Maura Murray

I'm no sure exactly where the hunter found the tape but I'm definitely going to go check it out in the next couple weeks when I drive through there.
He said it's 7.8 miles from the accident scene so it should be fairly easy to figure out about where he's talking.

112 on the Haverhill side is not a popular spot for winter sports at all. There's very few points to access the woods in winter and there's very few people out there breaking in trails. There definitely aren't any popular hiking trails on that stretch if road, certainly not the kind that are so popular people are breaking in the trails.

There's been several winters in the last 8 uears that I drove 112 several times a week. In 2004 after she went missing I drove the road all the time.
I can't tell you for a fact that there's very very few points you can access the woods relatively easily.
For a few miles up the road after te scene the terrain is fairly flat and is possible that someone can walk into the wood there throug the snow. But once youget a few miles you start gettin up into the notch and te terrain gets seriously rugged. Nit terrain you can easily walk any time of year, let alone at night in February when theres 2' of snow.
This is the major problem with the theory of her walking into the woods. There's not that many places she could even get into the woods. They searched near the accident scene well, she's not in those immediate woods.
But once she got up the road there is absolutely no way she could've gotten deep into those woods.

She was wearing jeans with no gloves boots or hat. She was akready shivering when the sbd saw her.
To think that she ran a few mikes up 112 and then was able to walk deep into the woods dressed like that is simply insane. Just unbelievable. Who is she super girl?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
What???? You mean the nose to nose thing might be utter bullshit???? Who was the first person to postulate that?? Is the cottage witness even certain that it was that day? Did someone get a sworn statement from her to this effect? So that we know that she has verified as true and accurate what everyone is interpreting her as saying? I mean I have only heard fourth hand nonsense about the "cars being nose to nose". I still have trouble even understanding what you people think that means, even if it did happen. Imagine an emergency worker using his headlights to illuminate a scene at night. What the hell was he thinking? I know we often do that in the fire service. It comes in real handy to SEE THINGS.
Just curious what evil things you think was going on? Unless, no......don't tell me......not the trailer hitch front end damage theory again. Where have you people been? Even the guy who started that stupid theory doesn't admit it anymore. Not for years.
Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
What???? You mean the nose to nose thing might be utter bullshit???? Who was the first person to postulate that?? Is the cottage witness even certain that it was that day? Did someone get a sworn statement from her to this effect? So that we know that she has verified as true and accurate what everyone is interpreting her as saying? I mean I have only heard fourth hand nonsense about the "cars being nose to nose". I still have trouble even understanding what you people think that means, even if it did happen. Imagine an emergency worker using his headlights to illuminate a scene at night. What the hell was he thinking? I know we often do that in the fire service. It comes in real handy to SEE THINGS.
Just curious what evil things you think was going on? Unless, no......don't tell me......not the trailer hitch front end damage theory again. Where have you people been? Even the guy who started that stupid theory doesn't admit it anymore. Not for years.
Bill

Is this aimed at me? You think I'm one of "those" who think evil things were going on? Well, I'm not. All I "know" is what I've read and gathered, and I remain highly neutral. I've played the guessing game when people have thrown ideas out there for all to ponder, but that's just thinking and eventual elimination to me.
Personally, I have no idea what went on. It's not my place to judge, but I do "parott" along the lines of what's been said.

When the cottage witness was brought up, I began to think about how she figured in to this situation, and tried to remember what it was that she said about that night. I recall someone, maybe Weeper, saying that she normally left work at 7 each and every night. But this night it took her a bit longer to get out of her shift. I tried to recall what time, and decided that she couldn't have seen things the way the W-Mans did. Why? Because they called as soon as they heard and saw the crash. They were on the phone until police,(CS) arrived. They WERE NOT the ones saying that anyone else was there, it's on all the logs.
Wow Bill, you make me wonder how I come across. Please don't lump me into any groups, ok?

I don't know what you mean by the "stupid theory" I just know we have one person on board who can pin point the moment and time because of a female sliding off the road, that it might be her friend who was new to the state,~and new to snow. She was boiling potatos I think and heard it on the scanner, made note of the timing and decided her friend would be driving home in that area, at about the same time.
We don't have to go into that because as you like to say, we've been there, done that. But it matters that someone slid off the road and evidently was able to get back on the road.

I'm guessing here that because nothing seemed to fit, PI's started to check around for answers. The rest is HIS story, not mine.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Spoken like people who have never been inside a crashed car. As someone who has been in multiple crashed cars I can happily report that it at times is surreal. Nothing is where it belongs and some things you might never expect to be where it is ultimately found. So wondering if a crash could "break" a wine box is absurd. Of course it can. No mystery. The open container that Maura had is likely the prime candidate for the splashed red liquid (booze) inside the car. It never ceases to amaze at how people love to overly complicate things. Oh, crap, it's on the tip of my tongue, Achoo or Octomom or somethings razor. It says to find the simplest explanation and that will very probably be the correct one that explains a scenario. So a girl driving while drinking misses a corner and has a car accident, spilling the contents of her booze on the inside of the car. Then decides to not wait around for the police and runs off, either into the woods or with the help of an unknown stranger. Can anyone tell me why this simple explanation that doesn't work? It explains all known facts, so why all the extra drama? I mean it is entertaining to speculate about rouge police with their evil vehicle "pointed" at the missing girls car. And mysterious indestructible boxes that explode and toss wine willy, nilly around the car. And rouge cops from the SP and HPD who apparently need to cover up the goins on of some of the more fortunate kin folk with a hankering to steal pretty college girls. We do all love a good yarn don't we'all?
Bill

This post sounds good but there's so many things said here that are just flat out wrong.
First of all the box of wine, did it even break open? I don't think it did, there would've been a giant puddle of wine in the backseat of the car.
There was wine splashed on the ceiling, the door and the floor of the car. No giant puddles. The simplest explanation is that it spilled out of the coke bottle she was drinking out of.
She clearly was drinking, it doesn't appear she was very drunk, I'd bet she drank one to two drinks on her way up, but she apparently drank all the time so I seriously doubt she was actually intoxicated.
But she clearly had spilled alcohol and wanted to get out of there to avoid a DUI. That makes sense.
At this point the simplest answer is clearly that she caught a ride, which would be super easy. Any driver on te road wouldve stopped and offered her a ride.
To say she ran into the woods seriously complicates things. If she entered the woods right near the accident scene she most likely would habe been found. That area was extensively searched and there was absolutely no footprints.
So that would mean that she would've had to enter the woods up the road some, which makes no sense.
If she made it up the road a ouple miles than that means she got away from the accident and wasn't in trouble. Why would she enter the woods then?
That just complicates the whole thing and is not the simplest answer. In addition to that there is absolutely no evidence supporting this.
The simplest answer is she got a ride.
That doesnt mean that person killed her but it's fairly obvious she caight a ride from the immediate area that night.

One other thing, nobody is just making up stories about rogue police vehicles. We are asking legitimate questions that damn well deserve answers. Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers taught us that you should always question the government.
People deserve an answer to why witnesses saw hpd 1 on the scene, which is the chiefs truck, yet the official stance is it was not on scene. That is a legitimate question
People deserve an answer to why smith lied to the family when they arrived. Why did he say henthought it was Fred when he clearly knew it was Maura driving.
Why is smith's report so innacurate?
Why won't Jkm even answer questions as to whether or not he was even there?
Why are there 2(maybe 3) versions of the gcsd logs from that night? Isn't a log a log? Shouldn't they be identical? And why is there over an hour gap missing from before maura's crash? Was there absolutely no action right then or what? How come if there was no action goin on was 911 busy?
People aren't just talking about this for fun.
I'm sure everyone would mich prefer for LE to nor have said lies about the night and just done their job properly and honestly rather than wasting our time considering that maybe a rogue officer was involved.
These are all legitimate questions that deserve answers. These are the people who chose to protec the public for a loving and they should be held to a mich higher level of accountability. Where the accountability?'are you suggesting that we should always just trust the word of any and all LE all th time? That's scary. What about all the history of corruption in LE, from the biggest cities to the smallest towns?
Are you suggesting that we should just trust everything they say and question nothing LE says? That's scary that people think like that.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

I'm no sure exactly where the hunter found the tape but I'm definitely going to go check it out in the next couple weeks when I drive through there.
He said it's 7.8 miles from the accident scene so it should be fairly easy to figure out about where he's talking.
112 on the Haverhill side is not a popular spot for winter sports at all. There's very few points to access the woods in winter and there's very few people out there breaking in trails. There definitely aren't any popular hiking trails on that stretch if road, certainly not the kind that are so popular people are breaking in the trails.
There's been several winters in the last 8 uears that I drove 112 several times a week. In 2004 after she went missing I drove the road all the time.
I can't tell you for a fact that there's very very few points you can access the woods relatively easily.
For a few miles up the road after te scene the terrain is fairly flat and is possible that someone can walk into the wood there throug the snow. But once youget a few miles you start gettin up into the notch and te terrain gets seriously rugged. Nit terrain you can easily walk any time of year, let alone at night in February when theres 2' of snow.
This is the major problem with the theory of her walking into the woods. There's not that many places she could even get into the woods. They searched near the accident scene well, she's not in those immediate woods.
But once she got up the road there is absolutely no way she could've gotten deep into those woods.
She was wearing jeans with no gloves boots or hat. She was akready shivering when the sbd saw her.
To think that she ran a few mikes up 112 and then was able to walk deep into the woods dressed like that is simply insane. Just unbelievable. Who is she super girl?

http://m.youtube.com/watch...

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
This post sounds good but there's so many things said here that are just flat out wrong.
First of all the box of wine, did it even break open? I don't think it did, there would've been a giant puddle of wine in the backseat of the car.
There was wine splashed on the ceiling, the door and the floor of the car. No giant puddles. The simplest explanation is that it spilled out of the coke bottle she was drinking out of.
She clearly was drinking, it doesn't appear she was very drunk, I'd bet she drank one to two drinks on her way up, but she apparently drank all the time so I seriously doubt she was actually intoxicated.
But she clearly had spilled alcohol and wanted to get out of there to avoid a DUI. That makes sense.
At this point the simplest answer is clearly that she caught a ride, which would be super easy. Any driver on te road wouldve stopped and offered her a ride.
To say she ran into the woods seriously complicates things. If she entered the woods right near the accident scene she most likely would habe been found. That area was extensively searched and there was absolutely no footprints.
So that would mean that she would've had to enter the woods up the road some, which makes no sense.
If she made it up the road a ouple miles than that means she got away from the accident and wasn't in trouble. Why would she enter the woods then?
That just complicates the whole thing and is not the simplest answer. In addition to that there is absolutely no evidence supporting this.
The simplest answer is she got a ride.
That doesnt mean that person killed her but it's fairly obvious she caight a ride from the immediate area that night.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch...

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
It wasn't until later that family learned the accident site was much further east...
How does the dent in the snow factor into the accident scene?

I'm just mentioning what Sharon said. She was in Haverhill within a couple of days of the accident, I think, and was shown the scene where the car was found. Come to think of it, those who arrived by Wednesday the 11th saw the scene before the police report was written up, didn't they? I'll have to go and look again at the date on the report.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Hikers, hunters, campers cross country skiers are the people most likely to visit and be in that area. Again, if you be more specific as to where you are referring, I might be able to be more specific.
Bill

That statement is inaccurate.
During winter it's pretty much only hunters in this area.
There may be some homers but this is not a popular area for hiking, especially in the winter. There are no popular hiking trails on this sections of road, no mountains to climb, this is just not a popular hiking area. Barely anybody hikes here in winter because there's very few access points to enter the woods.
The only spot you ever see cars parked is at that one spot onthe top of the notch rright by the pond up there.

There are no cross country skiers here at all, there's no XC trails here. You can't just xc ski through the woods.

That whole stretch of 112 is just not a popular destination for hikers, there's no cool mountains to climb and just not one of the areas people hike very often.
There's also nowhere to park your car in winter either. All this little dirt roads in the summer are blocked by snowbanks. Tw only spot to park is at the spot right on top of the notch.

Really in winter the only people that frequent this area are hunters. Since there's very few hikers it's a great spot for hunting.
I'm sure people have hiked te area, more likely snowshoed it, but it is not common at all.

There's very few spots you can even access the woods with the snowbanks

Just me--paris wrote:

<quoted text><quoted text>Is this aimed at me? You think I'm one of "those" who think evil things were going on? Well, I'm not. All I "know" is what I've read and gathered, and I remain highly neutral. I've played the guessing game when people have thrown ideas out there for all to ponder, but that's just thinking and eventual elimination to me.
Personally, I have no idea what went on. It's not my place to judge, but I do "parott" along the lines of what's been said.
.

It interesting how some people just lump everyone together like we all believe something evil definitely happened.
It's almost as if they want it to be like teams against each other.
I don't think these guys realize we are all independent people trying to get to the bottom of this mess.

How are you supposed to do that without asking questions and eliminating theories?

If you just decided years ago that she's lost in the woods it's like having blinders on. Bill refuses to even consider any other options, which is ridiculous. He obviously has all preconceived notions and just automatically writes off any evidence that doesn't fit with these. Bill has never considered anything else to be an option.

I'm just glad LE doesn't work like this because it would then be impossible to ever find out what jappened.

You gotta keep am open mind, consider any and all possibilities and eliminate them when evidence to the contrary is presented.
There's evidence she caight a ride from the scene. There is absolutely no evidence she went into the woods. They flew 20 miles innthe nhsp helicopters looking for footprints leading into the woods. Through the flir they could see fresh animal tracks clear as day. There was no trail made by s human leading into the woods within 20 miles of the accident scene. The dog tracked her scent 100yd up the rd and the trail ended.
Lt scarinza sounds very confident when he says "we are confident she's not in the woods" and I believe him on that.

I love how these guys criticize everyone so much but they're the biggest offenders by far of their
Criticism. Most of us will readily admit we don't know what happened and we are asking questions as an attempt to figure out answers.
It seems like most of us keep open minds and dint go by preconceived notions.
These guys never asked any questions, they just think they know. They decided from the start she was in the woods and that's that, screw any evidence to the contrary.

Thank god these guys aren't investigating for the nhsp.

Mark my words, when of if this case gets resolved they will be proven wrong. She is not in those woods, at least not anywhere close to the wb curve

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text> Spoken like people who have never been inside a crashed car. As someone who has been in multiple crashed cars I can happily report that it at times is surreal. Nothing is where it belongs and some things you might never expect to be where it is ultimately found.

Young man, may I respectfully suggest that you spend your spare time upgrading your driving skills rather than insulting the charming womenfolk in this chat room?

Major Do-Do wrote:

<quoted text>
Young man, may I respectfully suggest that you spend your spare time upgrading your driving skills rather than insulting the charming womenfolk in this chat room?

Thank you Major Do-Do for speaking up against this bully WTH . He is very insulting to everyone that has an opinion or puts out a theory. He needs to have his fanny spanked (non respectfully) with a wooden spoon.

Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm just mentioning what Sharon said. She was in Haverhill within a couple of days of the accident, I think, and was shown the scene where the car was found. Come to think of it, those who arrived by Wednesday the 11th saw the scene before the police report was written up, didn't they? I'll have to go and look again at the date on the report.

.

I agree with you.

Four different descriptions of locations of accident scene.

1. FWestmans 911 call " car facing westbound in westbound ditch"
2. Snow shelf location per Sharon
3. T Westman shows family another location further east.
4. CS accident report location.
Add in EMS/fire versions, and Cottage Hospital witness account.
Phew.
Why such a simple fact so difficult to determine?

1.

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>.
I agree with you.
Four different descriptions of locations of accident scene.
1. FWestmans 911 call " car facing westbound in westbound ditch"
2. Snow shelf location per Sharon
3. T Westman shows family another location further east.
4. CS accident report location.
Add in EMS/fire versions, and Cottage Hospital witness account.
Phew.
Why such a simple fact so difficult to determine?
1.

MCSMOM- and you might want to add a different account(than police report) of the accident(clipping the curve) from the TV guy who was also at the scene as an emt

Granny M wrote:

<quoted text>
MCSMOM- and you might want to add a different account(than police report) of the accident(clipping the curve) from the TV guy who was also at the scene as an emt

That is a good point GrannyM. I just went back and re read renners post concerning Dick Guy the TV guys account and I found this statement that backs up what I have tried to get across many times.

"Everything about the scene of the accident was weird," he says. "If she had just lost control of the car coming around that corner, she would have impacted the North side of the curve. She didn't. She clipped the corner. She sheered the snow bank clean off and continued on to the other side, where it turned the car around."

There is something wrong with the accident scene.

1)If she didn't clip the curve and lost control she would not end up so far down the curve as the final resting spot is indicated on the police report.

2) If she did clip the curve (against physics) what caused her to jump a full lane against the pull of the road?

3) If she did in fact hit the trees as shown on police report then she would have had to back her car out of there and then moved up the road and backed up into the final resting spot.

5) why did the first responders feel that they needed to write a note

If her car stalled then she would not have had great steering and it would be more difficult to turn the wheel into the supposedly clipped corner and she would have ended up just a little past old peters road.

oops ha ha forgot number 4- just making sure everyone is awake.

#4 if w3e are to believe that the car clipped the curve then the police report is inaccurate

Granny M wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you Major Do-Do for speaking up against this bully WTH . He is very insulting to everyone that has an opinion or puts out a theory. He needs to have his fanny spanked (non respectfully) with a wooden spoon.

Waaaaaaaaaaaa......Waaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaa. The mean man says things I don't like.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. You ladies want cheese with that whine?

Reality wrote:

poor bobby jenkins, always wanted to be a cop but those couple DWI's and drug charge got in the way...
poor jenkins, please stop hating the cops just because you couldn't make the cut. It is SO OBVIOUS you are a wannabe oinker, just couldn't get in the club.
poor booby jenkins. I'm gonna have a cry for you.

SRSLY WTH is wrong wit make believe security gard Boy Bobby? He IS the up all nite entertainment.

The Goat
Octodad

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
20 Miles huh? Are you making things up again to support your position bobby? How long after the crash did they fly the helicopter? How long does a persons body heat stay in the snow bobby? Do you know?
Let me ask a different way, if Maura walked into the woods on the night of the crash, would her tracks still have a FLIR signature in the snow when Scarinza flew in the helicopter search? Please answer this direct question.
Hmmm, me thinks you are embellishing AGAIN, it's really geting to be your MO buddy.......
<quoted text>
Arr you sure he said that bobby? Did he REALLY say that? bobby bobby are you making things up AGAIN? To support your position?
lol bobby bobby, shame on you, you little embellisher you.
Please post the link and the FULL, EXACT QUOTE where Scarinza made the statement that you put in quotes above. I am interested to see how accurate you are.
bobby is a little liar. tsk tsk

A FLIR signature doesn't stay on snow. Anyone who has used one knows that.

You could call it embellishment, I have another name for it.

Oh, ask me how I know. I have used them for years. I don't know what idiot thinks that they would see Maura's footprints with a FLIR but I know that isn't what Scarinza said. I am pretty sure, someone who shall remain nameless combined two separate sentences.

Somebody should be asking lots more questions instead of making statements. It would make them appear smarter in the long run.

Bill

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
3) If she did in fact hit the trees as shown on police report then she would have had to back her car out of there and then moved up the road and backed up into the final resting spot.

The police report clearly shows incoming tire tracks to the trees and then and expected reflection (of the tires) off of the trees, likely from the accident and the momentum of the car, not backed out by the power of the car.

Bill