NH NH - Maura Murray, 21, Haverhill, 9 Feb 2004 - #13

[TessDeco]

I do not think he is naive and I do not think he is blindly believing anything. I never used those words. I said I think he is desperate (which anyone in his position would be). Desperate people are far more vulnerable in these situations, and actually I think the Fred worked very hard over the years to not be a vulnerable person, but after 12 years and no help from LE, it much easier for a man in his position to see someone like Smith as their last hope.

I think you are right about this, Fireweed. John Smith wants to save the day and Fred is desperate for anything to happen. That Fred seems willing to talk to John Smith is more than any other blogger has been able to accomplish so far. For that, I give John some credit. Even so, I take what John Smith says with a grain of salt. I had a short exchange with him on another site. It was not about Maura, different subject, but he was full of conspiracies about that too. It seems to be his nature to be suspicious and he's a bit of a know-it-all too. It makes it hard to take him seriously. In that respect, John is no different IMO than some of the others who have attached themselves to this case.

Until there's some evidence to back up John's claims, I simply don't care about his theories or Renner's either, for that matter. Rumors and speculation may keep a few people's attention on a blog, but has it ever helped bring answers to Maura's disappearance? Borrowing from Pettibon Junction up thread: any "self-appointed expert" who tries to shut down a discussion about Maura is trying too hard to promote their own agenda and that doesn't belong in a missing person's case. IMO

Does it really matter whether Maura's car hit a tree or a snowbank?

Thanks to all who have spoken out about the many egos trying to dictate the discussion on Maura.


All just MHO...

 

[Pettibon Junction]

Does it really matter whether Maura's car hit a tree or a snowbank?

Exactly! If he really believed that a corrupt local police official killed her for some reason, why is he arguing about trees and snowbanks? More importantly, who on earth is John Smith to tell an EYEWITNESS what they did or didn't see at the scene of an accident he was not present for? It's pure crazymaking.

 

[Fireweed]

I couldn't agree more. Smith acts as though this is some major fact material to the case when it's not. As far as I can tell, the thing about how the car hit a snowbank instead of a tree (which by the way is something I knew from the start), is Smith's "big scoop" but it is not really a scoop and it does not really matter even if it were one.

I think people got it in their heads that the car hit a tree because that is where the big blue bow was. Really that is the beginning and the end of that "conspiracy".

 

[Tarik]

Except you all conveniently forgot to mention that the first officer on the scene that night said and persisted to say that the car hit a tree even though it clearly didn't and the damage was clearly not consistent with a car hitting a tree. That was out for a long time before anybody questioned whether or not the car hit the tree.

 

[Fireweed]

Except you all conveniently forgot to mention that the first officer on the scene that night said and persisted to say that the car hit a tree even though it clearly didn't and the damage was clearly not consistent with a car hitting a tree. That was out for a long time before anybody questioned whether or not the car hit the tree.

So the first cop on the scene did not do particularly good accident reconstruction. So? I mean it's not like her car hit a semi truck instead of a tree. I really do not see what the big controversy is here. The first officer mucked up and said her car hit a tree instead of a snowbank. I mean is this really that important in the grander scheme of things? The only person who thinks its important is John Smith, and that is because he likes anything that he can tenuously link to a conspiracy.

 

[Tarik]

I don't think it's important in the grander scheme of things but it changes the circumstances around the disappearance for sure. Depending on what you hit in an accident and the damage that is done to the car, you may not react in the same way. When you work on a case as mysterious as this one, you have to make sure you get the facts of the case straight otherwise everything can become convoluted. In a case like this, every little detail can become important and I think the first officer should not have put that information out there if he wasn't sure of what he was talking about.

 

[Fireweed]

I think the officer probably thought he knew what he was talking about. Though I agree that small details can matter, at the end of the day there was a certain amount of damage done to the car as a result of Maura hitting an inanimate object. If someone would like to share the big difference it makes to our analysis that Maura hit a snowbank vs. a tree, then I am open to reading it.

Until then, I think that Smith is all over this because it is his big "gotcha" moment with local LE, and let's face it, it's the only card he holds. He is holding a 2 here instead of an ace. There is not much to this at all, other than some moderately sloppy police work over a fact that just does not matter that much in the grander scheme of things.

And I have one other question to ask: if this was a conspiracy, then what benefit does it serve the conspiracy to say that Maura hit a tree instead of a snowbank?

 

[Tarik]

Nobody has clearly stated that this could be a conspiracy. All that John Smith is saying is that there is something amiss with certain elements of the case and that these elements need to be looked at and talked about. He is asking the questions and unlike James Renner, he actually respects the family and Maura. Asking questions doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist otherwise I myself would be one of the biggest conspiracy theorists out there on the simple basis that I ask questions all the time and don't take a source's information for granted.

 

[Fireweed]

Nobody has clearly stated that this could be a conspiracy. All that John Smith is saying is that there is something amiss with certain elements of the case and that these elements need to be looked at and talked about. He is asking the questions and unlike James Renner, he actually respects the family and Maura. Asking questions doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist otherwise I myself would be one of the biggest conspiracy theorists out there on the simple basis that I ask questions all the time and don't take a source's information for granted.

You're right except that John Smith is a big conspiracy theorist overall. Just go look at his other online activities.

I also think we should ask questions and not take the official story here as fact, but we have to stay rational about the whole thing.

 

[Tarik]

John Smith actually calls him a conspiracy analyst, not a theorist. What he has done in his other online activities is irrelevant to his credibility for the Maura case.

 

[Ava Adore]

John Smith actually calls him a conspiracy analyst, not a theorist. What he has done in his other online activities is irrelevant to his credibility for the Maura case.

I agree with Fireweed. He stated he likes the analyst title better, but that doesn't mean he's not a conspiracy theorist. As I've mentioned, he has been useful by way of doing his own digging, talking to Fred, talking to people in the case; however, his own page does come off as eccentric and as a "conspiracy theorist." I have also had issues going from point A to B with him. I'm not exactly sure what his final point is.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Ricochet]

John Smith claims he knows the Murray's, but has he actually been vetted? Is it verified beyond a doubt that he has some sort of established relationship with the Murray's other than his word?

He goes on and on about the accident site and insists she hit a snowbank. I think it's irrelevant whether she hit a snowbank or a tree. What we know is she hit something, was able to get out of the car and walk and talk to Butch Atwood and then disappeared. Whether it's a tree or a snowbank doesn't change that scenario. If a semi truck tipped over or a tree fell on top of the car crushing it from the top down and police were insistent that she hit a snowbank or tree head on then it would be a relevant issue because one type of crash would be head on and the other top down. We'll say John Smith is right about the damage to the front end of Maura's car coming from a snowbank and not a tree. How does that change the events that occurred after hitting the snowbank and not the tree?

He practically starts an argument with Tim Westman about a snowbank vs. a tree when he could've chosen to agree to disagree and possibly discuss more relevant issues surrounding the events that night. It would seem to me that would be far more beneficial since not many people are willing to discuss the case and that information would've been on audio.

It's easy to sound like an authority figure when documents (that aren't public record) aren't divulged and sources aren't named. I'm not going as far as saying he's a liar or that he has evil intent, but I don't think he's produced much that isn't already known. Isn't a conspiracy analyzer kind of in the same boat with a conspiracy theorist? He'd be kind of like the expert in conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theorist has a theory that the conspiracy analyst analyzes and I assume he's analyzing the tree vs the snowbank theory.

I think there's several problems with this case and doubt it'll be solved unless skeletal remains are found or she chooses to go public if she's alive.
1. Several theories all of which have pros and cons
2. I doubt Fred knows anything other than what he's already said
3. The two people (Kate and Sara) who might know something aren't talking
4. LE hasn't released that much info. I don't think that's out-of-the norm though

 

[Fireweed]

John Smith actually calls him a conspiracy analyst, not a theorist. What he has done in his other online activities is irrelevant to his credibility for the Maura case.

It is completely relevant - it goes straight to his state of mind. He is not a rational person. To me that is of utmost importance when analyzing a person's credibility. His credibility is very, very limited because of this.

 

[Fireweed]

John Smith claims he knows the Murray's, but has he actually been vetted? Is it verified beyond a doubt that he has some sort of established relationship with the Murray's other than his word?

He goes on and on about the accident site and insists she hit a snowbank. I think it's irrelevant whether she hit a snowbank or a tree. What we know is she hit something, was able to get out of the car and walk and talk to Butch Atwood and then disappeared. Whether it's a tree or a snowbank doesn't change that scenario. If a semi truck tipped over or a tree fell on top of the car crushing it from the top down and police were insistent that she hit a snowbank or tree head on then it would be a relevant issue because one type of crash would be head on and the other top down. We'll say John Smith is right about the damage to the front end of Maura's car coming from a snowbank and not a tree. How does that change the events that occurred after hitting the snowbank and not the tree?

He practically starts an argument with Tim Westman about a snowbank vs. a tree when he could've chosen to agree to disagree and possibly discuss more relevant issues surrounding the events that night. It would seem to me that would be far more beneficial since not many people are willing to discuss the case and that information would've been on audio.

It's easy to sound like an authority figure when documents (that aren't public record) aren't divulged and sources aren't named. I'm not going as far as saying he's a liar or that he has evil intent, but I don't think he's produced much that isn't already known. Isn't a conspiracy analyzer kind of in the same boat with a conspiracy theorist? He'd be kind of like the expert in conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theorist has a theory that the conspiracy analyst analyzes and I assume he's analyzing the tree vs the snowbank theory.

I think there's several problems with this case and doubt it'll be solved unless skeletal remains are found or she chooses to go public if she's alive.
1. Several theories all of which have pros and cons
2. I doubt Fred knows anything other than what he's already said
3. The two people (Kate and Sara) who might know something aren't talking
4. LE hasn't released that much info. I don't think that's out-of-the norm though

This is just it - almost nothing of what these "insiders" say is ever verified. We don't actually know if Fred Murray trust John Smith until Fred Murray himself says so. Has he said so? No. Right, that's what I thought.

The problem with all the people who claim that they have superior knowledge to everyone else is that those people never actually offer any proof of this. We're just supposed to take their word for it. When you insist that they show how they actually came to their conclusion, they always balk.

John Smith is just a typical nutter obsessed with the fact that the car hit a stupid snowbank instead of a tree.

 

[Ava Adore]

When he was on the podcast, he started out with some interesting info. I had no idea the car was sitting in the shop. But all it lead me to was some sloppiness on LE part due to them assuming it was a drunk driver who crashed and ran.

I do now agree with Fred that it is odd that they didn't drive up the road in both directions to see if she was on foot, running away. That is what I believe I would have done, just as a routine procedure due to possible injury and a crime commited.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Tarik]

It is completely relevant - it goes straight to his state of mind. He is not a rational person. To me that is of utmost importance when analyzing a person's credibility. His credibility is very, very limited because of this.

So we should always throw suspicion at someone on a specific topic simply because they make up conspiracies for other topics that are not related in any way to the topic we are analyzing?

 

[Pettibon Junction]

So we should always throw suspicion at someone on a specific topic simply because they make up conspiracies for other topics that are not related in any way to the topic we are analyzing?

I think it's more about questioning the bias/agenda he brings to his investigative work. Granted, everyone has their biases and beliefs but when someone like Smith who sees conspiracies everywhere starts alleging a sinister police cover-up, you have to take it with a bit of skepticism.

As for the whole tree vs snowbank discrepancy in the police report, it's probably helpful to refrain from attaching malice to that which can be better explained by incompetence. A local sheriff's department in rural New Hampshire can't exactly afford to be as strict in its hiring as, say, Quantico, so the definition of "best and brightest" is going to be slightly more relaxed.

 

[Tarik]

I think it's more about questioning the bias/agenda he brings to his investigative work. Granted, everyone has their biases and beliefs but when someone like Smith who sees conspiracies everywhere starts alleging a sinister police cover-up, you have to take it with a bit of skepticism.

As for the whole tree vs snowbank discrepancy in the police report, it's probably helpful to refrain from attaching malice to that which can be better explained by incompetence. A local sheriff's department in rural New Hampshire can't exactly afford to be as strict in its hiring as, say, Quantico, so the definition of "best and brightest" is going to be slightly more relaxed.

But he isn't the only one who is saying it. The guys on the podcast, Tim and Lance, also believe at the very least that the police are covering up for a botched investigation and I believe that's also the angle Smith is taking. I don't understand why people are so quick to judge him and doubt his credibility when he has proven to be a far more credible source than some of the other dogmatic experts we have seen so far in this case.

 

[Pettibon Junction]

But he isn't the only one who is saying it. The guys on the podcast, Tim and Lance, also believe at the very least that the police are covering up for a botched investigation and I believe that's also the angle Smith is taking. I don't understand why people are so quick to judge him and doubt his credibility when he has proven to be a far more credible source than some of the other dogmatic experts we have seen so far in this case.

I wouldn't use Tim and Lance as a yardstick by which to measure anything other than gullibility.

 

[Fireweed]

So we should always throw suspicion at someone on a specific topic simply because they make up conspiracies for other topics that are not related in any way to the topic we are analyzing?

Of course.