Maura Murray

Judged:

3

3

1

TeeJay wrote:

To be honest, I'm not really convinced that Maura was the victim of foul play. First of all, there's little (if any) evidence in the public domain to support such a theory. Second, Maura left UMass in a highly unusual and covert manner, with all her stuff packed up... She hadn't been very communicative with her boyfriend or other loved ones in the days before her disappearance, and it sounds like she and Fred might have had some conflict because of her earlier accident in Hadley, MA.
Remember -- Although Maura wasn't found in the woods near Haverhill, she may well have hitched a ride elsewhere and then vanished. The White Mountains are quite expansive.

Judged:

1

1

Shack wrote:

I always wondered why they didn't use George, her stuffed monkey, that she slept with.....(gift from Billy?)

Judged:

2

2

1

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
There is certainly evidence if you research some
More, but most of it is circumstantial evidence that you will be able to find. Many people get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time. In this day and age with all the csi shows people are expecting to see more and more physical evidence but thefact remains that most convictions are based on mostly, if not all, circumstantial evidence.
& I wouldn't say she hadn't been very communicative with her family in the days Before her dissapearance, quite the opposite actually. She communicated with them a lot actually, mich more than the average college student in my experience.
Her dad was In town the saturday before she left, she crashed his car on the way to his hotel room at 3am.
She called her bf from her dads phone around 5am and spoke with her. She slept there in the same bed and he dropped her off at her dorm the following day, supposedly after looking for cars with him.
Then later that night she called her dad & they spoke for about 20min, supposedly to make sure he made it home ok.
She also talked to her sister or sisters once or twice in that time.
On Monday before she left she also called her bf and left a message.
So she def had a lot of communication with her family in the days leading up to her dissapearance. Not sure if that will change your opinion at all but I figured you should know that in case your basing any conclusion off of it.

Judged:

1

1

1

citigirl wrote:

Monday Feb.9,2004.GSCD log under the time of 1927 Narrative- "H2 REQ ALL FIRE UNITS BOL FOR A FEMALE ABT 507 ON FOOT. VICTIM OF CRASH."Narrative "h2, clear of scene, lagoies has the veh, anyluck locating the party or has she shown at cottage? adv partner working on will have contct you." Narrative: 0243--"H6 FOR TIME THAT H2 WAS OFF AT THIS ACCIDENT..AVD."Tuesday Feb.10,2004.GSCD log under the time of 1204. Narrative-"H6:black hair past shoulder length, wearing a dark coat, about 5'5",120 pounds, Last seen in the Wild Ammounoosuc Rd area..."

Judged:

2

2

1

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
I would say that the biggest argument against theookalike theory is the fact that the dog tracked her scent at all.
If it wasn't Maura then the dog shouldn't have tracked her scent at all, right?
Unless the dog was confused. Maybe maira never wore the gloves at all & the lookalike put the gloves on bc of fingerprints.
Maybe the dog got confused with another scent, like smiths or someone's. Maybe smith touched the gloves when he was looking through her car.
I wonder why they chose those gloves and why the gloves. It's been said that Maura had pajama pants in her trunk, why not use those.
Citi- do u know who actually chose the gloves to be used? Fred sounded pretty distraught over those gloves being chosen. But then I read somewhere recently that he was actually the one who chose the gloves.
Do you know who chose them, or at least do you know if it was fred or not? Thanks

Judged:

2

2

2

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
I would say that the biggest argument against theookalike theory is the fact that the dog tracked her scent at all.
If it wasn't Maura then the dog shouldn't have tracked her scent at all, right?
Unless the dog was confused. Maybe maira never wore the gloves at all & the lookalike put the gloves on bc of fingerprints.
Maybe the dog got confused with another scent, like smiths or someone's. Maybe smith touched the gloves when he was looking through her car.
I wonder why they chose those gloves and why the gloves. It's been said that Maura had pajama pants in her trunk, why not use those.
Citi- do u know who actually chose the gloves to be used? Fred sounded pretty distraught over those gloves being chosen. But then I read somewhere recently that he was actually the one who chose the gloves.
Do you know who chose them, or at least do you know if it was fred or not? Thanks

Judged:

3

3

3

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>I would say that the biggest argument against theookalike theory is the fact that the dog tracked her scent at all. If it wasn't Maura then the dog shouldn't have tracked her scent at all, right?

Judged:

3

2

2

Shack wrote:

OR..her other shoes that her sister was hugging in motel room...(never understood why the contents of car was given to family so soon after)

Judged:

1

TeeJay wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, it was just one glove, and Fred chose it. Maura had just gotten the gloves for Christmas, and he wasn't entirely sure that she had even worn them. I'm not sure why no one ran back to Amherst to get a more useful article of clothing for the search dogs.

Judged:

1

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>FrmLE when we went to GSCD and requested a copy of the log in person for dispatch calls in the fall of 2004 for the night Maura disappeared it was given to us. The print date of this log was Nov. 11,2004. In this log was the narrative- H6 FOR TIME THAT H2 WAS OFF AT THIS ACCIDENT...ADV. In the copy of this same log that went to the courts there was a print date of Feb.10,2004 which is obviously almost 10 months before Nov,4,2004, but the narrative-H6 FOR THE TIME THAT H2 WAS OFF AT THIS ACCIDENT...ADV. was missing from the printed log from Feb. 10,2004. Why is this? Shouldnt any copy of the GSCD concerning this night all have the same info? Thank you

Judged:

2

1

TeeJay wrote:

To be honest, I'm not really convinced that Maura was the victim of foul play. First of all, there's little (if any) evidence in the public domain to support such a theory. Second, Maura left UMass in a highly unusual and covert manner, with all her stuff packed up... She hadn't been very communicative with her boyfriend or other loved ones in the days before her disappearance, and it sounds like she and Fred might have had some conflict because of her earlier accident in Hadley, MA.
Remember -- Although Maura wasn't found in the woods near Haverhill, she may well have hitched a ride elsewhere and then vanished. The White Mountains are quite expansive.

Judged:

3

2

2

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Judged:

1

1

1

FrmLE wrote:

I think you all put WAY too much weight on the Dog track. Seriously, ask anyone who has ever tracked with a dog, it is hit or miss. I have made this point countless times before, but it bears repeating.
The dog track was 2 days old, on a paved road in very poor weather conditions. Just because the dog tracked a scent 100 yards does not mean it was Maura at all. It could have been a squirrel or some other random scent the dog thought was interesting.
Understand, the dog doesn't talk. It can't tell the handler it tracked Maura opposed to a yummy squirrel, it is not a very reliable science and to rely on that alone to prove or disprove anything is ridiculous.
It could have been Maura of course, but seriously the dog track is probably the most unreliable factor to rely on to draw any conclusion.
But don't let that affect your theories, especially if it fits into your neat little box Jenkins. I know it is much more fun to make the (percieved) facts fit your pet theory, rather than analyze the facts and try to formulate likely possibilities.
;)

Judged:

4

3

2

Scott E Phillips wrote:

<quoted text>Still fresh in your mind, or you forget already?

Judged:

2

1

1

Jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
Maura would have been in cell service within a half hour of the crash site -assuming she was going east. She would have had cell service by 8pm.
Did fred try to Call Maura after 8pm when she didn't call him?

Judged:

1

1

1

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you asked me I will tell you why it is a dumb theory. You posted the actual crash site is 1 to 3 miles. The quote of the article mentions another accident within a couple of miles.
I'd I was the person that wanted people to actual believe their was another real crash site I would say the crash happened at x and the car was found at y. The distance there is 2.2 miles from the real crash site. If I'm trying to get people to rally behind me to help find a missing girl I would give clear facts. To give vague info about the distance of another crash site is just bs. They say clear evidence but yet no witnesses no
Sightings and no actual distance given.
If this was a college debate in class this theory would be thrown out because the audience would realize that this statement hold no
Water.

Judged:

2

2

2

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with what your saying here.
At this point I'm not really trying to get people behind the theory though. I was more trying to
Analyze what was said in court in an attempt to formulate a legitimate theory. I think the lookalike thing is a stretch but you would figure that they mist have a pretty good reason to think so.
I don't think there neccessarily has to be a lookalike for there to be another accident that night