Maura Murray

The BOL said black hair past shoulder length.

My hair starts out stick straight, but even I,(if I wrap by hair around and into a bun), will have much shorter looking hair once it comes down. Shorter looking, because it has taken on a wave and curl from being up.

Maura hair was naturally curly like her sisters. If she wanted a stick straight look, she would need to use a flat iron, right? So what was said about her hair? Did it seem straight at the time of the BOL,(the first one that was based on someones witnessing this person), not the second one which was based on accurate information from her drivers license. And doesn't naturally curly hair stay poofed, up higher on a person when it first come out of a bun or a wrap? I think it does.

Did the ATM video show that Maura had died her hair? I don't think so because she was witnessed as leaving UMASS. I'm sure the person would notice and mention if Maura had seemingly dyed her hair.
Was it so dark that Butch thought her hair was Black?

The Cold case site has it that Maura is an unsolved homicide, but that changes when you click on her link there. It says missing instead. What I also noticed is that on that site it says Maura Murray's car was involved in a single vehicle accident. It should say something about Maura Murray being involved should'nt it? To me it just implys that her car was in fact found there, but no trace of Maura Murray. Tie that in with the idea that Maura may have been "witnessed" somewhere else at the time.
Maybe that Ping? Could the ping have happened at the same time that Mauras car was found in Woodsville? Her location with regards to the Londonderry tower may have been put Maura or at least her phone at some other location.
IDK
No time to find the link Shack posted, but go have a look.

Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Maybe she had 2 cards. I always get two cards when mine are renued.

Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

I don't think it matters. Aaa will still help even if you don't have your card. As long as your paid in full.

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.

Amy, we know that Maura was supposed to call Fred at 8:00 pm because Fred said so himself in an interview for the show "Disappeared" (unless he is lying or mistaken).

This business about Maura having an accident 2.2 miles away and then crashing again at the final location on Rte. 112 has me very confused... I thought that at the final crash site, the car's airbags had been deployed and the windshield was cracked. The situation is further confounded by the fact that accident reconstruction experts generally agree that the damage to Maura's car is inconsistent with hitting a tree or a snowdrift.

Here's one possible scenario: Perhaps Maura had some sort of accident slightly earlier (something involving the car getting wedged under something like a tractor trailer), and she fled that accident and kept driving until she then had another accident at the final location on 112. Perhaps she was heavily intoxicated and attempted to flee the scene by foot in an effort to evade police.

Another possible scenario: Perhaps the final accident on 112 wasn't simply Maura hitting a tree or a snowdrift; maybe she had an accident involving another vehicle, such as a large truck, and then that other vehicle simply kept driving. I'm sorry if my theories sound stupid, but I'm trying to think outside the box a little.

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.

"affidavit from assistant AG Jeff Strelzin, who tells the court that he believes there is a 75% chance that criminal charges will be filed in this case"

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.

To those of you who disagreed with my comment about the glove and the search dog (cited above) or marked it as spam -- this information was stated by Fred Murray in plain English on Investigation Discovery. I'm not sure what's the confusion about.

Consider this wrote:

<quoted text>
"affidavit from assistant AG Jeff Strelzin, who tells the court that he believes there is a 75% chance that criminal charges will be filed in this case"

It sounds like LE has a clear suspect, but they don't have a "smoking gun" to press charges (a body, forensic evidence, compelling circumstantial evidence). I don't put too much credence in what the assistant AG says; I've read about other missing persons/homicide cases (such as Holly Piirainen) in which LE had a prime suspect for many years before realizing that they were wrong.

Actually on the dissapeared show Fred complained that the cops chose a glove that was unused and if they had asked him, he would've chosen her running shoes or something better.

But then I've read someplace else that it was actually Fred who chose the glove..so I'm not really sure what to believe.
There is a couple times on that show that it would appear Fred was lying, knowing what we know now

TeeJay wrote:

This business about Maura having an accident 2.2 miles away and then crashing again at the final location on Rte. 112 has me very confused... I thought that at the final crash site, the car's airbags had been deployed and the windshield was cracked. The situation is further confounded by the fact that accident reconstruction experts generally agree that the damage to Maura's car is inconsistent with hitting a tree or a snowdrift.
Here's one possible scenario: Perhaps Maura had some sort of accident slightly earlier (something involving the car getting wedged under something like a tractor trailer), and she fled that accident and kept driving until she then had another accident at the final location on 112. Perhaps she was heavily intoxicated and attempted to flee the scene by foot in an effort to evade police.
Another possible scenario: Perhaps the final accident on 112 wasn't simply Maura hitting a tree or a snowdrift; maybe she had an accident involving another vehicle, such as a large truck, and then that other vehicle simply kept driving. I'm sorry if my theories sound stupid, but I'm trying to think outside the box a little.

If she had a "wedged under" kind of accident, wouldn't there be more than a dent on the hood of the Saturn? Wouldn't there be scrapes, paint gouged off? Just asking ... it seems to me there would be those things, but I don't know.

Does anybody know if Maura used to run places other than the track at school? Such as bike trails? Just curious.

TeeJay wrote:

<quoted text>
To those of you who disagreed with my comment about the glove and the search dog (cited above) or marked it as spam -- this information was stated by Fred Murray in plain English on Investigation Discovery. I'm not sure what's the confusion about.

Hey for the record, if I could give you some good advice, I would suggest that you NEVER give any weight to the little lightbulbs, spam and peanuts on here.

People here just suck. Generally speaking, the more negative judging I get, the more convincing my post is. You know if you make a good point, just ignore the retards.

Jenkins wrote:

Actually on the dissapeared show Fred complained that the cops chose a glove that was unused and if they had asked him, he would've chosen her running shoes or something better.
But then I've read someplace else that it was actually Fred who chose the glove..so I'm not really sure what to believe.
There is a couple times on that show that it would appear Fred was lying, knowing what we know now

Yes I agree with that from what we know now it does Look as if he is lying right to the camera.

Ruthless Rye wrote:

Does anybody know if Maura used to run places other than the track at school? Such as bike trails? Just curious.

Sharon said Maura was fearless and that she'd get up and run just about anywhere she happened to be. In otherwords, places no typical for her daily run, running like she did in general, worried Sharon. So I'd imagine just about any place would work for Maura, even a bike trail. A camp trail, and so on.

Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
If she had a "wedged under" kind of accident, wouldn't there be more than a dent on the hood of the Saturn? Wouldn't there be scrapes, paint gouged off? Just asking ... it seems to me there would be those things, but I don't know.

I could see if it were that Maura "bashed" into something that was at a standstill or parked, backed up to continue on. Some people seem to think she was driving from someone who ran into her, or let her run into them to get her to stop maybe? But who knows...

Thank you Paris for that info.

TeeJay wrote:

<quoted text>
To those of you who disagreed with my comment about the glove and the search dog (cited above) or marked it as spam -- this information was stated by Fred Murray in plain English on Investigation Discovery. I'm not sure what's the confusion about.

People like to play games with the judgy buttons here. I wouldn't take it personally.

At this point, as far as damage to the Saturn, I don't think we can say with any certainty at all WHAT she hit, or when or where. To best of my knowledge there have been no photos released of the Saturn where it was found on Rt. 112 -- and maybe none were taken, I don't think it's common practice for LE to take photos of wrecked or abandoned autos at the site. If photos were taken at Lavoies, none have been released.

So the earliest and only photos we know about/have access to were taken roughly 2 years later and after the Saturn had been left in the Troop F lot. Two years later and after sitting in a field, basically accessible to anyone, IMHO that car is a total loss as to what caused the damage to it and it's useless to further speculate.

FrmLE,

The motivation behind the court case is one thing. I get that, and I get why they don't want the records released, because it's an ongoing investigation.

What these people said on the record in court is a separate thing. The 75% chance of conviction, yes, they can easily pull that out of thin air to protect the integrity of an investigation. I understand that.

Other things, I still have some questions about.

For example:

"On cross-examination Timothy Ervin pushes Sgt. Landry to reveal whether or not there is a person of interest in the case and Ms. Smith objects:

Ms. Smith: I'm concerned about that, because, again, this is, to the extent this is a small community, the people know... the people, the identity of those people is fairly well known.

[later]

Mr. Ervin: Has [your investigation] generally focused on individuals.

Sgt. Landry: Individuals?

Mr. Ervin: Correct.

Sgt. Landry: Yes.

Mr. Ervin: Is the investigation currently ongoing as to those individuals?

Sgt. Landry: Yes.
Following testimony by Strelzin, Murray's lawyer leaves and Strelzin, Landry, and Smith provide "in camera" testimony about the specifics of the investigation"
(source: http://mauramurray.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-... )

Then there is also this:

"There are details throughout the other reports that hint at the information presented under seal. In his affidavit, Detective Todd Landry is hesitant to speak about the criminal records checks his office conducted.

Identification of specific individuals regarding whom records have been requested would pinpoint the focus of our investigation, thereby damaging it....I can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

Also sealed is information about a "one-party intercept" which could mean a wiretap or a secret audio recording of some kind. Nancy Smith categorizes it as a:

one-of-a-kind type of item that the Supreme Court recognized cannot be described specifically without irreparably disclosing what it consists of. SAAG Strelzin can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony."
(source: http://mauramurray.blogspot.com/2012/02/polic... )

I understand that this does not mean that there is a person of interest who is still necessarily a person of interest to this day.

But it doesn't sound to me like these people are writing this off as she is in the woods. It sounds like they are doing everything in their power to find her, including looking at local persons of interest and doing a "one-party-intercept " on someone. Has something changed since this time to indicate that she is probably in the woods, or have you always felt that way?

I'm not trying to give you or anyone else a hard time. Just trying to make some sense of this.

I agree, they are doing everything they can within their ability and resources to pursue every lead. That is their job, it is what I would do and have done many times over.

NO ONE knows what really happened to Maura. Do you think the NHSP would come out and say, "Look we don't know what happened, we think she may be up in those woods, so we really aren't doing anything to investigate the case....?"

Of course not, until the case is closed it remains open and as long as it remains open the Police are going to continue to work every lead.

I am sure there are leads that come up all the time, tips, maybe some new information that may or may not be relevant. The Police are obligated to pursue every one of those leads, and they do.

Those leads usually involve INDIVIDUALS, so when Todd says his investigation involves individuals, what does that mean? He is not investigating Fish? Planes, Trains, Automobiles?

Read what is said, what is NOT SAID, try to understand the context of the court case, and you will probably come to the conclusion that no one knows what happened, the case continues to be active, and the Police are pursuing every lead possible.

Thats what we get paid to do, this is no different.