Maura Murray

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
the political and moral view of taking personal responsibility isn't popular with everyone; it's a small segment held by the voting population.
in the case of MM, i, and at least one other, have consistently contended that being responsible and accountable to at least one other person protects one's safety. it is not blaming the victim to suggest the trail wouldn't be so cold if she shared her plan to leave UMASS with someone, anyone. the consequences for not doing so are shared all around by her family and friends.
had she been willing and/or able to remain at the scene, accept help from the SBD, or appeal to families living in nearby residences, she might be safe today. these choices and actions were within her reach.
i trust authorities acted within their scope of protocols and abilities to assess the immediate scene of the abandoned saturn, and it is only in hindsight that critics can try to blame them for her disappearance.
so much of the discussion has been blame-oriented, although the facts and the evidence are exactly what they are. a car was found after having a moderate accident, off the side of the road, abandoned by the driver (and passenger, if there was one), with evidence of alcohol and open containers inside the vehicle.
objectively speaking, i cannot blame authorities for their efforts.
i realize mine is an unpopular view, but i share it without any personal malice intended toward anyone. it is just my opinion.

I think part of the problem here might be that most people are equating the belief that "people are responsible for their actions" with "she deserved to die." I've seen both you and Bill flat out say on numerous occasions that Maura is responsible for her actions. I've never seen either of you say that Maura deserved to die just because she made bad decisions. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Annoying diva? What does that even mean?

You can do better than that, give it some real effort if you want to make me cry. Kinda pathetic.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
But if someone did happen to kill her, then I don't think she deserves it.

i don't think anyone here believes she "deserved it" for a minute, although a few bring it up here and there. and i don't think anyone has ever directly expressed that sentiment. i know you agree.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text> I've never seen either of you say that Maura deserved to die just because she made bad decisions. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Deserve to die? Good lord of course I don't think she deserved to die!! I spent most of my entire life protecting people like Maura, I absolutely do not think she deserved to die.

I just think that she made some poor decisions, and only she is responsible for the consequences of those decisions. Just as we all are responsible for our decisions, whether they be good or bad ones.

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
the political and moral view of taking personal responsibility isn't popular with everyone; it's a small segment held by the voting population.
in the case of MM, i, and at least one other, have consistently contended that being responsible and accountable to at least one other person protects one's safety. it is not blaming the victim to suggest the trail wouldn't be so cold if she shared her plan to leave UMASS with someone, anyone. the consequences for not doing so are shared all around by her family and friends.
had she been willing and/or able to remain at the scene, accept help from the SBD, or appeal to families living in nearby residences, she might be safe today. these choices and actions were within her reach.
i trust authorities acted within their scope of protocols and abilities to assess the immediate scene of the abandoned saturn, and it is only in hindsight that critics can try to blame them for her disappearance.
so much of the discussion has been blame-oriented, although the facts and the evidence are exactly what they are. a car was found after having a moderate accident, off the side of the road, abandoned by the driver (and passenger, if there was one), with evidence of alcohol and open containers inside the vehicle.
objectively speaking, i cannot blame authorities for their efforts.
i realize mine is an unpopular view, but i share it without any personal malice intended toward anyone. it is just my opinion.

I agree with your point of view snowy. I brought up my three kids up that way and they are very self sufficient and successful. I always stressed that the choices that they make in life will take them down a certain path. Good choices will generally provide good outcomes.

My personal theory of late has been that Maura did engineer her own disappearance, for the most part. Here are the reasons why I think this could have happened.

1. She had told a previous boyfriend, apparently within the last year, that she wished she could just disappear. There had to be some reason (one or more) that she said that, and the reason certainly pre-dated what we know about the last few days before she went missing. So we know that disappearing had at the least crossed her mind previously.

2. Money. We know she took $280 out of her bank account via ATM, which nearly emptied the account. What we don’t know is whether she had additional money, but it’s entirely possible that she did. She had a private room at UMass, so pretty good security for belongings and valuables. She worked two jobs and neither of them probably paid very much, but she could have saved up cash from them. Also, there is the possibility of the theory that Beagle came up with, i.e., that she sold some of her female eggs. Young women do that, it’s not all that rare. As a nursing student, she would know or could easily find out how risky such a thing might be. She might even know one or more nursing students who had done it. If Maura chose to do that, then the procedure would be protected by privacy laws regarding medical matters. So she could have had $10,000 or more set aside.

3. Help. There has been speculation that Maura had another boyfriend besides Billy and there have been bits of information that seem to confirm this. What we don’t know is whether she had a boyfriend that her family did NOT know about, but it’s entirely within the realm of possibility that she did.

Further in this regard, we do know that Maura had checked into renting a condo – and as has been pointed out,$280 was not enough money to rent a condo for a few days (as well as eat, etc.). So the implication is that either she had more money than just $280, or she had plans to share the expenses of a condo with someone else.

4. Phone. It’s been speculated that Maura had two cellphones. One that the Rausch family was paying for, and another one that they were NOT paying for. It’s a little hard to imagine that she would be comfortable knowing that Billy’s family would know about every call she made, so a second cellphone is a distinct possibility that can’t be overlooked. Also, the question has been raised as to how she summoned help when she had the previous accident in Hadley with her father’s car – maybe someone witnessed that accident and called the police and she had no need for making a call, but since we don’t know this, then it is equally possible she had another cellphone and used that one to call AAA or the police. If she had a second cellphone, then even if she was not actually traveling to NH in tandem with someone, she could have traveled up Rt 112 or Bradley Hill until she got a phone signal and then called the person to come pick her up. Who else might she have called – could she have called a cab company in Lincoln or Woodstock? Did anyone check with cab companies?

Cont'd at Part II

Part II - Continuation:

5. Underwear. There was no underwear found in the Saturn packed with her other clothing that she left behind, and yet it has been confirmed that she did wear it (some people apparently don’t). If a young girl is planning to meet a lover, who doesn’t think she would want her fancy panties? So she probably took them with her when she left the vehicle, which again suggests she was going to meet someone or be picked up by someone traveling in tandem.

6. ATM Video. We know there is one video of Maura at the ATM where she withdrew the $280 from her account. I don’t know if a second video (liquor store?) has been confirmed, so I’ll just address the one we know about. LE has not released this video to the public, which is customarily done in missing persons cases. Further, LE has not even allowed Maura’s family to see the video. I can think of only two reasons why LE has not taken these steps.

(a) Maura was not alone and LE believes the other individual/s to be suspect in her disappearance, or

(b) Maura was alone but LE has reason to believe that she chose to disappear on her own and thus, as an adult, her actions can be withheld even from her family.

Although LE has indicated a belief that a crime/homicide occurred, given the above factors I think LE cannot be 100% certain which is the fact: chose to disappear or was taken against her will. In terms of their investigation, it would be reasonable for LE to pursue it as a crime if they are not sure. Further, if they are wrong and it turns out she disappeared on her own, then they are still within good parameters by keeping information about that from the public and family as she had the right to choose to disappear.

Maura was not guilty of any crime we know of, other than leaving the scene of an accident. This is not the type of infraction that would result in a nationwide manhunt for her, and if she was found living elsewhere it’s unlikely that she would be extradited to NH to stand for charges. Given these particular facts, what right would LE have to do something like monitor her Social Security number to find out if it is being used? Could they even do that? If they presume she is the victim of a homicide, they wouldn’t have a reason or need to do it, and if they think she chose to disappear they would have no reason to do it. As an adult, she had a perfect right to disappear and make a new life for herself.

So how would LE know that her Social Security number is not being used by her? I’m not saying there is no way they could know, I am just wondering how they would find out.

I believe that it is somewhat easier for a woman to disappear if she chooses to, than for a man to do so. A change of hair length/style and color can be a very effective disguise for a woman. There are women’s shelters (I don’t know what forms of ID they might require if any). Maura could be a stay-at-home mother by now, totally supported by a husband. Or she could be totally supported by a boyfriend. Or she could be working in any number of jobs that may pay “under the table”(and be low-stress to boot!). She could also be working in any number of jobs in which a well done fake ID would pass muster unless there was some reason to raise a question about it.

To sum up, given the few facts we know, I feel it is just as plausible that Maura is alive and well, having broken with her family for reasons unknown to us, as it is that she is the victim of a homicide or the winter elements.

JMHO, sorry for the length.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I think part of the problem here might be that most people are equating the belief that "people are responsible for their actions" with "she deserved to die." I've seen both you and Bill flat out say on numerous occasions that Maura is responsible for her actions. I've never seen either of you say that Maura deserved to die just because she made bad decisions. Correct me if I'm wrong.

you're absolutely correct; but that becomes a matter of comprehension. the language is there to read and understand.

Advocate ~ i like your thinking here; it makes much sense and offers a reasonable explanation for not sharing these images with the public.

"6. ATM Video. We know there is one video of Maura at the ATM where she withdrew the $280 from her account. I don’t know if a second video (liquor store?) has been confirmed, so I’ll just address the one we know about. LE has not released this video to the public, which is customarily done in missing persons cases. Further, LE has not even allowed Maura’s family to see the video. I can think of only two reasons why LE has not taken these steps.

(a) Maura was not alone and LE believes the other individual/s to be suspect in her disappearance, or

(b) Maura was alone but LE has reason to believe that she chose to disappear on her own and thus, as an adult, her actions can be withheld even from her family."

JGG wrote:

Agree with him or not, like him or not, how can anyone doubt this guy was a cop?

Is Bill in San Diego with you and Former LE?

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
you're absolutely correct; but that becomes a matter of comprehension. the language is there to read and understand.

OK. let me try again. someone doesn't get it.

our personal choices and actions determine consequences; consequences will sometimes be positive, sometimes negative.

we demonstrate responsibility and protect our personal safety when we allow others to know our destination and/or itinerary when we intend to travel away from our expected patterns of activity or usual location.

whether Maura was unable or unwilling to reveal that information, she did not "deserve" to disappear, to be harmed, abducted, attacked, or even to die.

since she did not share that information with family and friends before leaving UMASS, the immediate consequence has been that a key clue to her whereabouts is missing.

it is a faulty conclusion to draw from my statements above about personal responsibility that Maura, or anyone, "deserves" violence and/or death for failure to notify another about their travel plans.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I think part of the problem here might be that most people are equating the belief that "people are responsible for their actions" with "she deserved to die." I've seen both you and Bill flat out say on numerous occasions that Maura is responsible for her actions. I've never seen either of you say that Maura deserved to die just because she made bad decisions. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are absolutely correct. I have said repeatedly that it is very likely she didn't deserve her fate, if it was as bad as many of us suspect. Many of us don't deserve the fate we receive. I have also said repeatedly that she took her chances, rolled the dice, and apparently she became one of those people that others point to, to use as an example of what others should not do. Very sad legacy for someone holding what appeared to be a lot of promise.

Bill

The Wizard wrote:

<quoted text>
Is Bill in San Diego with you and Former LE?

Nope. Still don't know him, never met him and never had any contact with him except on these forums. But, I like the way he thinks, and he does think. Some of the old timers on this forum and the old forums will be able to tell you that I have written some of the same things almost verbatim, for years.

I have been so busy I haven't had time to hardly read. But I have been trying to catch up. Luckily, you have had an incredible resource to draw on. Luckily some of the smarter among you, the ones looking for answers instead of trying to smash that square peg into round holes have used this remarkable resource to very good ends, it seems to me.

I think most reasonable people can tell if someone who writes as much a FrmLE has, can tell if he knows what he is talking about or not. I am most confident that he is who he says he is.

Bill

Shack wrote:

Through the last years, we have had the chest thumping egotists...then the soft spoken make believe I care (so that they won't get verbally abusive with me) and my favorite...I call them the "fence viewers"..they jump down and agree with which ever side seems to be the current view.
I still hang in there believing, like Anne, that CCU will settle this mess.

I'll translate this for those that don't know what she is talking about or her history. Here is someone that hasn't, as near as anyone has ever been able to determine, ever accomplished anything of consequence. Her sole contribution to this case has been to berate, minimize, accuse and bemoan continuously the people who actually put themselves in harms way to try to find Maura or help Maura. Her greatest contribution to this case, and this hasn't actually been verified is that she may have made coffee for the searchers and patted couple of dogs. She has no idea, what it takes to do the hard work. To put oneself at risk for people you don't know in their greatest time of need. To train continuously to stay current at what is current best practice in a profession. There is nothing that she has contributed, to these forums for eight years that in any way shows she has even the slightest modicum of useful information in this case. She has trouble even keeping the names of thing she was "involved" with straight. She also has continually acted as though she has a personal axe to grind with people in the area. Everything she say has to be viewed with suspicion.

It is clear to me that she is very pissed off at FrmLE because, first, he does appear to be a professional, and what is even worse, as far as she is concerned. He doesn't play into the "local killer or serial killer did it" theory. That is antithetical to everything that she has said and ranted about for eight years.

When it comes to anything she says, buyer beware.

Bill

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
I absolutely agree with you 100%. You're right, you have to give credit where credit's due. And I truly have the deepest amount of admiration for any poster who can travel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific in under an hour.

Lol, who travelled across the country in an hour?
Am I missing something here? Funny post though

Granny M, "windmilling" in this situation, means a lot of going around and around, and not getting anywhere....no certain direction; i.e., repetitive discussions, accusations. Comments such as those tend to discourage and in turn, it nudges
new people to leave. Not a very welcome feeling if one is new.

I check in every now and then to see wuz up...and I see its oldies v the newbies. What I don't understand, however, is if you are an oldie and have been tainted by time........puhleeze leave.

Why discourage new conversations other than just the fact that you don't want to reread things or repeat things. No one is forcing you to be here ...other than ego's. Sooo please do yourself a favor and move on so your frustration level will decrease. No need to make your life difficult.

Honestly I'd say it's more likely that she ran away and started a new life then she got lost in the woods.
There is actually some good circumstantial evidence that she wanted to start a new life.
There is absolutely no evidence, circumstantial or physical that she went into the woods.
It defies logic that she would run 6-10 miles and then enter the woods, it defies even more logic that she would make it anywhere deep into the woods after running that far.
If she went into the woods she had to been suicidal, there is not other reason to enter the wilderness. Why run 10 miles before entering the woods? That just make no sense.
If she made it that far without any witnesses(except maybe one with a rather suspicious story) she was avoiding being seen by passing motorists. If she was able to avoid being seen by any passerby, then what would be the purpose of entering the woods at that point? At that point she would've been miles away from the accident and any trouble that comes along with it. You would think if she made it that far she would've been pretty damn happy that she got away, so why enter the woods then?

Cont'd:

If she was crazy, suicidal, not thinking right and wanted to die, why not just walk straight Into the wolds near the crash site & off herself? If she was so out of her mind and wanted to die what would be the reason behind running that far first?
If she was running that far she was trying to get away, wouldn't that show a clear intent to want to live? Why would she be so worried about hiding her own body?
Also a few miles past the crash site 112 starts going uphill fast into the notch(kinsman notch), the peak of kinsman notch is about 10 miles from the crash. So not only would she have ran that far, half the time she would've beene running straight up a really steep hill. She was in great shape but she would've been exhausted at that point, anybody would be. After running 10 miles, Half of it uphill, how far into the woods do you really think she couldve made it? Yea she was in good shape but she was not supergirl. Also she hadn't really been running in monthEs, she hadn't ran track in almost a year and she had an injured hamstring, so she wasn't in peak physical condition at the time off the accident.
Also once you get out of the valley up into the notch the terrain off the road gets extremely rugged, extremely. That is not the kind of terrain you can easily just walk off the road and into the woods, particularly after running 10 miles. The whole thing just defies logic that she would run 10 miles uphill into the notch so she could walk into the woods through extremely difficult terrain.
When she left the car she clearly had no intent of entering the woods as shown by the fact that she left all 3 pairs of gloves in the car. If she was thinking about going into the woods to off herself wouldn't she have at least taken her gloves with her to help her actually get into the woods?
What would be the purpose of just walking into the woods to die after making it 10 miles up the road?
Was she trying to get away or was she trying to die? Doesn't running that far show a clear intent of trying to get away? Does it not?
Then there's also the problem of no footprints leading into the woods; they most definitely flew the SP helicopter the entire length of 112 up to n Woodstock looking for a track leading into the woods. They describe seeing fresh prints from animals in the snow so we know it was trackable, but there were no human tracks leading into the woods.
To believe she ran into the woods is to believe she was suicidal, plain and simple. It just makes no logical sense to say that after she ran 10 miles and got away from the accident that she would them decide she was suicidal and to walk into the woods. If she made it 10 miles without being spotted she would've been so psyched that she got away with it, why kill herself then?
Also freezing to death in the woods is no picnic, in fact it would be a horrible way to die. I can't see anyone voluntarily choosing that as her fate.
She had jeans on, no boots, hat or gloves. There is no way she would choose to enter the woods like that to hide out.
The whole thing just makes no sense at all. It almost sounds logical when you read frmLE's post, but if you think about it really doesn't, at all.
One more point: not one of her friends or family has ever said that she expressed any suicidal thought or actions. There's people that say she expressed a desire to run away and start a new life, but not to commit suicide.

jenkins,I think your post presents a perfect argument as to why she most likely is not in the woods.Valid points indeed.

It just makes no sense at all to run 10 miles so you can go into the woods to die.

If she wanted to go into the woods she would've went into the woods, not run 10 miles first. She had to have known that she wouldn't make it far into the woods after running that far I those conditions.

The only reason to run 10 miles that I can see would be to get away, well If she made it that far then she got away.
Why run into the woods after you got away? That is just not logical in any respect of the word