NH NH - Maura Murray, 21, Haverhill, 9 Feb 2004 - #11

[carpanthers]

I do believe that an officer would not generally commit to a specific conclusion. For example, and officer might say that, based upon his own personal observation, the bottle smelled like alcohol. He is not saying that the bottle once contained red wine and that the driver was drinking it before the crash; all he is saying is that the bottle was found underneath the car, and that it smelled of alcohol. To me that is copspeak for "we are pretty sure that Maura was drinking wine from a coke bottle while she was driving."

Anyway, I am of the opinion that LE in this case has done a perfectly fine job. One thing I am convinced of is that LE knows no more than we do about this case. They use fancy, non-legal phrases like "ongoing investigation" but really they do not know very much.

Why are we so sure that it is wine? This is another conclusion that we are jumping to. I agree that an officer would not generally commit to a specific conclusion, and there is a reason for that. He declined to reach a conclusion. According to our general opinions this is good investigative technique. So what gives us, people who were not at the scene and did not see, smell or touch the bottle, the right to reach a conclusion on this matter? We have no additional information about this bottle and its contents outside of what Sgt. Smith has told us about it. He doesn't tell us it is wine. We are not sure it is wine.

Law enforcement may know more than we do. We don't know who took the other lie detector tests. We don't know why they searched the trailer. We don't know why so many other departments were consulted with regards to this case. We don't know whether or not anybody who has given a statement has retracted it, in part or in whole. We don't know what they were told in interviews with her friends. We don't know what information the Globe says one of her friends withheld. We don't know if they know why Fred Murray lied. We don't know if law enforcement spoke to the nameless, faceless guests of the party that may or may not have happened.

I agree with you that they probably do not know much more about where she is or what happened to her than we do. I think they're keeping their options open.

 

[carpanthers]

Actually, we know that Maura liked wine, but do we know if she liked red wine or white wine? Most people have a preference. Did her friends ever make the distinction when they told us about the wine? White wine is generally sweeter than red, and potentially is a better choice for combining with vodka.

Maura might not even like red wine as far as we know, right? A lot of people who like wine do not necessarily like red wine. Sgt. Smith doesn't say she has red or white wine, he says there is a box of Franzia behind the seat. Franzia produces both red and white wines.

Does anybody know of any information or statements that make the distinction of what type of wine Maura liked?

 

[ManyAndFew]

From the report: "red liquid with a strong alcoholic alcoholic odor".

Other red beverages that emits a strong alcoholic odor is Campari. Don't know if this was/is popular among the UMASS kids, but it tastes like death. To each his own really though. I know some people will mix vodka, campari and sprite, but it won't be that red/dark and will surely look suspicious in a coke bottle. Heck, Campari alone is not as dark as red wine. I also think that any vodka mixed with a "softener", cranberry or something similar would not have that strong alcoholic smell. Did he write it down as strong just to make a point, or was the smell that strong?

 

[carpanthers]

From the report: "red liquid with a strong alcoholic alcoholic odor".

Other red beverages that emits a strong alcoholic odor is Campari. Don't know if this was/is popular among the UMASS kids, but it tastes like death. To each his own really though. I know some people will mix vodka, campari and sprite, but it won't be that red/dark and will surely look suspicious in a coke bottle. Heck, Campari alone is not as dark as red wine. I also think that any vodka mixed with a "softener", cranberry or something similar would not have that strong alcoholic smell. Did he write it down as strong just to make a point, or was the smell that strong?

Yes, Campari is another option. It could simply be any type of alcohol mixed with fruit punch, which is also a very common drink. It could even be red wine. But we don't know that it is red wine. To my knowledge, we don't even know if she liked red wine.

We assume it is wine for two reasons:

1. A box of wine was found in Maura's car.

But Sgt. Smith does not tell us that this box was open, or in any way indicate that he believed that the red liquid came from inside the box. He does not indicate if the box contains red wine or white wine. He says only that there is a box of Franzia behind the seat.

2. Kate Markopoulos told us that Maura's drink of choice is vodka mixed with Franzia. But this is what Renner actually said on the issue: "She and Maura drank Skyy vodka mixed with Franzia blush wine, their drink of choice." Kate specifically told us that the wine that she likes to mix with vodka is blush wine, not red wine. Blush wine is sweet, and it it is pink, not red. If you added vodka to blush wine, the wine would start out with a light pink color, and the addition of the vodka would further dilute it.

Now that we know that Maura likes blush wine, and that blush wine is the specific kind of wine that Maura liked to mix with alcohol, and that Maura liked sweet drinks, like blush wine and mudslides and black russians, should we jump to the conclusion that the red liquid in the bottle is actually red wine, which is usually dry and not sweet? Should we conclude that Maura liked red wine, even though many people who like wine do not like reds, and we have no evidence that she even liked it? How can we conclude that this is red wine when we aren't even sure if she liked red wine?

 

[carpanthers]

The rag:
Why couldn't Fred have been telling the truth regarding this issue? If we don't presume that every word out of his mouth is a lie to make us think she isn't suicidal, then why couldn't this be true? If Fred Murray wants us to think that somebody else killed her, why wouldn't he tell us that a "local dirtbag" put that rag in her tailpipe intending to follow her and do her harm? Butch Atwood said she was shivering at the scene, but she was still behind the wheel when he arrived. Why is she shivering? Is it because she is cold? If she is still behind the wheel, doesn't this imply that Bruce Atwood arrived on the scene very quickly? Isn't this what the Westman's told us they witnessed from their kitchen window? Wasn't it supposed to be about 30 degrees outside? Why would she already be cold? Was her heater broken? Isn't it possible that she is shivering from being cold? Isn't it possible that she is cold because she had already been standing outside her car, perhaps because it had been smoking noticeably, and she opened her trunk and got out her roadside kit and found the rag, the rag that her father told us belongs to her and not some local dirtbag, and that he specifically told her to do this to prevent the car from creating smoke? Isn't it possible that she got out of her car and shoved this rag in her tailpipe to prevent it from smoking, like her father told her to? Making her cold enough to shiver? Maybe making her stall as she slowed to make the turn at the Weathered Barn? Explaining the acceleration before the crash that the Westmans have always told us that they heard?

 

[carpanthers]

What do you guys think of this picture of Kathleen with Maura's belongings?

http://mauramurray.blogspot.com/p/cast-of-characters.html

Scroll to the third picture where Kathleen is surrounded by Maura's belongings. Is this the Coke bottle? Does anybody else think that it looks like the liquid might still be in it? Do we now think that it is more likely that the Coke bottle was a 2 Liter, because we have a picture of a 2 Liter Coke bottle (but we don't know if this is the same bottle that was under her car) or do we think it was more likely that she had a smaller bottle as well, because that would be easier to handle while drinking?

 

[armywife210]

It looks like the cherry coke bottle is pretty full....I know it's a B n W photo but that looks like regular cherry coke in it. I don't think she was drinking out of a two liter while driving. That's just asking for a mess. It would be just as easy to buy s 12 oz to drink from while driving.
Does anybody think a deer could have jumped out in front of her and that's what caused the loss of control?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[carpanthers]

It looks like the cherry coke bottle is pretty full....I know it's a B n W photo but that looks like regular cherry coke in it. I don't think she was drinking out of a two liter while driving. That's just asking for a mess. It would be just as easy to buy s 12 oz to drink from while driving.
Does anybody think a deer could have jumped out in front of her and that's what caused the loss of control?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree, it could very well be regular cherry coke. I also agree about drinking from a 2 liter while driving. It would be very hard with one hand. Also, do we think that police perhaps kept the bottle that they found under her car, maybe as evidence? If this were the bottle from under the car, do we think they would give it to Kathleen? I'm not sure on any of these issues. I'm sure that a deer is at least a possibility, especially in a town with few people and a lot of woods.

 

[armywife210]

I was raised in Northern Minnesota...a lot of the sake type of land it looks like, and I've had deer jump out in front of me numerous times and I completely spun around. One actually ran into me while I was a topped at a stop sign. :/. I think it's a good possibility. I don't tend to believe she was intoxicated.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[KenShabby]

Here are the points I am making:

7. If we are so convinced that she killed herself, we should stop blaming law enforcement for failing to prevent her hypothetical suicide.

Carpanthers, I'm appreciating your input. In particular, I'm glad that your are pointing out how little we truly know about Maura and her whole situation — before and during those infamous five days.

One small point, though — having followed this and renner's blog for years, it seems that relatively few sleuths are actually firmly convinced that Maura's fate was suicide. It's just that Scoops well-researched and thought-out suicide theory seems to be one of the cleanest explanations for what could have happened. (Comparatively few loose ends, given what little we truly know.) Personally, I'm still baffled. There's too much missing information.

 

[carpanthers]

Carpanthers, I'm appreciating your input. In particular, I'm glad that your are pointing out how little we truly know about Maura and her whole situation — before and during those infamous five days.

One small point, though — having followed this and renner's blog for years, it seems that relatively few sleuths are actually firmly convinced that Maura's fate was suicide. It's just that Scoops well-researched and thought-out suicide theory seems to be one of the cleanest explanations for what could have happened. (Comparatively few loose ends, given what little we truly know.) Personally, I'm still baffled. There's too much missing information.

None of this is directed at you, or at anybody else on this board. I am asking these questions because these are the questions I am asking myself. I have taken plenty of things for granted in this case, because of suggestions of evidence to come. But they have never materialized, here or on Renner’s blog.

I agree that relatively few sleuths are firmly convinced that this is a suicide. And yet, somehow, this is the only theory that we are allowed to discuss. We can’t suggest any other theories, because that will confuse us! Two theories in one head? It’s impossible!

I am wary of somebody who tells me that they have information instead of showing me that information. I am wary of somebody who claims to be confident that they have enough evidence, rather than showing me that evidence and using it to prove facts. I am wary of somebody who tells me that they know what somebody else was thinking. I am wary of the motives of a person who does not want his theory tested by scrutiny. I am wary of the certainty a person expresses in his opinion if he does not want other opinions to be explored. If a person were so confident that his theory was correct, why would he insist that we continue to discuss it? What is left to be discussed, if we have been convinced? The only harm to be done by exploring other theories is to the confidence of the person claiming his theory to be superior. How can we be sure that this is the best theory, when we haven’t been allowed to discuss others?

If I want to discuss a theory in which she doesn’t kill herself, I don’t owe anybody a blow-by-blow of her theoretical murder or a picture of Maura holding today’s newspaper. If you are proving a theory to me, you bring the evidence. Don’t show up claiming you know something and ask me for proof.

As far as I’m concerned, I’m summarily unconvinced that she killed herself. He isn’t here to defend this theory. He didn’t answer any of my questions about his theory. He instead chose to ask himself some questions, about people being arrested by SWAT teams and the police knowing Maura is alive and hiding her from us, and then indignantly answer them as if someone else had suggested them.

He wrote out his entire theory before he left, back on page 41. Every word of this theory is a guess. Every word.

I think this is not the best theory. I think it is the best theory so long as we are willing to take many, many things that we do not know for granted.

But I’m not willing to take these things for granted just because somebody tells me this theory agrees with his research. I’m not willing to take them for granted because somebody is writing a book. I’m not willing to come on the internet and tell a missing girl’s family and friends that I know she killed herself, or that that’s the most likely scenario. In the last moments we know her to be alive, she took deliberate actions to keep her options open. Why shouldn’t we keep Maura’s options open?

I ask why a person would not want to be challenged on a theory or an idea. Here is what I have learned over the past several days because people challenged me:

We don’t know the size of the bottle.
We don’t know what the liquid was.
Maura was probably wet with the red liquid when she left the scene.
The kind of wine that Maura liked to mix with vodka was blush.
The box of Franzia behind Maura’s seat may not have burst, and Sgt. Smith didn’t tell us that it did.
When Butch Atwood saw Maura, the Coke bottle wasn’t in her hand.

To get real facts, a person should invite challenge, not hide from it or demand that it stop.

 

[carpanthers]

Why Fred Murray's police statement does not make Maura appear less suicidal:

Fred's lies in the interview aren't designed to make it look like Maura is not suicidal. If anything, he fans the flames of her potential instability, offering us the following for us to consider about Maura's state of mind:
1. Even though Officer Ruddock didn't feel the need to arrest her for drunk driving, Fred told her that she was lucky she didn't get a DUI.
2. He tells us that Maura was making whimpering sounds in the car.
3. He tells us that Maura said "this is the wors[t]"
4. He tells us Maura was feeling bad because she let him down.
5. He tells us that she slumped her way into the dorm.

In no way are these statements made by Fred to minimize the idea that she might take her own life. In fact, they seem to suggest it. How would these statements be useful in convincing an officer of the law that Maura was not suicidal? His statement makes Maura's mental state seem more fragile, not less. It suggests the potential for suicide, rather than trying to eliminate it. If he is lying to convince the officer she was not suicidal, why doesn't he try to make her seem happy? Why doesn't he tell us that Maura was relieved to find out that Fred had insurance for her, or that she was whistling in the car, or said "this is the best!" or was feeling good or skipped into her dorm room? I don't see any reason to assume that Fred's lies are designed to make Maura seem less suicidal. If anything, they make her seem more so.

 

[carpanthers]

Very well. My main point in bothering to comment here was to say that suicide was not necessarily the most popular theory in this forum. As I suggested, I remain baffled and have no preferred theory, because there's simply too much missing information. So, I'm not one of those who have bought anyone's stuff, as you say.

I definitely wasn't accusing you of having any misconceptions about this. I am glad to hear that you haven't bought anyone's stuff, and I definitely feel that your record of comments reflects this. I think everybody on this board has been very open minded, and I am not trying to attack anybody.

I am not necessarily making these comments for the benefit of the posters on this board. We have a lot of guests and lurkers also, and I was a lurker here for a very long time, until about a week ago.

I value all of the opinions that have been offered on this board, and I think you have all remained open minded. I am not angry or trying to be accusatory. I once held many of the opinions that I am now asking questions about, and I certainly can't fault anybody for jumping to a conclusion or making a presumption. All these years, I have just assumed it was a 2 liter Coke bottle, for no reason whatsoever. I am just using words of argument to figure out what else I may be incorrect about. I appreciate that everybody has allowed me to express opinions on these issues.

It has also been represented (not by you) that we should be frustrated with people who may not know all the facts, because these issues are easily researched. I think this discourages people who may not know as much about this case from asking questions and positing ideas, when sometimes a fresh perspective can actually be more valuable. I want to encourage these people to post. The Coke bottle question was asked by somebody who expressed concern about their familiarity with this case (lamima).

Thanks to everyone for your perspectives, I am really enjoying posting here.

 

[carpanthers]

The condo:

Maura stayed here with her family when she was younger; why would she have this landlady’s phone number? The police told us that she searched for lodging on the Go-Stowe line. They told us that she searched for and printed maps of various locations. They did not tell us that her computer history reflected searches for condos in Bartlett.

Where did Maura get this number? Her father presumably made the arrangements when she had stayed here before. Did Fred give her this number, because they were worried that during ski season Maura would not be able to find a motel room? They hiked these mountains, they would know how hard it is to get a motel room that time of year. Maura liked to visit the White Mountains, and had been on many occasions. She would know that a condo in Bartlett during ski season would be expensive. But she only had about $280 in her bank account, if I recall correctly. She spent about $40 on alcohol. She also bought snacks of undetermined value.

So Maura called this lady asking if she could rent this condo on a day’s notice for under $250? When Maura made this phone call, she presumably had more money than the $280 from her bank account.

Did she have this woman’s phone number, or happen upon it? Shouldn’t she have had to search with effort for this information, effort that should be reflected in her internet records, effort that would prove she really was trying to stay in Bartlett, like her father authoritatively told us she was, effort that the police never told us about?

 

[scoops]

Again, scoops, you are making lots and lots of straw man arguments: you are arguing against things I never said.

You say that you reached the conclusion of suicide because that is where your research led you. All I have ever asked from you is that you "show your work" so to speak and you never do. You simply state that you have all this "research" that points clearly to suicide. Well, why not just tell us what that research is?

Neither of us claims to have a handle on this case; indeed that was something you always hinted at about yourself. We are just sleuthing. Spending pages talking about what Maura was drinking that night seems reasonable to me in that regard.

You could be involved in the discussion at any time - you only left the discussion because we demanded to know what it is exactly that you know that supports a theory that you will not waiver from.

What you think are theories introduced just for the heck of it, are theories that are reasonably developed based upon the evidence that we have, and the evidence that we have can point in many different directions, so naturally many different theories develop.

Again, I must confront you head on and ask you what it is that you know that we do not, because I can otherwise see no way that someone could feel very certain about one theory and not entertain any others (which you have done for years).

BTW, I do not believe you at all; I think this case means a great deal to you. I think you like coming here and discussing it, and I see no reason why you should not. However, if you insist on knowing something unknowable then I am going to ask you to explain yourself. That is not badmouthing you or anything of the sort. If you feel uncomfortable with that happening then I think even you realize that means that you are not as confident about your "research" as you make out.

You claim to have done all this research that led you confidently to one answer, and I think that is great, but if you are going to flatly refuse to share it, then I will openly tell you that you are being completely ridiculous. You can naturally make me think otherwise by simply stating what this research is, and I mean actually, truly sharing it, not just telling me that you know what it is and you think it is swell.

That is not good enough.

for several years, I have openly talked about my theory and how I think Maura spent her last night/morning on earth. I have provided links, I have interviewed people involved in this case, I have countless times answered very specifically on where my information came from or how I arrived to a conclusion. (it seems like I am the only one that has to do that stuff by the way)

So I am confused on what you are talking about. I have never avoided talking about the theory I developed.

the tone I got from you specifically is that If I can't produce the body (solve the case right now) then it's time to move on to another theory.

And I am sorry, but that is not how it works for me.

If something comes out that discredits the theory that I have developed, then I would've happily moved on to whatever new theory developed. I am way more research driven then I am theory driven about any case.

If anyone asked me a specific question, I would usually not only answer it but provide the context for it, maybe a link to an article or quote, maybe some other background to it.

But lately it was getting a little silly in here with you and carpanthers tag-teaming up loaded questions that wouldn't have mattered what my answer was.

So what was the point in continuing.

 

[carpanthers]

I will give it one final college try ... why I don't know.

1. responding to fred's statements making Maura seem suicidal: I don't buy what you are believing here, so that is why I can't really answer this. I have stated that I believe fred utilized the media to put pressure on police (and there is a news article with a quote directly from fred himself that I have posted a few times here and in other message boards) in which he actually talks about his strategy shift to a local dirtbag theory and how that would be a good way to stir up attention.

direct excerpt from the Associated Press, author Kate Mcann

Frederick Murray said he is afraid the search is slowly grinding to a halt.

"We should think of it in terms of a criminal investigation," Murray said. "It sounds like it would be the key to expanding it. Let's grab the bull by the horns and call it foul play."

What you are suggesting has nothing to do with manipulating the public and press. Of Course fred was at odds with police, that was established very early on. He wasn't going to convince police of anything, they didn't trust him.

2. Firewee

Enough said.

 

[Fireweed]

Yup. Just as I suspected. All scoops "evidence" and "research" is just his own guesses and beliefs. Fine. That is what a lot of this board is about, but then you cannot claim with any level of confidence that you know your theory is right and all the rest of them are not correct.

 

[scoops]

2. On FIREWEED and my alleged refusal to answer on how Maura killed herself?

I have answered this. I have said I don't know whether Maura would've jumped or drank herself to death. Either way, I believe she ended up at a favorite spot (overlooking a favorite view) when she breathed her final breaths on this earth. So I don't understand what you are talking about (Carpanthers).

3. On Karen Mayotte and the book Not Without Peril: Again, when have I refused to talk about this subject?

I have been very more cautious then you apparently concerning what this book meant to Maura, only because I heard many years ago something that I hadn't been able to confirm as fact, that Maura was obsessed with this book and the stories about the survival attempts by the ill-prepared hikers, so much so that she carried this book with her 24/7.

I stayed away from that point only because I can't recall where I heard that from or from whom, so it would be sloppy for me to bring it out like that. But when I considered the book's meaning to Maura, I aint going to lie, I did take the notion that she was obsessed with the book to heart, I just couldn't publically state that. But the book offers up other clues in my mind as well, most notably the families insistence to immediately feel the need to defend why Maura had that book with her. That was always a red flag to me, and I have found many instances in which family-led spin (IMO) was specifically brought out/introduced to the media, to try and deflect against a suicide theory that nobody in the media back then was even questioning to begin with.

The family have given more than one story for why Maura had that book, so they are either mistaken about why she had the book in at least one instance, or their is some reason that they felt they had to explain the book being in her possession away.

As far as Maura's troubles beginning that Thursday night. I do believe that. Her supervisor described to me someone that was acting in a disturbing manner. (My interpretation was that she was acting the same kind of way someone would act if they just found out their spouse had been killed suddenly in a car accident). The supervisor didn't say those exact words, but that was my take. And Maura did seem to spiral downwards some in the next few days with two car accidents at the height of her issues.


you bring up the vasi angle but I can't answer your question because you already assume fact when you don't know for sure when Maura's break was.

Bottom line, the vasi hit and run goes directly against my suicide theory. but because there is some substance to it, I have to entertain it.

It could eventually come out to be true and completely obliterate my suicide theory. And guess what! that would be just fine with me. That is how research works. My research hasn't been able to rule out the hit-and run and possible Maura involvement. But that in no way means Maura was involved.

 

[scoops]

Yup. Just as I suspected. All scoops "evidence" and "research" is just his own guesses and beliefs. Fine. That is what a lot of this board is about, but then you cannot claim with any level of confidence that you know your theory is right and all the rest of them are not correct.

This is exactly what I don't understand about you two.

I have never said my theory is right and the rest of them are not correct.

I said I believe my theory because of my research.

Any theory is fine and dandy, but (I believe I have the right) to question other theories and how those theories developed.

 

[carpanthers]

What I am saying about the method is not that you must prove what it was, but that if the method is to be used as evidence of her intent, then you must.

I have been quite cautious in what I said about the book. Here are my exact words:

"We often consider the book Not Without Peril, found in Maura’s car, to imply things about her potential motives.

But we also believe that her troubles began on Thursday, when she allegedly received an upsetting phone call. So if she owned the book before Thursday, or whenever her troubles began, doesn’t this speak against an association between the book and the troubles?

We know that before that Thursday night, Karen Mayotte found Maura reading during one of her shifts. “Mayotte knew Maura well, having spoken to her many times on nights like this one. Once, she’d found Maura reading a book about hiking in the mountains and they had talked about the different trails in the North Country. Maura, she recalls, really enjoyed the trails along Mount Washington.”

Mayotte found Maura reading a book about hiking in the mountains, and she specifically remembers Maura talking about Mount Washington. This suggests a particular book to me. For argument’s sake though, let’s presume that it is a different book about hiking in the mountains. At minimum, this means that Maura liked to read hiking books before she ever planned to run away.

Maura either packed her textbooks or she kept them in her car. If she packed them, that is suspicious as it relates to plans of suicide. If she kept them in her car, it means she keeps books in her car."

You are now telling us that you do, in fact, have additional information about this book. Who is it that told you that Maura was obsessed with this book?

With the regards to Maura's break, this was my comment:
"[Y]ou missed the plain fact that her break was almost definitely during her twenty minute phone call to her sister."

I left room for error in this statement, because I know that I do not know this fact. Are you contending it is not more likely that this was her break?

I think you have maybe been withholding the fact that you think that the Vasi angle and the suicide angle do fit together, and you are claiming that they do not in order to appear impartial. I suspect that you may eventually tell us that the Vasi hit and run is what caused Maura to become upset on Thursday night. You have long contended that Thursday night is when her troubles began. You have already said you do not think it was a phone call, right? So what do you think it was?