Maura Murray

JWB wrote:

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

Against physics?? What are you talking about? The curve was the inner curve they were talking about I thought.

Also the vehicle could have easily yawed coming around the corner (remember the person hearing the engine race, possibly meaning the drive tires broke loose) around the corner the tires breaks loose, and Maura over-corrected causing the accident.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
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

How many yards down the road are the trees located from where the car eventually landed?

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Bobby, booby. I have never said that was the only option. But I have tried to let people understand that it clearly is an option. It is the closed minded like yourself that cannot see past their own theories, no matter how much it goes against the logic and facts of the situation.

I am open to many possibility, just not ones that have no facts to back them up.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Against physics?? What are you talking about? The curve was the inner curve they were talking about I thought.
Also the vehicle could have easily yawed coming around the corner (remember the person hearing the engine race, possibly meaning the drive tires broke loose) around the corner the tires breaks loose, and Maura over-corrected causing the accident.
Bill

when you are going into a left turn physics tells you that the vehicle would naturally pull you to the right side. what happened to the theory about the car stalling? Now you are saying that the car was racing? what is it Bill?

When you are auto racing then you would clip the corner as it is the straightest point, but she would have been crossing lanes to do so and the damage would have been more severe.

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

Wow, your gonna make me go get the quotes?? Because everything I said in that lost is completely accurate.

In an early story about the search they clear our say they flew the helicopter for 20 miles of 112.
Scarinza also describes looking through the flit.

He says you can see small animal tracks clear as day through the flir, you couuld see hunters tree stands, small animals and all sorts of things.
But he saw no human tracks, that was the whole point of what he said was that he could see tracks and there were no animal tracks. That's why he's "confident she's not in the woods near the crash"..his words not mine.

Do they absolutely flew 20 miles& they definitely could see animal tracks through the flir.

What's the point of your post? To mislead people?
Do a Tiny bit of research and u can confirm all that I said there.
You at obviously the one lying here.
I've never said anything that can't be backe up by a quote or a fact

If I have to go bak and dig ip the direct quotes to prove I wrong I will

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
when you are going into a left turn physics tells you that the vehicle would naturally pull you to the right side. what happened to the theory about the car stalling? Now you are saying that the car was racing? what is it Bill?

Wow. It would really help if you read what has been written hundreds of times before so I don't have to explain the stuff that others know about.

This is the last time I intend to go over stuff that has been known about for years.

One of the witnesses stated they heard the engine race just before the crash.

To me, that indicates that the tires broke loose, probably in the turn. My thought is that the rear end of the car swung right, she tried to correct the yaw by steering right and over-corrected sending her into the tree.

And I never believed nor is there anyone who stated that the car stalled until after the crash. That was someones theory as why she lost control. Because some believe that drinking never causes someone to loose control of a car.

Bill

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, your gonna make me go get the quotes?? Because everything I said in that lost is completely accurate.
In an early story about the search they clear our say they flew the helicopter for 20 miles of 112.
Scarinza also describes looking through the flit.
He says you can see small animal tracks clear as day through the flir, you couuld see hunters tree stands, small animals and all sorts of things.
But he saw no human tracks, that was the whole point of what he said was that he could see tracks and there were no animal tracks. That's why he's "confident she's not in the woods near the crash"..his words not mine.
Do they absolutely flew 20 miles& they definitely could see animal tracks through the flir.
What's the point of your post? To mislead people?
Do a Tiny bit of research and u can confirm all that I said there.
You at obviously the one lying here.
I've never said anything that can't be backe up by a quote or a fact
If I have to go bak and dig ip the direct quotes to prove I wrong I will

Prove it.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, your gonna make me go get the quotes?? Because everything I said in that lost is completely accurate.
In an early story about the search they clear our say they flew the helicopter for 20 miles of 112.
Scarinza also describes looking through the flit.
He says you can see small animal tracks clear as day through the flir, you couuld see hunters tree stands, small animals and all sorts of things.
But he saw no human tracks, that was the whole point of what he said was that he could see tracks and there were no animal tracks. That's why he's "confident she's not in the woods near the crash"..his words not mine.
Do they absolutely flew 20 miles& they definitely could see animal tracks through the flir.
What's the point of your post? To mislead people?
Do a Tiny bit of research and u can confirm all that I said there.
You at obviously the one lying here.
I've never said anything that can't be backe up by a quote or a fact
If I have to go bak and dig ip the direct quotes to prove I wrong I will

***Police Suspend Search for Missing Woman
Haverhill, New Hampshire - February 19, 2004
Police used a helicopter and scent dogs to search two square miles of the wooded area where 21-year-old Maura Murray was last seen.
But still, no sign of the missing college student.
"We were not able to come up with any conclusive clues for us to continue,"said Lt. Todd Bogardus of the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department.***

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow. It would really help if you read what has been written hundreds of times before so I don't have to explain the stuff that others know about.
This is the last time I intend to go over stuff that has been known about for years.
One of the witnesses stated they heard the engine race just before the crash.
To me, that indicates that the tires broke loose, probably in the turn. My thought is that the rear end of the car swung right, she tried to correct the yaw by steering right and over-corrected sending her into the tree.
And I never believed nor is there anyone who stated that the car stalled until after the crash. That was someones theory as why she lost control. Because some believe that drinking never causes someone to loose control of a car.
Bill

The tire broke loose? I'll have to look up what that means. I figured the call stalled. Not that it matters. But same effect, no? Sorry but I'm not so good at physics.

The neighbors saw the saturn back up paralell to the road, so that might be why the car moved from where it once was. If MM had slid off the road once already, she may have felt she could drive off again. When the SBD came along, that might ruin any chances of someone helping her to get going again. They wouldn't take a chance at being seen, or caught doing something they shouldn't be doing. Let's say they were drinking and wanted no part of any police action. MM walks in fast mode and gets in the car, off they go. Case closed. They say MM may have been expecting, would she continue to drink anyway? MM is said to have a great sense of humor. She said there was a death in the family. It wasn't supposed to be hers, maybe an early termination of any pregnancy. But in the end, MM could be raising this child and staying at home, or working for a place that's not prone to follow up on a persons background. It was some time in 2005 that I had to make copies of everyones drivers licence and social security card.
But NOT for any of us that have been there over 20 years. That's when employee new hire came into effect, so faking a social was still possible for one of my workers. I don't know about Canada, maybe it's still as lax as our place used to be.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow. It would really help if you read what has been written hundreds of times before so I don't have to explain the stuff that others know about.
This is the last time I intend to go over stuff that has been known about for years.
One of the witnesses stated they heard the engine race just before the crash.
To me, that indicates that the tires broke loose, probably in the turn. My thought is that the rear end of the car swung right, she tried to correct the yaw by steering right and over-corrected sending her into the tree.
And I never believed nor is there anyone who stated that the car stalled until after the crash. That was someones theory as why she lost control. Because some believe that drinking never causes someone to loose control of a car.
Bill

So you are saying then that she didn't clip that corner ? If her back end went right towards the inside corner. Am I reading you right?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Bobby, booby. I have never said that was the only option. But I have tried to let people understand that it clearly is an option. It is the closed minded like yourself that cannot see past their own theories, no matter how much it goes against the logic and facts of the situation.
I am open to many possibility, just not ones that have no facts to back them up.
Bill

Haha, bill, you said booby..funny
What's weird about what your saying here is I actually don't even have a theory. I can't decide if I think she actually got killed or if she ran away. I've never even outright said what I really think happened. Most of the time im asking questions

What's wrong with discussing scenarios with some people online? Why do you care?

You say I need to ask more questions, why don't you answer some of the q's I asked last night that obviously got you all hot and bothered.
Like why did smith lie to the family?
Why do witnesses place the chiefs vehicle at the scene yet he denies being there?
Why are there multiple versions of the gcsd logs and is this common practice for them to have multiple logs that are different? Aren't logs supposed to be a legal record? Is it commonplace for police logs to have multiple copies that are different? Bill in your years of experience in all these different things do you think it's common to have different versions of the same log?

Why is there an hour gap before maura's crash? Is this common to have whole hours where nobody even calls the dispatch? Is it common for there to be a gap when 911 was so busy that night that you couldn't even get through to them?

How bout some basic ones:
Are we not supposed to question the ones who have chose as a profession to protect the public? Are we supposed to just trust everything they say no matter what? Are we supposed to trust them just because they're LE? & if we have definite lies by said LE should we still trust what they say?

All legitimate questions, for some reason I have a feeling you guys aren't gonna answer any of them but rather resort to weak minded attacks & stupid words like booby..you know, arguments of 5 year olds....
Its funny the personal attacks that come when I make a post like that. You giys are so transparent, it's pretty obvious to anyone who can half think for themselves.

Hey, I just thought of something. Let's get "DOG", the bounty hunter to go get her and bring her home. Just kidding and no offence intended.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, your gonna make me go get the quotes?? Because everything I said in that lost is completely accurate.

Yep, I am calling you out little booby liar, get the quotes. Because you are a liar, embellisher, maker-uper.

You think people here don't know what was said and not said? ou think you can twist and spin facts until they fit your little theories?

WRONG

Get the quotes or shut up.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>If I have to go bak and dig ip the direct quotes to prove I wrong I will

Waiting. Please get the quotes specifically regarding Scarinza.

Bobby bobby booby, didn't your mommy tell you liars always get caught?

Jenkins, the W-Mans didn't say the chief was there, and we don't know that the chief was there. What witnesses? Obviously no one is going to stand up and say "I". Like with JM, the only thing I have ever heard is that officers were heard argueing over jurisdiction. That may be a reason. But really, to me, the cottage worker may have seen the bronco as she drove home, but in her minds eye and in the telling of it later, she could be mistaken that it was nose to nose with the saturn. Because then there would be three vehicles nose to nose. I don't know, the mind plays tricks.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
The tire broke loose? I'll have to look up what that means. I figured the call stalled. Not that it matters. But same effect, no? Sorry but I'm not so good at physics.

Break loose simply means the tires lost traction. In this case I believe the rear tires lost traction. If the rear wheels loose traction it is considered oversteer, the front ones, understeer. If the car behaves exactly as it is commanded it is considered neutral. It was cold, there could have been some ice and lets not forget the effect alcohol has on reactions.

A recap. Maura comes into the left hand turn, possibly too fast. In trying to make the turn, she turns hard enough that the cars rear wheels break loose, loose traction. To correct, she turns left to try to make the back wheels track the way she is pointing to make them get traction back. This is the correct thing to try to do. In doing this she over-corrects and instead the rear wheels react by swinging to the left and breaks loose in the other direction. This heads her to the trees where she crashed.

I know it sounds like lots of things going on and it is and happens very fast. I will try to find a youtube video to post. This is actually very easy to do if you know how to drive. It's even easier to do if you don't know how to drive in slippery conditions. 8-)

Bill

This actually isn't too bad. I didn't watch it all the way through. There are times when you can easily see him going into the right hand turns and because the rear wheels have broken loose you can see him turning left to try to recover. What he doesn't show you is what happens if someone inexperienced turns too far left. What happens is the tires would break loose in the opposite direction. On a track that is no problem. On a road you would shoot off the other side.

It is too bad they were not doing a left hand turn but I think you can see what I am talking about. Let me know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Break loose simply means the tires lost traction. In this case I believe the rear tires lost traction. If the rear wheels loose traction it is considered oversteer, the front ones, understeer. If the car behaves exactly as it is commanded it is considered neutral. It was cold, there could have been some ice and lets not forget the effect alcohol has on reactions.
A recap. Maura comes into the left hand turn, possibly too fast. In trying to make the turn, she turns hard enough that the cars rear wheels break loose, loose traction. To correct, she turns left to try to make the back wheels track the way she is pointing to make them get traction back. This is the correct thing to try to do. In doing this she over-corrects and instead the rear wheels react by swinging to the left and breaks loose in the other direction. This heads her to the trees where she crashed.
I know it sounds like lots of things going on and it is and happens very fast. I will try to find a youtube video to post. This is actually very easy to do if you know how to drive. It's even easier to do if you don't know how to drive in slippery conditions. 8-)
Bill

Whether the car stalled or the above scenario happened, does it make a difference to anyone's theory? Similarly, if the car didn't really hit the trees but instead clipped the snow bank and ended up a few extra yards down the road, does this change anything? Other than maybe someone filled out the accident report six days later and made a sloppy mistake? I'm not implying anything nefarious happened, just an honest question.

SRSLYWTH wrote:

<quoted text>
Prove it.

First of all you need to read up. If you go back every single one of this quotes has been posted in the past couple weeks,
These aren't disputable they're direct quotes from LE, but I will dig them up again just to show that obviously I ain't making anything up, anyone who reads these boards often knows that.

So when I dig up the quotes later are you gonna admit that your wrong?
If scarinza did say he could see animal tracks clear as day and that they flew 20 miles of 112 and saw no evidence of anyone entering the woods?
When scarinza says he's confident shed not in the woods near the crash site?
Are you even gonna admit your wrong anyways?
I seriously doubt it.

Funny way to try to discredit me, just say I'm a liar. Super weak, weak minded argument there. if you've actually been reading you would know that I've posted all these quotes and their sources in the past few weeks