NH NH - Maura Murray, 21, Haverhill, 9 Feb 2004 - # 9

[McSpy]

Some good thoughts Sineox.

Unless Maura went to the contractors house that night and something happened, I believe based on what is known, that Maura did accept a ride that night.

but where I differ from some is that I believe nothing sinister happened from that ride.

Maura's case is not that popular in the whole scheme of things. For websleuthers and lovers of shows like Disappeared and 20/20, Maura's case is well known.

But Maura's case never came close to being a media firestorm such as the Natalie Holloway case.

What I am saying is that a good samaratin could've easily picked Maura up that night and taken her further east (away from cops) and dropped her off and went about their business and never thought back to that night again. They could've been just driving through the area and not have been from around there and therefore they really would not have been exposed to much Maura murray local media coverage.

One other point.

It was night and it was very dark out.

When you think of someone prowling around looking to kidnap someone, I would go out on a limb and say that they wouldn't be out looking for a young women in the pitch dark in the middle of nowhere. It just seems like the odds of an encounter for a predator might not be very good.

And as far as just an opportune circumstance that an axe murderer just happened to cross paths with Maura that night randomly, just keep in mind that it was dark and anyone driving a vehicle in the pitch black dark that sees a figure (with dark clothes on walking or running) is not (right away) going to be able to make out whether or not that person is even male or female. Maura was likely covered up somewhat because it was February.

I had an encounter (less than a year ago) with someone on a highway around 1:30 a.m.

This person was standing a few feet off the road along the side of the highway jumping up and down and waving their arms as I was getting ready to approach.

I noticed the person's arms moving, but nothing else as I approached. It scared the p-jesus out of me. But I did slow up. I did not immediately stop right next to this person, I turned and stopped my car plenty of feet away from this person so that the front of my car was angled right at this person and I turned my high beams directly on him. It was then that I noticed he was by himself and he didn't have a vehicle nearby and he looked to be in his late 20's or 30's and in good enough health. After being able to make him out once I was stopped, I made the assessment to not help him and I quickly left the scene.

Turns out he had crashed his car almost nine miles down the highway (DUI) and had knocked the power out in part of my home town from hitting something (a pole or something). The police were at the site of his wrecked car as I drove into town and it was then that I put two and two together. And it was in our paper two days later.

I agree that it is hard to see the gender of a person on the side of the road in that kind of darkness, but maybe the surprise of seeing a person walking or running in such a dark and isolated area caused the driver of the car to turn around to investigate. Maybe they thought the person (Maura) was lost or in some kind of trouble.

Another thought, since the dogs followed her scent to a lighted area (corner of Bradley Hill Rd.) and the scent ended there, perhaps she did look like a female. So, the driver slowed down and asked her if she needed a lift. The driver could have put 2 and 2 together, when he saw her wrecked vehicle in the distance with the flashers on. He may have even slowed down, because he was going to make a turn at that intersection, so he had a decent look at her.

Just some thoughts

 

[sinenox]

Thanks for the warm welcome, guys!

Circuitguy, you make a good point. I have to believe that the person who picked her up was either distinct from the other people who offered to help her but were turned down, or was very forceful from the beginning. I guess it's also possible that the temperature was starting to sink in and she just decided to go with the next person who offered, as Belimom was suggesting?

Scoops, the reason I have a hard time believing that she vanished of her own free will was that her case just doesn't seem at all premeditated to me. She was taking a lot of risks (driving through states with very strict container laws and accessible alcohol, etc) for someone with a plan. There was a lot of drama in her life, but she didn't show other signs of premeditation (of anything besides going North and getting drunk). She also frankly just seemed a mess. She had multiple accidents in the span of days, she was losing focus at work to be sure. If not herself, at least her family felt that she needed her father to intervene and help her sort things out. When she tried to solve her own problems her credit card number plan wasn't so effective...she just doesn't strike me as the kind of person who could pull off a disappearing act with no resources on short notice, even if she were normally savvy enough to do such things without being in that state.

I don't know anything about the lighting, but I thought the original driver to make contact, as well as the older woman who was driving the other way that Maura waved off, both reported seeing her and described what she was wearing? I may be mistaken.

 

[scoops]

Thanks for the warm welcome, guys!

Circuitguy, you make a good point. I have to believe that the person who picked her up was either distinct from the other people who offered to help her but were turned down, or was very forceful from the beginning. I guess it's also possible that the temperature was starting to sink in and she just decided to go with the next person who offered, as Belimom was suggesting?

Scoops, the reason I have a hard time believing that she vanished of her own free will was that her case just doesn't seem at all premeditated to me. She was taking a lot of risks (driving through states with very strict container laws and accessible alcohol, etc) for someone with a plan. There was a lot of drama in her life, but she didn't show other signs of premeditation (of anything besides going North and getting drunk). She also frankly just seemed a mess. She had multiple accidents in the span of days, she was losing focus at work to be sure. If not herself, at least her family felt that she needed her father to intervene and help her sort things out. When she tried to solve her own problems her credit card number plan wasn't so effective...she just doesn't strike me as the kind of person who could pull off a disappearing act with no resources on short notice, even if she were normally savvy enough to do such things without being in that state.

I don't know anything about the lighting, but I thought the original driver to make contact, as well as the older woman who was driving the other way that Maura waved off, both reported seeing her and described what she was wearing? I may be mistaken.

The evidence points to a ton of premediation taking place (packed up her dorm, returned her medical coat, e-mailed her professors, emptied her bank account, searched directions, bought alcohol, packed very specific items for wherever she was going).

The only thing I was trying to point out concerning what happened to Maura after her car accident was that there is no more proof that someone came along and did something sinster to Maura or took Maura and killed her as opposed to someone just giving a stranded motorist a ride somewhere.

And I was pointing out that if someone was lurking around that night to find a victim, that they would likely have to make initial contact with Maura (like the school bus driver did) before they would even know if Maura was a young 20's stranded young lady out in the middle of nowhere.

IMO, most lurkers, stalkers, killers, already have a target in mind before they pounce.

 

[deca]

For all we know the reason she went with person X (if she indeed did get into a car) vs. going with the witnesses was simply about the weather.

How many of us have walked outside on a cold day and said, "Oh this isn't too bad" but once about 10 minutes pass the cold has seeped into our bones and we realize that it isn't safe to stay outside in it for too long.

Some friends and I did this once on a 2 mile walk to the pub. I honestly thought we were going to have to beg someone to let us in their house or perhaps be in real trouble.

 

[belimom]

Regarding disappearing of her own free will or not, I think it's very possible that she did pack up to leave - but if so I think she packed up to go elsewhere, not to disappear. I still think she was an emotional mess and whatever plans she had were loosely laid at best. I'm also not sure she planned on leaving for good but maybe just to take a break. Seemed like she was experiencing (or very near to experiencing) a breakdown of sorts.

When someone is preoccupied and upset, they're not thinking clearly in many ways, which includes thinking of their own personal safety. Had she been in a more stable mental state, I don't think she would've left her vehicle and would've stayed put, calling for help from within her car. Even with the thought of a DUI lurking, I don't think she would've fled.

But there was something else distracting her that night - something else that she had to get away from. I do think some folks know what it was but aren't speaking publicly about it, maybe for the sake of Maura's privacy or maybe out of respect for her family. But I think someone knows what she was running from as well as maybe where she was running to. I just wish she would've made it there.

 

[BillNH]

Thanks for the warm welcome, guys!

Circuitguy, you make a good point. I have to believe that the person who picked her up was either distinct from the other people who offered to help her but were turned down, or was very forceful from the beginning. I guess it's also possible that the temperature was starting to sink in and she just decided to go with the next person who offered, as Belimom was suggesting?

Scoops, the reason I have a hard time believing that she vanished of her own free will was that her case just doesn't seem at all premeditated to me. She was taking a lot of risks (driving through states with very strict container laws and accessible alcohol, etc) for someone with a plan. There was a lot of drama in her life, but she didn't show other signs of premeditation (of anything besides going North and getting drunk). She also frankly just seemed a mess. She had multiple accidents in the span of days, she was losing focus at work to be sure. If not herself, at least her family felt that she needed her father to intervene and help her sort things out. When she tried to solve her own problems her credit card number plan wasn't so effective...she just doesn't strike me as the kind of person who could pull off a disappearing act with no resources on short notice, even if she were normally savvy enough to do such things without being in that state.

I don't know anything about the lighting, but I thought the original driver to make contact, as well as the older woman who was driving the other way that Maura waved off, both reported seeing her and described what she was wearing? I may be mistaken.

Bolded by me.

Wouldn't someone with a plan, who was determined enough to proceed with it, feel pretty confident and invincible in the process of carrying out such a plan?
Most people tend to see MM as a feeble young lady because of the circumstances leading up to her disappearance. With the exception of the breakdown at her security job, there really is no evidence of this. We don't know how she reacted to the multiple car accidents other than Fred's account after she wrecked his car. No evidence she was losing focus at work except for the phone call, and Fred's visit has always been depicted as car shopping so there was no evidence of "intervention" by her family. Heading back to dad's after the party, wrecking his car, the accident in Haverhill...her "being a mess" appearance was imposed on her by others who likely put themselves in her shoes to determine her state of mind. Many people also look at her being caught in the credit card theft as evidence of her naivete'. What if in addition to the one she got caught on, there were 25 more that she didn't get caught with? In the impromptu mug shot taken when she was caught, gone was the happy, bubbly Maura that many like to picture. She looked hard and angry to me. In this context it is easy to think, for me at least, that she had a plan and was carrying it out in a very cold and calculated manner when she left town for New Hampshire.
Just imagine how you would feel if you were pissed off, at the end of your rope and ready to leave it all behind. Then plug in the things we KNOW about Maura. Not the things we think. It fits. Not saying that this is true, just saying that everyone pictures her as the all american girl that her family portrayed her as. I can see a cold side to her, and I see many possibilities and explanations for her actions in this.

 

[Captain_Khan]

What I am saying is that a good samaratin could've easily picked Maura up that night and taken her further east (away from cops) and dropped her off and went about their business and never thought back to that night again. They could've been just driving through the area and not have been from around there and therefore they really would not have been exposed to much Maura murray local media coverage.

I do agree this is a very good point - however, there is something that plays on my mind.

Her cellphone was never checked again, unless I am mistaken. She made no more calls, no texts, never checked her voicemails again.

I don't think she reached an area with signal again - or if she did, she couldn't access her phone, either because it was left behind in the mountains (unlikely) or she had no access to it for another reason.

I therefore believe she never reached a town, or left the mountains. If she somehow did, it wasn't under nice circumstances....

 

[scoops]

I do agree this is a very good point - however, there is something that plays on my mind.

Her cellphone was never checked again, unless I am mistaken. She made no more calls, no texts, never checked her voicemails again.

I don't think she reached an area with signal again - or if she did, she couldn't access her phone, either because it was left behind in the mountains (unlikely) or she had no access to it for another reason.

I therefore believe she never reached a town, or left the mountains. If she somehow did, it wasn't under nice circumstances....

I agree with you. I don't think Maura ever left the White Mountains.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Many look at her caught with the credit card theft as evidence of her naiveté. What if in addition to the one she got caught on, there were 25 others that she didnt get caught with? In the impromptu mug shot that was taken when she was caught, gone was the happy, bubbly Maura that many like to picture. She looked hard and angry to me.

Above post is RSBM/BBM for focus..

IMO you are pointing out something that I personally find to be accurate as well as also very likely true in Maura's case.. Especially in pointing out that in all honesty the likelihood is strong that the credit card theft was by far not an isolated, first and only time incident.. Now, OTOH *could* it have been an isolated, ONE TIME ONLY incident?.. Yes, of course, but in all honesty the likelihood is very strong that there were other similar type fraud/thefts prior to this ONE CC THEFT that she was "caught" with..

I personally am one who doesn't see Maura as this "perfect All American girl".. Firstly due to the fact that this facade is just that, a facade that in reality doesn't exist.. Maura was a very flawed human being just like we all are and IMO I also see a young woman who is hardened by her life she'd lived thus far..both from her own bad choices/decisions, as well as those circumstances in life that she was dealt by no wrongdoing on her part.. IMO Maura had long since grown hardened and I do see her more than capable of being cold, angry, and resenting toward her life and the people in her life to a degree that she was by that point in time, out for herself and no one else.. IMO these are not descriptors being used to paint Maura in a bad light, but rather just a realistic light of a young woman with troubles, issues, dysfunctions, etc that for whatever reasons had gotten on a very negative, downward path in her life.. and sadly never had the chance to turn her life around and move toward a more positive, rewarding path in life like so many young people do once getting their $hit together, maturing, and realizing the negative path they're on is NOT AT ALL what they want and from there are determined to change their life's direction.

IMO Maura Murray never had the chance to come to those realizations.. To begin to actually learn and benefit from those hard life's lessons that she'd been through.. And the chance to make the changes necessary to turn her life around.. I believe Maura had so many wonderfully strong qualities within her that given time, and the opportunity that she would have fought those personal demons, turned her life around, and truly have been a great contributor to this world.. IMO Maura was tough.. IMO that's one thing Fred did absolutely accomplish with Maura is making her tough..and I honestly believe that had she not met with foul play that night on Wild Ammonoosuc Road.. I believe that she would have very likely made those hard, yet very necessary changes in her life to begin down that road of turning her life around.. IMO tho, my belief is that Maura was tough..and yes, even had become quite hardened in many ways over the short course of her young life.. IMO I still believe there was a very smart, caring, and strong young woman in there as well and that part of herself was very much longing to turn things around, get her $hit together in getting her life on track, and wanting to make something positive of her life..and yes, even to make her daddy proud..

I honestly do not at all believe that Maura left/disappeared permanently OF HER OWN FREE WILL.. Do I believe she was "disappearing"..dropping off the map, so to speak, temporarily back in February 2004??.. Yes, Absolutely I do.. But IMO the key word is temporary vs permanent.. IMO there is nothing at all that has ever led me to strongly believe that Maura's intentions were in any way whatsoever PERMANENT wrt her getting away..

In my very strong opinion had Maura Murray not met with foul play that night AFTER FLEEING the scene of her single car accident, IMO, without doubt this young woman would have been located by now, most likely due to the fact that she, herself would, of her own free will, have returned to her life shortly after taking some time away.. IMO Maura met with foul play and IMO she most likely met with that foul play within mere minutes of her making that decision to walk away from her vehicle that night..

As always, tho these are nothing more than Jmo...

 

[BillNH]

..and sadly never had the chance to turn her life around and move toward a more positive, rewarding path in life......

..IMO Maura Murray never had the chance to come to those realizations....

..and I honestly believe that had she not met with foul play that night on Wild Ammonoosuc Road..

I honestly do not at all believe that Maura left/disappeared permanently OF HER OWN FREE WILL..

.. IMO there is nothing at all that has ever led me to strongly believe that Maura's intentions were in any way whatsoever PERMANENT wrt her getting away..

In my very strong opinion had Maura Murray not met with foul play that night AFTER FLEEING the scene of her single car accident, IMO, without doubt this young woman would have been located by now, most likely due to the fact that she, herself would, of her own free will, have returned to her life shortly after taking some time away.. IMO Maura met with foul play and IMO she most likely met with that foul play within mere minutes of her making that decision to walk away from her vehicle that night..

What makes you feel that she met with foul play? And...what makes you feel she was not leaving permanently?

You and I, all of us, look at the same few bits of evidence and come to different conclusions..I think it is very possible and it is supported by evidence that she planned to leave permanently..and I also believe the lack of evidence supporting foul play only bolsters that opinion. And you complicate it even more by stating she left the scene and then met with foul play...I am curious as to what makes you suspect this?

 

[OldSteve]

What makes you feel that she met with foul play? And...what makes you feel she was not leaving permanently?

You and I, all of us, look at the same few bits of evidence and come to different conclusions..I think it is very possible and it is supported by evidence that she planned to leave permanently..and I also believe the lack of evidence supporting foul play only bolsters that opinion. And you complicate it even more by stating she left the scene and then met with foul play...I am curious as to what makes you suspect this?

BBM - I believe it was foul-play; based upon all the ID shows, and cases I've followed. It's the easiest, least complicated scenario that gets her quickly off the radar (meaning there's no other sighting of her, except for the fuzzy sighting by the contractor...).

I think she might had a change of heart about the bus driver, and was heading toward his house, when she either accepted a ride, was forced to take a ride, or was struck and grabbed.

 

[scoops]

About foul play being what happened:

this particular theory has never held much weight with me.

Regardless of what he has said (later on) Maura's father DID NOT believe his daughter was met with foul play. His early pleas in the media were directly to his daughter to come home so they could work through whatever issues she was having. They were not pleas to a kidnapper.

His statements such as Maura would be found up in the mountains naked and that he hoped Maura didn't go off and do the old squaw walk could easily be interpreted into him believing his daughter was a danger to herself at the time she disappeared.

A slew of investigators have looked into this case and not one has brought up anything credible in their findings that would suggest a suspect in Maura's disappearance or that Maura was met with foul play.

The true investigators have always maintained that they have NO EVIDENCE that foul play took place. (from early on in the investigation to present day)

The lame "75 percent sure we will get a conviction" claim was made in court IMO, only to keep the investigation sealed and was truly a hypothetical statement.

The state's attorney was getting reamed by the judges about why they weren't releasing what they have to Fred Murray so many years later, and that is where the 75 percent conviction statement by strelzin came in to play.



From the Caldonian Record (Feb 9, 2009)

Fred Murray --

"The judge asked the assistant attorney general what was the percentage of bringing charges, and he [Senior Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Strelzin] rolls his eyes, looks at the floor and then says, '75 percent.' He pulled it out of his back pocket," Murray said.

"My question now to the [assistant] AG is, what is 75 percent of nothing? You said 75 percent two years ago. You made that up. Nothing has happened," he said."


Ultimately, who would have the most insight about Maura Murray?

Some random investigator, James Renner or Fred Murray.

I tend to believe that Fred's instincts hold the most weight.

 

[deca]

It could be that Mr. Murray doesn't want to think about his daughter suffering at the hands of a psycho. As strange as it is, it is probably more comfortable to think of her as a runaway or even doing the "squaw walk".

 

[SmoothOperator]

What makes you feel she met with foul play? And..what makes you feel she was not leaving permanently?

You and I , all of us, look at the same few bits of evidence and come to different conclusions.. I think it is very possible and it is supported by evidence that she planned to leave permanently..and I also believe the lack of evidence supporting foul play only bolsters that opinion. And you complicate it even more by stating she left the scene and then met with foul play...I am curious as to what makes you suspect this?

Could you clarify what "it" exactly is that I am complicating even more?..

IMO I am not at all clear on exactly what it is that my very clearly expressed opinion(which cannot even remotely be construed as ANYTHING other than just that, MY VERY OWN PERSONAL OPINION) regarding this case is complicating?.. It is certainly NOT some new, never heard of, fresh spin of a theory that I clearly have expressed regarding what I PERSONALLY find to be the quite possible, quite likely way in which Maura Murray "disappeared" in February 2004.. And since my opinion is not unlike so many other opinions on Maura's case I really, really fail to see how my clearly expressing my opinion about Maura Murray having met with foul play, more specifically my clearly expressing my opinion that the foul play was most likely in the form of an abduction/murder.. Exactly how it is that this long since(as in nearly a decade), thoroughly discussed theory involving foul play that I, too happen to find most likely..just how is it that this opinion..this theory is complicating "it"?..

You and I clearly have two very different perspectives of how we view this case, and the bits of "evidence" that are known about Maura's "disappearance".. I respectfully disagree with your opinion that there is evidence indicating that Maura had premeditated her permanently "disappearing" .. I see nothing at all indicative of a planned, permanent exit from her life.. And IMO the lack of evidence indicating her having planned a permanent exiting from her life, does NOT equal evidence.. The fact that there is no evidence does not in any way prove, or support a theory, IMO.

Thus exactly why there is such a wide open spectrum of OPINIONS on what happened to Maura Murray.

*On one end of the spectrum the OPINION being that it was most likely a preplanned, intentional, permanent "disappearance"..

**(quite obviously the EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN these two ends of the spectrum)

*And on the other end of the spectrum the OPINION being that it was most likely Maura Murray met with foul play..

You said it best, we all view the "evidence"(or lack there of) differently and each come to DIFFERENT conclusions as to what we each opine to be the most likeliest way in which Maura "disappeared".. My opinion is nothing new, nor is it anything that hasn't already been thoroughly discussed ad nauseum over the last decade hashing/rehashing what *Could Have* happened to Maura Murray February 9, 2004, on Wild Ammonoosuc Road, in/near Haverhill, NH..

As far as I know that question remains unanswered and certainly none of us, here on a public message board know for certain the facts of what happened that night.. It is all opinions, and they are widely varied as to how each see it having most likely to have occurred that night on that dark road.. My opinion as well as each and everyone of ours is valid and welcome so long as it is expressed within this board's TOS. So, while I fully understand that my opinion is starkly contrasting from your own, I do however fail to understand how it is that my very clearly expressed opinion is "complicating *IT* even more"...???

Please excuse my ignorance in not at all understanding your issue with my posts "complicating it even more".. I appreciate any clarity your willing to give

 

[scoops]

It could be that Mr. Murray doesn't want to think about his daughter suffering at the hands of a psycho. As strange as it is, it is probably more comfortable to think of her as a runaway or even doing the "squaw walk".

That wouldn't make sense only because Fred is very willing to tell anyone that will listen NOW that his daughter met the fate of a psycho.

I guess he could've come to some sort of acceptance over the years. But I highly doubt it IMO.

 

[McSpy]

The evidence points to a ton of premediation taking place (packed up her dorm, returned her medical coat, e-mailed her professors, emptied her bank account, searched directions, bought alcohol, packed very specific items for wherever she was going).

The only thing I was trying to point out concerning what happened to Maura after her car accident was that there is no more proof that someone came along and did something sinster to Maura or took Maura and killed her as opposed to someone just giving a stranded motorist a ride somewhere.

And I was pointing out that if someone was lurking around that night to find a victim, that they would likely have to make initial contact with Maura (like the school bus driver did) before they would even know if Maura was a young 20's stranded young lady out in the middle of nowhere.

IMO, most lurkers, stalkers, killers, already have a target in mind before they pounce.

They could have made initial contact and talked with her briefly, then offered a ride. Perhaps she took the chance, because she wanted to get away from the scene.

There is always a first time for a sexual predator. The guy could have made advances, she pushed him away and he got angry. Maybe he had underlying rage that he held back, but this one time he didn't. There are all kind of weirdos out there. There is another case in NH where a guy strangled a college student. He was just a "regular average" guy the day before that incident.

JMO

 

[McSpy]

About foul play being what happened:

this particular theory has never held much weight with me.

Regardless of what he has said (later on) Maura's father DID NOT believe his daughter was met with foul play. His early pleas in the media were directly to his daughter to come home so they could work through whatever issues she was having. They were not pleas to a kidnapper.

His statements such as Maura would be found up in the mountains naked and that he hoped Maura didn't go off and do the old squaw walk could easily be interpreted into him believing his daughter was a danger to herself at the time she disappeared.

A slew of investigators have looked into this case and not one has brought up anything credible in their findings that would suggest a suspect in Maura's disappearance or that Maura was met with foul play.

The true investigators have always maintained that they have NO EVIDENCE that foul play took place. (from early on in the investigation to present day)

The lame "75 percent sure we will get a conviction" claim was made in court IMO, only to keep the investigation sealed and was truly a hypothetical statement.

The state's attorney was getting reamed by the judges about why they weren't releasing what they have to Fred Murray so many years later, and that is where the 75 percent conviction statement by strelzin came in to play.



From the Caldonian Record (Feb 9, 2009)

Fred Murray --

"The judge asked the assistant attorney general what was the percentage of bringing charges, and he [Senior Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Strelzin] rolls his eyes, looks at the floor and then says, '75 percent.' He pulled it out of his back pocket," Murray said.

"My question now to the [assistant] AG is, what is 75 percent of nothing? You said 75 percent two years ago. You made that up. Nothing has happened," he said."


Ultimately, who would have the most insight about Maura Murray?

Some random investigator, James Renner or Fred Murray.

I tend to believe that Fred's instincts hold the most weight.

I think over time he changed his mind, because he may have felt it was unlikely that she wouldn't contact anyone. I'm sure he knew she was upset, because of what happened in Amherst. So he wasn't surprised that she may have had an emotional breakdown of some sort. This is where the "Squaw walk" talk came in. She could have committed suicide by staying out in the cold while drinking alcohol, but I don't believe she went up to NH to commit suicide. In other words, I think it is possible she felt suicidal after the 2nd accident.

JMO

 

[snowblossom2]

The thing is, what evidence would someone expect if she met with foul play by someone picking her up/her grabbing a ride with a stranger? I can't think of any evidence that would suggest that so a lack of evidence doesn't mean anything.

 

[BillNH]

Could you clarify what "it" exactly is that I am complicating even more?..

IMO I am not at all clear on exactly what it is that my very clearly expressed opinion(which cannot even remotely be construed as ANYTHING other than just that, MY VERY OWN PERSONAL OPINION) regarding this case is complicating?.. It is certainly NOT some new, never heard of, fresh spin of a theory that I clearly have expressed regarding what I PERSONALLY find to be the quite possible, quite likely way in which Maura Murray "disappeared" in February 2004.. And since my opinion is not unlike so many other opinions on Maura's case I really, really fail to see how my clearly expressing my opinion about Maura Murray having met with foul play, more specifically my clearly expressing my opinion that the foul play was most likely in the form of an abduction/murder.. Exactly how it is that this long since(as in nearly a decade), thoroughly discussed theory involving foul play that I, too happen to find most likely..just how is it that this opinion..this theory is complicating "it"?..

You and I clearly have two very different perspectives of how we view this case, and the bits of "evidence" that are known about Maura's "disappearance".. I respectfully disagree with your opinion that there is evidence indicating that Maura had premeditated her permanently "disappearing" .. I see nothing at all indicative of a planned, permanent exit from her life.. And IMO the lack of evidence indicating her having planned a permanent exiting from her life, does NOT equal evidence.. The fact that there is no evidence does not in any way prove, or support a theory, IMO.

Thus exactly why there is such a wide open spectrum of OPINIONS on what happened to Maura Murray.

*On one end of the spectrum the OPINION being that it was most likely a preplanned, intentional, permanent "disappearance"..

**(quite obviously the EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN these two ends of the spectrum)

*And on the other end of the spectrum the OPINION being that it was most likely Maura Murray met with foul play..

You said it best, we all view the "evidence"(or lack there of) differently and each come to DIFFERENT conclusions as to what we each opine to be the most likeliest way in which Maura "disappeared".. My opinion is nothing new, nor is it anything that hasn't already been thoroughly discussed ad nauseum over the last decade hashing/rehashing what *Could Have* happened to Maura Murray February 9, 2004, on Wild Ammonoosuc Road, in/near Haverhill, NH..

As far as I know that question remains unanswered and certainly none of us, here on a public message board know for certain the facts of what happened that night.. It is all opinions, and they are widely varied as to how each see it having most likely to have occurred that night on that dark road.. My opinion as well as each and everyone of ours is valid and welcome so long as it is expressed within this board's TOS. So, while I fully understand that my opinion is starkly contrasting from your own, I do however fail to understand how it is that my very clearly expressed opinion is "complicating *IT* even more"...???

Please excuse my ignorance in not at all understanding your issue with my posts "complicating it even more".. I appreciate any clarity your willing to give

I have no issue with your posts. All I was asking was why you feel foul play was most likely. I didn't ask what happened. I asked why foul play is most likely, in your opinion. The complication I saw in your theory is that if you feel that she left the scene and met with foul play later. Your theory in particular caught my attention because once she was away from the scene, many more theories beyond abduction/murder are viable, IMO. There must be some reasoning behind your foul play theory. I am asking what that reasoning is. You seem to have taken the question as a personal attack and thus failed to answer a very simple question. I am not criticizing your theory or anyone else's but as I said since we all look at the same information and come to different conclusions, I am curious why. This is a question about what brought us to those conclusions. I have a theory on this as well so everyone else's input has been helpful. I hope this clarifies things for you and my apologies for my use of the word "complicate".

 

[BillNH]

BBM - I believe it was foul-play; based upon all the ID shows, and cases I've followed. It's the easiest, least complicated scenario that gets her quickly off the radar (meaning there's no other sighting of her, except for the fuzzy sighting by the contractor...).

I think she might had a change of heart about the bus driver, and was heading toward his house, when she either accepted a ride, was forced to take a ride, or was struck and grabbed.

Accepting a ride and continuing on to Canada or elsewhere is just as simple. So why foul play?