than a man, that no one else saw, or believes was traveling with Maura. Again, Occam at work.

Bill

Euroobserver wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Yes, I did have it mixed up when posting. Maura driving West....her dad insists that she was so she stall at the dog lost her scent spot. Get's out, gets back in and tries to keep driving west. Car spins out, neighbor can't figure out how she could spin the corner like that. Just doesn't happen that way he says. Well yah, because maybe it didn't happen that way. Thanks for helping me out Euro

WTF-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
One of us is misunderstanding Occam. Occam works perfectly well in this case. Simply because there are few facts it doesn't mean that Occam doesn't apply or isn't useful. Just because the strength of gravity is less on the moon doesn't mean the law is suspended or less useful.
There are several facts that shouldn't be in dispute though some still dispute them and mostly by not following Occam. Such as who was driving the car. Occam tells us that Maura was driving Maura's car and anyone disputing that should be forced to justify that it wasn't Maura. Something not done by anyone claiming that it wasn't Maura. So Occam again, leads us in the correct direction. It should also be considered fact that the person that ran from Maura's car was Maura, again, unless someone could prove their more convoluted theory somehow fits the facts better.
The man smoking question. I am now convinced that the smoking man identification was because that witness (only one witness) probably saw steam from Maura's breath and thought that was smoke. That is a simpler explanation than a man, that no one else saw, or believes was traveling with Maura. Again, Occam at work.
Bill

The facts are inconsistent that is the problem. Gravity is different in degree, it is not different in kind. It may be useful to use Occam's razor, but in this case certain presuppositions will need to be made to even use it. The fact that different presuppositions will be made in order to use it, leads to the fact that we will all have different opinions about the results or theories we construct when we use it. Given that, I think for someone to come on this forum and say it must be such and such a way because that is what occam's razor tell us, is about as valuable as saying, it must be such and such a way because i said so.

If we are going to discredit the idea that someone was in the car with Maura and smoking a cigarette because there was only one person who saw it, as well as the claim that there was a report of two accidents because there was only one person who saw it, are we also going to discredit the claim that Maura was in NH because only one person saw her?

Hi all, the chances that the Westmans saw smoke coming from anyones breath are slim to none in my opinion.I think the red light or glow from the car that may have been seen was a cigarette or pipe or cell phone.Seeing someones breath from the Westmans window to the saturn would be impressive even in younger people.Maybe it is time to ask which family memebers Maura had living in Amherst when she vanished and why they posted photos on feb 09 2004 Go ROWING

WTF-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
One of us is misunderstanding Occam. Occam works perfectly well in this case. Simply because there are few facts it doesn't mean that Occam doesn't apply or isn't useful. Just because the strength of gravity is less on the moon doesn't mean the law is suspended or less useful.
There are several facts that shouldn't be in dispute though some still dispute them and mostly by not following Occam. Such as who was driving the car. Occam tells us that Maura was driving Maura's car and anyone disputing that should be forced to justify that it wasn't Maura. Something not done by anyone claiming that it wasn't Maura. So Occam again, leads us in the correct direction. It should also be considered fact that the person that ran from Maura's car was Maura, again, unless someone could prove their more convoluted theory somehow fits the facts better.
The man smoking question. I am now convinced that the smoking man identification was because that witness (only one witness) probably saw steam from Maura's breath and thought that was smoke. That is a simpler explanation than a man, that no one else saw, or believes was traveling with Maura. Again, Occam at work.
Bill

In the friendliest manner possible.

I think that of what has been reported as basic fact produces divergent speculations. I'll just call them reasonable conclusions based upon limited information.

We are told that Maura drove the car as little as possible - even though she had an excellent academic record and her curriculum required her to have transport.

Given the above, I doubt that there will ever be a simple explanation as to why the car was driven at all, let alone as far as it was.

The simplest explanation, considering those facts in isolation, is that she did not drive the car. Which, of course. contradicts the below:

The whole of the evidence seems to indicate that she was in the car.

Not only does Atwood say there was at least a resemblance, but, her going willingly in that general direction is inferred by the simple explanation that only Maura would send have access to her computer to email her professors (to ask for a week off) or to look for directions to Burlington, Vermont.

These are seemingly contradictory simple explanations.

WHISTON wrote:

Hi all, the chances that the Westmans saw smoke coming from anyones breath are slim to none in my opinion.I think the red light or glow from the car that may have been seen was a cigarette or pipe or cell phone.Seeing someones breath from the Westmans window to the saturn would be impressive even in younger people.Maybe it is time to ask which family memebers Maura had living in Amherst when she vanished and why they posted photos on feb 09 2004 Go ROWING

I have lots to do tonight so I might not be able to get to all the questions raised. I will ask this one before I go though. Where, did you hear about the red light or glow. Was that in any report you read or just speculation that is why Westman thought a man was smoking? I don't ever remember reading that Westman saw something glowing red until after the speculation about a man smoking. Westman wasn't the source of the glow or red light. The speculation of the smoking man is what generated the glow or red light. The steam may have been from Maura depending on the lighting it could have been very obvious even from Westmans location. It also could have been escaping steam from the car or possibly the bus.

THE MAIN POINT IS - where did the RUMOR of a red light or glow come from????? Did it actually come from Westman or from people speculating about the smoking man?

Bill

WHISTON wrote:

Hi all, the chances that the Westmans saw smoke coming from anyones breath are slim to none in my opinion.I think the red light or glow from the car that may have been seen was a cigarette or pipe or cell phone.Seeing someones breath from the Westmans window to the saturn would be impressive even in younger people.Maybe it is time to ask which family memebers Maura had living in Amherst when she vanished and why they posted photos on feb 09 2004 Go ROWING

first i heard of this.. can you share more? what pictures were posted? and ON 2/9/2004 - on that very date they put the pictures up on go rowing ? I googled and found lots of sites. Help

Dawn wrote:

<quoted text>
first i heard of this.. can you share more? what pictures were posted? and ON 2/9/2004 - on that very date they put the pictures up on go rowing ? I googled and found lots of sites. Help

Dawn,
You just beat me to it...
I was just about to ask Philip/Whiston the same question.
I have never before heard anything regarding Maura´s family posting pictures of her on the very date she disappeared.
Please, enlighten us - thanks!

WTF-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I have lots to do tonight so I might not be able to get to all the questions raised. I will ask this one before I go though. Where, did you hear about the red light or glow. Was that in any report you read or just speculation that is why Westman thought a man was smoking? I don't ever remember reading that Westman saw something glowing red until after the speculation about a man smoking. Westman wasn't the source of the glow or red light. The speculation of the smoking man is what generated the glow or red light. The steam may have been from Maura depending on the lighting it could have been very obvious even from Westmans location. It also could have been escaping steam from the car or possibly the bus.
THE MAIN POINT IS - where did the RUMOR of a red light or glow come from????? Did it actually come from Westman or from people speculating about the smoking man?
Bill

bill if you go to the mm site to the logs - you will see dispatch - got this from her when she called 911 - not rumor. people debate if true - but she did say it..

WTF-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I have lots to do tonight so I might not be able to get to all the questions raised. I will ask this one before I go though. Where, did you hear about the red light or glow. Was that in any report you read or just speculation that is why Westman thought a man was smoking? I don't ever remember reading that Westman saw something glowing red until after the speculation about a man smoking. Westman wasn't the source of the glow or red light. The speculation of the smoking man is what generated the glow or red light. The steam may have been from Maura depending on the lighting it could have been very obvious even from Westmans location. It also could have been escaping steam from the car or possibly the bus.
THE MAIN POINT IS - where did the RUMOR of a red light or glow come from????? Did it actually come from Westman or from people speculating about the smoking man?
Bill

It was one of the two Westmans that said it when they were interviewed after by family/private investigators. I have the info on another computer so it isn't readily accessible right now. But it wasn't a rumor that this was said. In the dispatch log, it says:

"AT 1927, FW CALLED, TO ADV OF A VEH IN THE DITCH RIGHT ON SHARP TURN AFTER THE WEATHERED BARN; UNK IF PI, BUT CAN SEE A MAN IN VEH SMOKING A CIGARETTE, WAS E/B RT 112, BUT ENDED UP IN W/B DITCH FACING W/B."

Okay, now that I'm going through "old" postings, I came across this one posted by one of the private investigators. Thought I'd post because it addresses some of the "conversations" that are currently on here. I copied this from one of the other Topix forums that went "poof."
**********
"I would like to recap some information that has previously been posted on the MMM Forum and partly on this site as well, with reference to the first “call-out” about an accident on route 112 at or about 7:00-7:10 PM on February 9, 2004.

A witness returning home from her/his place of employment at Cottage Hospital on Goose Lane stated she/he observed a black “Bronco style” police unit with #1 stenciled on it passed her/him heading (with blue lights flashing) toward the intersection of Goose Lane and French Pond Road in Swiftwater.

Please have a map of this area to follow along as it gets confusing since these routes twist from Haverhill into the Swiftwater portion of the town of Bath and back into the northern section of Haverhill. Goose Lane and the Cottage Hospital are in Haverhill, then into Bath where it continues south-south west back toward the Woodsville portion of Haverhill. As the witness drove further up Goose Lane she/he observed the police unit continue on Goose Lane back toward Swiftwater.

As this witness turned off Goose Lane in Bath and onto French Pond Road and the very short distance on French Pond Road to the intersection with route 112 (the Wild Ammonoosuc Road as it’s called) almost across from the general store, she/he observed the same unit (#1) pass her/him at that intersection heading east toward where the Saturn was ultimately located.

When the witness came to the corner at the Weathered Barn she/he saw this police unit, nose to nose with the Saturn (ass-end into the snow bank) but did not see any officers or people around the two vehicles (it is assumed Sgt. Smith was at this point either speaking with the Westermans or down speaking with Mr. Atwood. The witness then continued along route 112 East heading home and flashed her/his high-low beams to
oncoming traffic (universal signal to slow down ahead) due to the location of the accident on the sharp curve.

This witness’ account of what she/he saw that evening supports the postings about an “earlier accident” where “female left in private vehicle”, which was heard by others over the scanners up in that area.

What does all this mean then? It means an officer was responding to a “vehicle slid off the road” call, but rather than take the most direct route to the Weathered Barn the officer went back toward Route 10 where it intersect with Goose Lane up in the Woodsville section of Haverhill, before turning back toward the corner at the Westerman’s
Weathered Barn. Could there have been two separate women sliding off the road into snow banks that evening within thirty minutes of one another, I doubt it but it is possible none the less. "

One of the largest misunderstandings concerning the scanner chatter is that I was the only one to hear it which is absolutely ridiculous and untrue. Other households heard the same. I seem to be the only one foolish enough to be out here, plain and simple. I cannot explain the discrepancies and have listened to many. Dawn, you expressed several times not to shoot the messenger and yet you do the same. Wowzer, I have answered what you have asked, although you never think I have. I will not state anything that would hinder possible future legal proceedings. We can only grapple with postings of individuals here in our own way, deciding alone what we know is truth. The truth I know is they were looking for a female at around 7 on February 9, 2004. That short statement has taken on a life of its own since 2004. This was years before the official documents were public. I know what I said and it is still the truth.

Lady Gray wrote:

<quoted text>BUT CAN SEE A MAN IN VEH SMOKING A CIGARETTE

So where is the report of seeing a red light or glow? That was never reported. We don't know what it was that made her think that she saw a man smoking a cigarette. No where did the witness report that it was a red glow or light. It might have been just "smoke" that made her believe that. The belief that it was a red glow or light was injected by forum people, not the witness.

Bill