Maura Murray

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I thinks this brings up a good point. She would have wanted to call someone to tell them that she was alright if she left the crash site on her on free will by car. So we probably have at least a general outline of where she didn't go when she was alive.
Ofcourse is she was in the woods cell service wouldn't of worked either.

i don't understand. are you saying her goal would have been to arrive at a place where there was cell reception?
she wouldn't have known in which direction to travel, on foot, or couldn't possibly have know the distance required to arrive at a place of cell service/reception.
what about the 5 residences in the immediate vicinity where she might have requested shelter? medical care? contact with police? AAA? or to leave a message with family?
she didn't exercise that option.

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
i don't understand. are you saying her goal would have been to arrive at a place where there was cell reception?
she wouldn't have known in which direction to travel, on foot, or couldn't possibly have know the distance required to arrive at a place of cell service/reception.
what about the 5 residences in the immediate vicinity where she might have requested shelter? medical care? contact with police? AAA? or to leave a message with family?
she didn't exercise that option.

What I'm saying is if she went into a car she would probably be checking her phone often to call either aaa or family to check in with them and tell them that she was safe. She wouldn't have to know where cell service was. We should be able to make a fair judgement that she did not leave the cell coverage dead zone.

How or why she didn't make it out of the cell zone is the mystery. I think if she went into a car her first action would be a phone call to family or aaa.

If I were trying to analyze this case with any degree of accuracy, I would firstly consider EVERYTHING that has been written in ANY news article or on ANY discussion forum TO BE HIGHLY SUSPECT.
Understand that at this point, with some 8 years of discussion and speculation, there is virtually no information that has not been skewed, altered, misunderstood, fabricated, or embellished by now.
Relying on what someone anonymously wrote on a discussion forum 6 years ago as FACT is not good analytical practice. In many cases I see people here forming very strong opinions based on a single piece of information that is most cases is very flimsy and suspect, and in some cases is outrightly untrue.
The only thing more consistantly inaccurate than these discussion forums is the old reliable NEWS ARTICLE. If you take anything that was written in a news article as truth, you are completely insane.
I know that when we see things in print, we assume well it must be true right? The papers have people to check these things out and whatnot, right? WRONG!
In many cases, the "field reporters" for these local rags are really just 20 year old college students working a side job until they get their degree in whatever nonsense they teach at school these days. There is no fact checking, their editors are other college students working on a Masters degree.
Many years ago I worked a fairly high profile case, and was asked for an interview by the Union Leader. I obliged and when I met with the 'reporter' I couldn't help but laugh. It was a kid who looked about 18, who had no idea what questions to ask, could barely keep from stuttering and was hopping around like he had to go to the potty, it was a joke.
When I read the article, it was pure BS, most of my quotes were flat out wrong, it was completely innaccurate and barely readable...
I see the same things when I read over the articles on this case and other cases covered by these local Pennysaver type rags..
My point is this, just because someone wrote it does not make it true. Never rely on any news article for factual information, if you want to have a good set of facts from which to form your opinions.

Hi all, I was reading this and thought it was very interesting...

http://www.truecrimediary.com/index.cfm...

The reason I say this is not because I think in any way shape or form this man is connected to Maura's disappearance, but because it tells the story of a serial killer that just happened to be a civil war re-enactor and went from Town to Town, State to State re-enacting the civil war, he also stopped at convenience stores along the way and stalked and murdered women - young, fit, athletic types, as they walked to their cars. Just very interesting because of his opportunity throughout the Towns and States to stop and murder.

That's why I never buy the 'no foul play' theory, right place right time for him, wrong place, wrong time for the victim. It happens.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
What I'm saying is if she went into a car she would probably be checking her phone often to call either aaa or family to check in with them and tell them that she was safe. She wouldn't have to know where cell service was. We should be able to make a fair judgement that she did not leave the cell coverage dead zone.
How or why she didn't make it out of the cell zone is the mystery. I think if she went into a car her first action would be a phone call to family or aaa.

a previous post suggested cell service was 1/2 hour in a certain direction; she wouldn't have known that.
indeed, it would be normal behavior to frequently check for reception if she had voluntarily accepted a ride.
a clue to unusual behavior that can be attributed to Maura, not the SBD, imo, is her refusal to accept help from the SBD. it is consistent with her leaving UMASS without telling anyone and providing a false excuse to her academic dept.
what was her private/secret plan? who was she running away from or running with?

FrmLE wrote:

If I were trying to analyze this case with any degree of accuracy, I would firstly consider EVERYTHING that has been written in ANY news article or on ANY discussion forum TO BE HIGHLY SUSPECT.
Understand that at this point, with some 8 years of discussion and speculation, there is virtually no information that has not been skewed, altered, misunderstood, fabricated, or embellished by now.
Relying on what someone anonymously wrote on a discussion forum 6 years ago as FACT is not good analytical practice. In many cases I see people here forming very strong opinions based on a single piece of information that is most cases is very flimsy and suspect, and in some cases is outrightly untrue.
The only thing more consistantly inaccurate than these discussion forums is the old reliable NEWS ARTICLE. If you take anything that was written in a news article as truth, you are completely insane.
I know that when we see things in print, we assume well it must be true right? The papers have people to check these things out and whatnot, right? WRONG!
In many cases, the "field reporters" for these local rags are really just 20 year old college students working a side job until they get their degree in whatever nonsense they teach at school these days. There is no fact checking, their editors are other college students working on a Masters degree.
Many years ago I worked a fairly high profile case, and was asked for an interview by the Union Leader. I obliged and when I met with the 'reporter' I couldn't help but laugh. It was a kid who looked about 18, who had no idea what questions to ask, could barely keep from stuttering and was hopping around like he had to go to the potty, it was a joke.
When I read the article, it was pure BS, most of my quotes were flat out wrong, it was completely innaccurate and barely readable...
I see the same things when I read over the articles on this case and other cases covered by these local Pennysaver type rags..
My point is this, just because someone wrote it does not make it true. Never rely on any news article for factual information, if you want to have a good set of facts from which to form your opinions.

What about what was said on court records? They say 75 percent chance of criminal charges one day being presented. I see where we can say she is in the woods but why would they hold back records from the family and say this?

FrmLE wrote:

If I were trying to analyze this case with any degree of accuracy, I would firstly consider EVERYTHING that has been written in ANY news article or on ANY discussion forum TO BE HIGHLY SUSPECT.
Understand that at this point, with some 8 years of discussion and speculation, there is virtually no information that has not been skewed, altered, misunderstood, fabricated, or embellished by now.
Relying on what someone anonymously wrote on a discussion forum 6 years ago as FACT is not good analytical practice. In many cases I see people here forming very strong opinions based on a single piece of information that is most cases is very flimsy and suspect, and in some cases is outrightly untrue.
The only thing more consistantly inaccurate than these discussion forums is the old reliable NEWS ARTICLE. If you take anything that was written in a news article as truth, you are completely insane.
I know that when we see things in print, we assume well it must be true right? The papers have people to check these things out and whatnot, right? WRONG!
In many cases, the "field reporters" for these local rags are really just 20 year old college students working a side job until they get their degree in whatever nonsense they teach at school these days. There is no fact checking, their editors are other college students working on a Masters degree.
Many years ago I worked a fairly high profile case, and was asked for an interview by the Union Leader. I obliged and when I met with the 'reporter' I couldn't help but laugh. It was a kid who looked about 18, who had no idea what questions to ask, could barely keep from stuttering and was hopping around like he had to go to the potty, it was a joke.
When I read the article, it was pure BS, most of my quotes were flat out wrong, it was completely innaccurate and barely readable...
I see the same things when I read over the articles on this case and other cases covered by these local Pennysaver type rags..
My point is this, just because someone wrote it does not make it true. Never rely on any news article for factual information, if you want to have a good set of facts from which to form your opinions.

my mother told me when i was a kid not to believe everything i read. she was right.
i see you're still trying to bang some sense into the crowd; that's been my goal, as well.
that's why i'm a "squatter" and a repository for all manner of other unattractive descriptions of intent.
there is value to education, whether it be formal or by life experiences.
an open mind isn' a sieve...it captures and retains ideas, lessons which become wisdom.

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
a previous post suggested cell service was 1/2 hour in a certain direction; she wouldn't have known that.
indeed, it would be normal behavior to frequently check for reception if she had voluntarily accepted a ride.
a clue to unusual behavior that can be attributed to Maura, not the SBD, imo, is her refusal to accept help from the SBD. it is consistent with her leaving UMASS without telling anyone and providing a false excuse to her academic dept.
what was her private/secret plan? who was she running away from or running with?

I agree We could make this a runaway situation all day long, but when the nhsp go
On record and state that there may be a 75 percent chance of conviction that makes me wonder.

FrmLE wrote:

If I were trying to analyze this case with any degree of accuracy, I would firstly consider EVERYTHING that has been written in ANY news article or on ANY discussion forum TO BE HIGHLY SUSPECT.
Understand that at this point, with some 8 years of discussion and speculation, there is virtually no information that has not been skewed, altered, misunderstood, fabricated, or embellished by now.
Relying on what someone anonymously wrote on a discussion forum 6 years ago as FACT is not good analytical practice. In many cases I see people here forming very strong opinions based on a single piece of information that is most cases is very flimsy and suspect, and in some cases is outrightly untrue.
The only thing more consistantly inaccurate than these discussion forums is the old reliable NEWS ARTICLE. If you take anything that was written in a news article as truth, you are completely insane.
I know that when we see things in print, we assume well it must be true right? The papers have people to check these things out and whatnot, right? WRONG!
In many cases, the "field reporters" for these local rags are really just 20 year old college students working a side job until they get their degree in whatever nonsense they teach at school these days. There is no fact checking, their editors are other college students working on a Masters degree.
Many years ago I worked a fairly high profile case, and was asked for an interview by the Union Leader. I obliged and when I met with the 'reporter' I couldn't help but laugh. It was a kid who looked about 18, who had no idea what questions to ask, could barely keep from stuttering and was hopping around like he had to go to the potty, it was a joke.
When I read the article, it was pure BS, most of my quotes were flat out wrong, it was completely innaccurate and barely readable...
I see the same things when I read over the articles on this case and other cases covered by these local Pennysaver type rags..
My point is this, just because someone wrote it does not make it true. Never rely on any news article for factual information, if you want to have a good set of facts from which to form your opinions.

I agree with all you have said in this post. This happens in the media all the time, and on blogs and forums it is even worse. I believe nothing as fact unless it can be independently verified or I see an official document. This is why I looked at the court records, which you said we should not read too much into.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree We could make this a runaway situation all day long, but when the nhsp go
On record and state that there may be a 75 percent chance of conviction that makes me wonder.

there has been no official update on that point since. i wonder if it was a spontaneous utterance associated with their findings at that point in time. they don't seem to be obligated to retract or update their information with an frequency.

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
there has been no official update on that point since. i wonder if it was a spontaneous utterance associated with their findings at that point in time. they don't seem to be obligated to retract or update their information with an frequency.

I understand but for the fairness in the laws of
Logic I don't think that can be discounted. This comment was made on court record. If we are to discount this fact than others can pick and choose what facts that they wish to build their theories on.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
What about what was said on court records? They say 75 percent chance of criminal charges one day being presented. I see where we can say she is in the woods but why would they hold back records from the family and say this?

It may answer your question to put that comment in context. Do you know who made the comment about 75% chance of criminal charges? In what context was the comment made? What was going on at the time?

The answer is there.

Also consider, the percentage is pure random, 75%. It's like the weather man saying there is a 50% chance of rain today. Well then if it rains, he was right, it it doesn't rain, then he is also right!! 50% chance of rain also means 50% chance of no rain.

Similar to Lt. Scarinzas comment about how he thinks Maura"may not have gotten a ride", correct? Both statements are accurate.

Don't place too much weight on the court case, or at least understand the context of the motivations behind the case.

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
a previous post suggested cell service was 1/2 hour in a certain direction; she wouldn't have known that.
indeed, it would be normal behavior to frequently check for reception if she had voluntarily accepted a ride.
a clue to unusual behavior that can be attributed to Maura, not the SBD, imo, is her refusal to accept help from the SBD. it is consistent with her leaving UMASS without telling anyone and providing a false excuse to her academic dept.
what was her private/secret plan? who was she running away from or running with?

I agree. Her behavior speaks to not wanting help.

Also, how do we even know for a fact that she was supposed to call her father at 8pm? Even if she intended to call him, her plans could have changed since their last conversation.

Lighthouse, we really don't know what was going through her mind after the stress of a second accident. Maybe her immediate goal was to get as far away from being arrested for DUI as possible, and wasn't looking forward to telling her dad she crashed another car at that moment. We just don't know.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
This is why I looked at the court records, which you said we should not read too much into.

I am not saying the court records may not be completely accurate, I am saying understand the context of those records with regards to the motivation behind the court case.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand but for the fairness in the laws of
Logic I don't think that can be discounted. This comment was made on court record. If we are to discount this fact than others can pick and choose what facts that they wish to build their theories on.

I would suggest again, to consider the actual statement made. It was an estimate, 75% chance of something happening. It can neither be proved as a lie or a fact, it is an estimate.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not saying the court records may not be completely accurate, I am saying understand the context of those records with regards to the motivation behind the court case.

more precisely, understand the motivation behind the court case and that context in which the court answered.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not saying the court records may not be completely accurate, I am saying understand the context of those records with regards to the motivation behind the court case.

I understand what you mean. Thank you. Did you work on this case before or after the court proceedings?

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
It may answer your question to put that comment in context. Do you know who made the comment about 75% chance of criminal charges? In what context was the comment made? What was going on at the time?
The answer is there.
Also consider, the percentage is pure random, 75%. It's like the weather man saying there is a 50% chance of rain today. Well then if it rains, he was right, it it doesn't rain, then he is also right!! 50% chance of rain also means 50% chance of no rain.
Similar to Lt. Scarinzas comment about how he thinks Maura"may not have gotten a ride", correct? Both statements are accurate.
Don't place too much weight on the court case, or at least understand the context of the motivations behind the case.

This is the answer to the question that I asked earlier. I thank you for answering this. It makes a little more sense to me know. Thanks

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree. Her behavior speaks to not wanting help.
Also, how do we even know for a fact that she was supposed to call her father at 8pm? Even if she intended to call him, her plans could have changed since their last conversation.
Lighthouse, we really don't know what was going through her mind after the stress of a second accident. Maybe her immediate goal was to get as far away from being arrested for DUI as possible, and wasn't looking forward to telling her dad she crashed another car at that moment. We just don't know.

We never really know what's going through anyone's mind but can only assume by their actions what they are thinking.
I think it is safe to say she was an emotional mess leading up to the disappearance.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
What I'm saying is if she went into a car she would probably be checking her phone often to call either aaa or family to check in with them and tell them that she was safe. She wouldn't have to know where cell service was. We should be able to make a fair judgement that she did not leave the cell coverage dead zone.
How or why she didn't make it out of the cell zone is the mystery. I think if she went into a car her first action would be a phone call to family or aaa.

She left her AAA card in the Saturn, so she didn't have it with her when and however she left the scene. Whether she left it there intentionally, had decided not to call AAA ... or whether she forgot it, we don't know.