Maura Murray

I guess I'll repost that;

This was posted on topix by weeper:

"Euro, your post (3993) is correct in part (if one wishes to begin at Amherst, MA and work ones way to Haverhill, NH it would take longer than where we are today) however, we do have to start at one end or the other. Sometimes the only way to find the beginning is to work backwards and in this case it’s the abandoned Saturn 620 feet east of the intersection of Bradley Hill Road on Route 112 in Haverhill, NH. This is where the “physical evidence” to wit; the vehicle was found. I have posted and clearly stated as “fact”(this can be backed up in any court of law, but not here) the damage to the Saturn did not happen where the vehicle was recovered. Hence, our investigation of foul play begins there,(by “there” I mean within a few miles) and I might add, has not ventured far from there, for the two and a half years that I’ve been involved with this case. This does not mean we (the Team, LE and others) have not explored all the possibilities to include run-away, suicide, accidental wandering/death, hit-and-run etc. "

& a different post:

"I (this is my “professional opinion”, not necessarily the Team or LE you understand) believe the location of the Saturn was staged. I believe Maura met with foul play prior to the staging, I believe the overhang damage to the front end of the Saturn was deliberate; I believe her disappearance was not voluntary and I further believe this is no longer a “search and rescue” but a recovery. If there was ever a time in my life I hope to be wrong it is at this time. "

Just wanted to clear that up so nobody thought that was me

FrmLE wrote:

I wonder if anyone here knows Frank Kelly? Jenkins, can you perhaps post his resume? You mentioned it was very impressive, maybe that would help.

I know Frank Kelly.

FrmLE wrote:

How would it hamper the investigation? Was there any details about how thorough their investigation was? Who did they interview, exactly?
That would be crucial to assessing how much weight to give their conclusions.

FrmLE did you actually investigate Mauras case? And if so at what date of the investigation to her disappearance did you become involved? Thank you.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Someone would do this to muddy the waters and /or hide potential evidence, plain and simple.
If you think about it it's actualty a great idea If you wanted to commit a crime like this. You leave the car in a different spot to throw off any investigation right from the start.
People crash at the wb corner all the time in the winter, a local would know this.
People leave cars that have been crashed into snowbanks all the time in Nh, this is perfectly normal behavior innthe north country whether your drunk or sober.
So if you make it so LE thinks someone simply spun our around a corner & left her car, they wouldn't even be looking for her for days when the family reported her missing.
Whoever committed this crime was either smart or really lucky, certainly not like Allan Prue and his wife who couldn't cover their tracks to save their lives

Jenkins I have thought about it and I think it is one of the dumbest ideas I have read. If the second was staged and there was a Maura look a like where the heck did she go? She vanished as well from the crash.

FrmLE wrote:

Who is or was the NHLI working for when they conducted their Investigation? Does anyone know?

Not trying to disrespect you but if you were LE at the time of Mauras disappearance you would not have to ask these questions.

FrmLE wrote:

Who is or was the NHLI working for when they conducted their Investigation? Does anyone know?

Posted by Weeper:

"To all if I may, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify some basics about the Maura Murray Task Force, the group of private investigators who volunteered their time and expertise in this investigation. Back in November of 2005 several private investigators, all members of the Licensed Private Detective Association of Massachusetts (LPDAM) and the New Hampshire League of Investigators (NHLI), were at an annual meeting of the LPDAM and learned that association had formed a volunteer group of investigators to look into the disappearance of Jennifer Fay of Brockton, Massachusetts. The group of investigators from NHLI (myself included) decided we should follow the example of the Massachusetts association and get our association involved in a similar endeavor. Four members of NHLI formed the Maura Murray Task Force on December 7, 2005 (Pearl Harbor Day) and on December 13, 2005 we drove to Weymouth Massachusetts and we met with Fred Murray and his family for the first time and explained what we wanted to do (of nine “missing persons cases, this was the one we chose) and began the tedious task of gathering background information and what facts were available at that time. We proposed to our association (NHLI) the formalization of the Task Force and garnered eight additional investigators (from as far away as Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts) of varying degrees of expertise. Not one member of the Task Force ever received a dime for the work on this investigation nor would we ever attempt to collect any “reward” for the results of our involvement when the investigation concluded. In early 2006 we had at our disposal contacts in STALK (System to Apprehend Lethal Killers) who provided “criminal profiles” in this matter, hence the “criminal profilers” mentioned in this Forum. Weeper AOL Reply »|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#10973 21 hrs ago Part 2 of 2 Working with the family, friends, Connecticut Search and Rescue (who have volunteered their time and cadaver-dogs in several searches thus far), and Law Enforcement on the State (NH) level and local contacts we moved our investigation along and (to date) came to the same conclusions as had law enforcement, this is not a missing person case, it’s a recovery at this stage, make no mistake about this. There is a poster on this site who changes his handle (moniker) more times than anyone else posting and talks in riddles (having nothing to do with Maura Murray), maligns the volunteer PIs, the Connecticut SAR and offers no supporting facts to his foolishness. I look forward to meeting this person, though I feel confident he’ll not travel to distance to Woodsville, New Hampshire to meet with me and Detective Columbo on Feb. 9, 2009. Dawn, Yes, we do believe there was an “accident” prior to the Weathered Barn though we don’t believe it was an accident. It wasn’t until the summer of 2006 that I was able to access the Saturn and photograph (the photos on the old MMM site were taken by me with Fred Murray at my side) the damage. When searches were conducted during the summer of 2006, there was cilantro hope of finding any viable evidence connected to Maura’s Saturn. The damaged driver’s side headlight remained intact and the best we could hope for was one of two “plastic-cooking wine” missing from the undercarriage/bumper. Metal detectors turned up several coins, bottle caps and a few lug-nuts, nothing from the Saturn though we didn’t walk the entire route down Route 112 from Route 25 heading toward the Weathered Barn. We did check around the damaged “guardrails” but realized the damage to the Saturn was not consistent with the height and width of the guardrails. Hope this answers some of your questions. Respectfully, Weeper"

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenkins I have thought about it and I think it is one of the dumbest ideas I have read. If the second was staged and there was a Maura look a like where the heck did she go? She vanished as well from the crash.

Why is it such a dumb idea? Seems to me that if u can get everyone looking in the wrong place from the start it would make the investigation much more difficul, now you would habe to find the real accident scene and chances are by the time you did any physical evidence would have been lost.

It seems to me that would certainly muddy tw waters & make it much more difficult to figure out what happened. & I this is what happened then it sure did work in this case.
Everybody for the past 8 yrs has assumed that the accident scene was the last place Maura was, but it appears we've all bee wrong in that assumption. It appears that nhle believes the accident scene is not where she was last.
In court they say the can't even reveal her last known location became it would show the suspects the scope of their investigation.
Well they can't b etalking about the wb curve here because that is common knowledge that could not possible hamper the investigation.
Maybe I'm wrong about that fact but it sure doesn't look that way. What possible reason could they have for not revealing that fact that's already known?

& we don't know exactly who the stand in is so how would we know if she was missing? That's why there's an investigation, if we knew that mich somebody would be in jail right now.

The fact is that changing where the accident scene was could be a great way to hide evidence & make the investigation that much more difficult

Besides for the fact that the only person who saw Maura up close was the sbd & it has been shown that he lied time and again to investigators. So why should we trust his id of her? He was the only person who actually places her at the crash site, so we don't necessarily know it was a Maura look alike.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Right, I don't think one opinion is more credible than another. I look at it objectively. Without seeing proof from either side of why they say what they say, it is impossible to know who is right or wrong.
If Weeper had posted a copy of his expert's report re the Saturn damage, for example, it would lend more credibility to his theory. I understand maybe he can't do that, just as FrmLE can't answer certain questions here without compromising the investigation.
I don't take anyone's word as gospel. Obviously no one knows for sure or Maura would be found. It is all just their professional opinions, and we can each choose which one we think is most likely true based on what makes sense to us.

a fair assessment.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't understand what the benefit would be to creating a second crash site so close to another. I don't see any point to that. Also if they say they can prove it why wouldn't they present the proof, why would Fred show the Id discovery viewers the wrong crash site in the show disappeared? I'm sure they would tell Fred of the real crash site. All this doesn't add up for anyone.
Saying a bunch of people heard the calls on the scanner means nothing to me unless they recorded the call.

i tend to believe the simplest explanation is usually the most direct and correct.
not only does there seem to be no benefit to a second crash site, it defies logistics and time limitations.
to my way of thinking, her relationships are key to how the trip was initiated (from MA) and how it ended (in NH).
i'd be surprised if there isn't one person, somewhere, whether Maura's family member or friend, who has some knowledge about Maura's state of mind before leaving campus, and about her social and romantic relationship(s). it is key, if her disappearance involves someone known to her.
it's very hard for me to believe she was abducted by a stranger from a road that is reasonably well traveled and where there have been no similar incidents, before or after.
everyone, of course, will know when she's found.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Right, I don't think one opinion is more credible than another. I look at it objectively. Without seeing proof from either side of why they say what they say, it is impossible to know who is right or wrong.
If Weeper had posted a copy of his expert's report re the Saturn damage, for example, it would lend more credibility to his theory. I understand maybe he can't do that, just as FrmLE can't answer certain questions here without compromising the investigation.
I don't take anyone's word as gospel. Obviously no one knows for sure or Maura would be found. It is all just their professional opinions, and we can each choose which one we think is most likely true based on what makes sense to us.

FrmLE has never worked maura's case at all, at least according to him, so there's no reason he can't answer questions.
Also he believes she simply got lost in the woods so if his theory is correct then there's no crime anyways, so he's in absolutely no danger of damaging any investigation.

While weeper did not post the actualt report from his expert he did say the findings.
The findings were that the damage did not occur at the wb curve, the dent above her drivers headlight was caused by some sort of "overhang" object. Since there is no such object at the wb curve we can ascertain that the damage was not caused there.

We aren't exactly sure where the damage was cussed or what exactly caused it but the one thing we know for sure 100% is the damage was not caused by a snowbank or a tree

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>John Healy was the head of NH league of private inve4stigators. Frank Kelly was one of the PIs investigating this case as well as other PIs including John Healy.

Yup, thanks for clearing that up. I obviously confused the 2 but that doesn't change to point of what I was saying

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
not only does there seem to be no benefit to a second crash site, it defies logistics and time limitations.
to my way of thinking, her relationships are key to how the trip was initiated (from MA) and how it ended (in NH).
i'd be surprised if there isn't one person, somewhere, whether Maura's family member or friend, who has some knowledge about Maura's state of mind before leaving campus, and about her social and romantic relationship(s). it is key, if her disappearance involves someone known to her.
it's very hard for me to believe she was abducted by a stranger from a road that is reasonably well traveled and where there have been no similar incidents, before or after.
everyone, of course, will know when she's found.

I agree with you, Snowy, and I agree with what Lighthouse says as well. I could go with a second accident theory, or even a staged accident theory if there was some evidence to back this up. The look-a-like thing is what I really don't understand. To pull this off in a short amount of time, they would have had to have planned this in advance to have a look-a-like handy. If this is the case, then they had to have lured her up there or somehow known she would be coming by at this specific time. So, without some documentation to back this up, or a further explanation of how Weeper derived at this theory, it doesn't mean any more to me than any other theory someone posts on a forum.

"She's probably in the woods" doesn't mean a whole lot to me either, without the reasons why.

A highlight of weeper's post:

"I have posted and clearly stated as fact(this can be backed up in any court of law, but not here) the damage to the Saturn did not happen where the vehicl was recovered"

That's a very unambiguous statement made by a known professional who is putting his reputation on the line.
I would give a statement like that much more weight than someone posting anonymously on topix who claims to be former LE.

FrmLE do you actually have anything to back up what your saying about her being in the woods? Do you have any evidence at all that pointed you in that direction or is that just what you think?

Why is it that all these professionals who have actually worked the case believe she was murdered. In fact, I don't know of one person who's actually worked this case that thinks she simply got lost in the woods. Why is that?
How is it possible you know so much more than everybody else who's ever worked this case?

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Not trying to disrespect you but if you were LE at the time of Mauras disappearance you would not have to ask these questions.

He is trying to put people on the spot and make them look bad. He asks that his opinions be taken as what they are but kills others that has an opinion and asks them to back up everything. FRMLeee please apply the same rules to your opinions as you ask of others or you look pretty silly.

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
i tend to believe the simplest explanation is usually the most direct and correct.
not only does there seem to be no benefit to a second crash site, it defies logistics and time limitations.
to my way of thinking, her relationships are key to how the trip was initiated (from MA) and how it ended (in NH).
i'd be surprised if there isn't one person, somewhere, whether Maura's family member or friend, who has some knowledge about Maura's state of mind before leaving campus, and about her social and romantic relationship(s). it is key, if her disappearance involves someone known to her.
it's very hard for me to believe she was abducted by a stranger from a road that is reasonably well traveled and where there have been no similar incidents, before or after.
everyone, of course, will know when she's found.

Not everything in life is simple if you are not in anothers mindset. What is simple to you is like putting blinders on and ignoring the possibilities.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with you, Snowy, and I agree with what Lighthouse says as well. I could go with a second accident theory, or even a staged accident theory if there was some evidence to back this up. The look-a-like thing is what I really don't understand. To pull this off in a short amount of time, they would have had to have planned this in advance to have a look-a-like handy. If this is the case, then they had to have lured her up there or somehow known she would be coming by at this specific time. So, without some documentation to back this up, or a further explanation of how Weeper derived at this theory, it doesn't mean any more to me than any other theory someone posts on a forum.
"She's probably in the woods" doesn't mean a whole lot to me either, without the reasons why.

Your def right about that, how could they have come up with a Maura look alike so fast? It doesn't make sense that they would've had one prepared..& it would be a crazy coincidence if they just happened to have a girl on hand that not only looked like Maura but was willing to pretend she was her too.

But something to consider is the fact that the sbd is the only person who actually puts her at the wb curve..& he has been proven a liar time and again. So if we know he lied, and the investigators think he deliberately lied to LE & the media, then why should we trust him on the id? Westmans thought they saw a man smoking a cigarette & I don't see how you could mistake a cigarette for a cell phone light.

It appears that the sbd was intimidated, which would make sense if he witnessed a killer acting right in front of his house. What's going to stop the guy from coming back and killing him and his family?
I'm not saying that this is what happened but if you saw a murderer abduct someone right in front of your house, & the guy knew exactly who you are and where you live, you would probably lie about too.

Bottom line is the sbd was the only one who id'd her & he has told numerous lies, so why should we believe him on this?

Jenkins,

People think they can prove things in court all the time. Many times, they are wrong and they lose. It's not personal or a slam on Weeper. Just that sometimes professionals are wrong. Without proof, we can't know for sure if what he says is correct. Experts are often wrong also. Do we know who the expert was?

"Mason" was a seasoned professional, a criminal defense lawyer and law prof. His theory was Mr. Murray killed Maura. I don't agree with his theory either, because I don't see any proof. Again, nothing personal, I just disagree.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don't feel the need to disrespect anyone else just because they don't have a theory I like.

I have been interested in FrmLEs opinion because he has seen the case file, or at least that was my understanding. I don't think anyone else posting here has seen the case file. I am wondering what in the case file makes him think she gave up and went in the woods, but I'm guessing he can't ethically release that info in a public forum or he would have stated his reasons.

I do agree with you in that a second cash is sort of a long shot and i am not on that bandwagon at all- but as far as Mauras decision making I am not sure if I can follow the simple path because we don't know what she was thinking. We can guess what we may do etc and that is the most common approach to make.

Just conversing and not arguing

Jenkins,

I agree with you about the bus driver changing his story, and maybe he knew more... But if he didn't see Maura then who did he see? And why would this other person pretend to be Maura and say she called AAA?

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
Not everything in life is simple if you are not in anothers mindset. What is simple to you is like putting blinders on and ignoring the possibilities.

i am not a mindreader, an actor, nor am i a psychiatrist...so that removes me from "anothers [sic] mindset".
there is an expression....can't see the forest for the trees.