NH NH - Maura Murray, 21, Haverhill, 9 Feb 2004 - # 1

[gatetrekker44]

CyberLaw should post elsewhere-his/her posts are designed to do nothing more than to shut down discussion/theorizing on Maura's disappearance. And let me clue you into something about the brain and traumatic injury-just as boxers develop Parkinson's from repeated blows to the head-ANY trauma to the head and neck region causes the brain, which is floating within the skull in fluid, to be "bounced" back and forth within the confines of the skull. Since the skull is hard and the brain soft tissue, even impact from an airbag deploying can cause this effect. This is the reason children are not supposed to sit in the front seat of most cars-because the airbag deployment can kill them from this effect. Since Maura is a petite person, she would be MORE susceptible to this effect, especially since she had TWO accidents with airbag deployment in a relatively short span of time.
Oh and one more thing-IF Maura was planning to "run away" to start a new life, I don't believe she would have called ahead to inquire about room availablility-another piece of the puzzle that if it hadn't been for her family, would have NEVER surfaced because LE NEVER checked the phone records! :clap: :clap:

 

[sharon25]

For what it's worth- Airbags do save lives yes... but you can ask my aunt just how they feel..

She was in a nasty accident and the airbag did save her life..
The scary thing is how fast they explode out at you.
On the airbag you could see ALL her makeup that was on her face
and been nicely imprinted into the airbag.

and she had a concussion(sp?) from the airbag deploying as well.

:twocents:

 

[CyberLaw]

Grassyknoll2: I can understand if you do not have a legal background or Law Degree that legislation can be confusing.

I will attempt to put this clearly and simply: Read the heading of the section: It is: Title XII , The Study, Care and Treatment of Inebriates. Inebriates is the key word.

This alone would tell me that this does not apply.

Also if a legislation relies on another area like: in the judgment of the officer, is intoxicated as defined in RSA 172:1, XXVII, the person must meet this definition for 172.15 to apply.

If the person is not intoxicated as defined in RSA 172: 1 XXVII, then the section of 172.15 does not apply.

Also: is incapacitated as defined in RSA 172:1, XXVI

You see the person must meet the criteria of either of these sections for the legislation that you quote to apply.

For example: A man is walking down Main Street, without shoes, or a shirt. He is falling down drunk, stumbling, incoherent, shouting, threatening, weaving in and out of traffic, almost hit by a car, driver are swerving to avoid him, he is oblivious to his safety and welfare. He is endangering other people. People are scared of him. He could get hurt himself also. But he is sooo drunk that he does not notice or care.

Well what do you think, when LE sees him do you think that the man is intoxicated and inebriated.

That he cannot look out for his own safety and welfare.

That the public needs protection from him.

Yes.

So Maura did not even come close to this defination of RSA 172.1 XXVII, not even remotely coming close.

But I can understand your mistake. It is very common for a layperson without a Law Degree.

Murraydyer quoted this before also. I did not respond, because it it very obvious that it does not apply to Maura.

All I had to do is read the first line to know that it did not apply.

In Law you have to pay attention to every word. An "or" could make a huge difference.

Now I could go in great detail, but I won't.

I could comment on every section, but just read it through.

Good try though.......kudos........from Canada.

 

[nhjane]

CyberLaw Quote:
"Usually when a person removes themselves or their car from a single car accident it is to avoid LE and a breathalyzer. Why else would they leave........unless they have something to hide and avoid "criminal responsibility"."

I'm not getting your logic, it seems to me you are contradicting yourself ... she was drunk enough to have to run away on a very cold, dark night in feb. in the middle of nowhere to avoid the police and yet you are saying in the above post that she wasn't drunk enough for the the police to arrest her? Not a very well thought out theory, CyberLaw, in my opinion.

BTW ... the US has 50 states, not 51. I wouldn't want you to look any more foolish than you already do ....

 

[CyberLaw]

Peabody: The only way a person can know the truth, is if it can be verified. What they believe to be the truth(as they see it) and what actually is the truth(as verified)are two totally different things. Trust me as a Lawyer I know this for a fact.

One person believes as the truth that HIV can be caught by shaking hands. But the verified truth is that it can't.

You can show them 50 reports stating same and they still hold true to the truth as they see it and believe it.

You see Scott Peterson is innocent according to his Father. Who else should know his son better then his own Dad. Dad knows the truth. Dad says: Scott was only convicted because he had an affair and that is the truth according to Lee Peterson. That would be the truth as he sees it.

But the verified truth: Scott was convicted and sitting on death row. That is a far cry from the truth as Lee Peterson sees it. You see Scott's family "truth" is that he is innocent.

A belief is just that, what a person believes. So you don't know the truth, this family does not know the truth because if they did, they would have verification and evidence supporting same. They believe what they believe......what they choose to believe.....what they want to believe........how these beliefs fit in with their version of the "truth".

I don't think because one is involved they are necessarily partial or blind to the facts.

Oh please....if I had a dime for everytime a family member or friends of the accused just knows that he/she is innocent and that there is no way they could do what they are accused of doing....I could retire.

They ignore facts and evidence that does not support the truth as they see it that their son/daughter is guilty.

The DNA is wrong, the eye witness is blind, the fingerprints were planted, the jury is out to lunch, the judge is asleep, the Crown is mistaken, the evidence is wrong, LE is lying and fabricating evidence, the victim is lying, the doctor is lying, the nurse is lying just like the Doctor. You see they know their child. Their child would never commit a crime.......they know the truth.......

Even when their child is convicted of a crime. They just know the truth that he/she is innocent. They just know this......and believe it to be the truth.

So if there is anything that does not support the family "belief" that Maura is a victim of foul play....then they ignore it and pretend it does not exist.

All of the evidence(that the family chooses to ignore) point to the fact that Maura planned and ran away.

But the family again refuses to believe this.

Of course being her family they just "know the truth" as they see it. Ignoring everything else..........and calling everyone else liars.

There have been too many impartial experts contacted by the Murray's who believe that Maura has been harmed.

You said the word belief again. Tell me who these experts are, their qualifications, what "evidence" they relied upon to base their belief upon and I will look into it.

I put money that the family did not tell these experts anything that does not support their belief that Maura ran away. The family is not impartial in contacting experts, they just want others to agree with their position.

Did all of these experts work for free.........did the family tell these experts about everything........or what they believe......

That she has run away is the best possible sceniaro in her missing.
Well that is the sceniaro........as supported by the known facts and evidence to date. So why does this family choose to "ignore" the best possible sceniaro and believe the worst.

 

[Yeah me]

OK, I've not familiarized myself with the member terms too well....so if this is too out of line, please give me a warning and I won't do it again.

CyberLaw, now I sort of understand what you're about. You've got so much 'book-learnin' that you've knocked all of the common sense out of your brain. Try to think "outside the box" when reading these posts. Nobody here is trying to be an expert except for you and your failing miserably.

 

[PrayersForMaura]

I came to this site to read about Maura and now I can't bear to even read this thread any more, let alone have civilized written discussions.

 

[CyberLaw]

Brush up on the law, get a Law Degree, barrring that I will fill you in

CyberLaw Quote:
"Usually when a person removes themselves or their car from a single car accident it is to avoid LE and a breathalyzer. Why else would they leave........unless they have something to hide and avoid "criminal responsibility"."

I will give you a little lesson in Law. I go out for dinner. I have 5 glasses of wine. I am intoxicated. I know I should not be driving, but I do. Just so everyone knows, I don't even drive after one drink. I like being a lawyer......if I was a criminal, I can't be a lawyer. Also I like being alive.....and not killing other people.

I get into an accident. Single car crash I hit a tree. I know if I stay with the car, LE will show up, observe signs that I am drunk and administer a breathalyzer. I will face several criminal charges. After all I was driving while I was drunk, how else did I crash my car. It is my car and I am at the scene. DUI and DWI are a possibility.

But if I leave the scene. There is no way LE will know my level of booze or if I was driving the car or what my level was 2 hours ago when I had the accident.

I am not with the car.......So I am like "home free".

I fled to avoid "criminal responsibility. No one can prove I was driving the car while I was drunk. Or even that I was drinking....they don't know where I am.....

Hello Officer, thank you for finding my car. It was stolen.......you found it.

Oh no, you mean the "thief" smashed my car into a tree.

No, Officer I was home here where I live, all night. I just noticed my car was stolen and I was just about to report it. I was asleep, I woke up for a glass of water, looked out in the driveway and my car was gone. That was like 30 seconds before you showed up......

Good thing my insurance will cover the damage to the stolen car, I do know that if I smashed the car and booze was a factor, my insurance will not cover the damage.

Good thing my car was stolen............

I am now home and my car was "stolen" by an unknown person.

I cannot be charged with any criminal offence.

I hope I made that simple enough for you to understand.

I really don't have a problem with the logic, it is very simple. The law is not a theory, it is fact and the law.

Please just remember this: Drinking and driving kills. No question.......please don't do it. Be responsible. Please value your life and everyone else on the road and be responsible.

Legally drunk while driving and drunk is too different things. You are impaired at .08 to drive, but you do not appear to be drunk otherwise.

She did not have to run away, she choose to run away. She knew that she would be charged, no question as she was drinking while she was driving. Open container of booze in the front seat. She would have smelled of booze. That is probable cause for a breathalyzer. That is why Maura did not wait for LE and did not want the Bus driver to call LE.

Grassyknoll2: This whole section 172.1 only has to do with a person under the influence of illegal drugs, not booze. It does not define alcohol or even mention it. It does not even apply at all...........my god, thanks.......when you quoted this. I wrongly assumed that you knew it had to do with booze(why else would you post it here). I had no idea that you did not check out the legislation that 172.15 is relying upon.

Living in Canada, I would assume(my big mistake)that when a person posts RSA from New Hampshire, they know what they are talking about as a citizen of the USA.

So when 172.15 started talking about drug consellors, treatment centres, I had no idea that the drugs they were referring to are like Cocaine, pills, meth, etc. It is not like I live in N.H. or the USA.

I should have checked 172.1 before I posted. To make sure YOU got YOUR facts straight.

I relied upon your mistake. But then again, my mistake was not verifying your post.

Lawyers should always confirm.............!!!!!!!!!

You see: XXVI. "Incapacitated" means that a person as a result of his or her use of drugs is in a state of intoxication, or mental confusion resulting from withdrawal, such that:
(a) He or she appears to need medical care or supervision by approved drug treatment personnel to assure his or her safety; or
(b) He or she appears to present a direct active or passive threat to the safety of others.
XXVII. "Intoxicated" means a condition in which the mental or physical functioning of an individual is substantially impaired as a result of the presence of drugs in his or her system.

 

[jodierenee]

if she really did run away to avoid LE, why would she leave an open container in the front seat?

 

[Peabody]

if she really did run away to avoid LE, why would she leave an open container in the front seat?

IF she really did run away to avoid LE it is still a far cry from running away from her family, her boyfriend and her life.:waitasec:

 

[silver]

"A belief is just that, what a person believes. So you don't know the truth, this family does not know the truth because if they did, they would have verification and evidence supporting same. They believe what they believe......what they choose to believe.....what they want to believe........how these beliefs fit in with their version of the "truth"."



You are right ... this family does not know the truth, nor does LE ... that is why they search, simple as that!


Rhetoric is just that ... rhetoric!

 

[LillyRush]

I don't know how you can compare this case to Jennifer Wilbanks. She was gone for all of what, 3 days? In case you haven't checked a calendar lately, February 2004 - when Maura disappeared, is well past us and over a year ago. The reason why people were led to believe that Jennifer Wilbanks was supposedly acting out of character is because that is the story that her family and that of her fiance was telling everyone. But we know that the Wilbanks family was not being completely forthcoming on that because they knew about her history, even if the Masons didn't know everything. Despite the fact that you don't like Fred Murray, I've never heard him say that Maura was perfect and we all know that things like the phone calls and her drinking have been made public for all to read. Maura's last known situation was at the very least dangerous, being alone in below freezing weather in the middle of nowhere where your cell phone doesn't work and neither does your car anymore. That is absolutely nothing like the Jennifer Wilbanks scenario.

 

[Peabody]

I don't know how you can compare this case to Jennifer Wilbanks. She was gone for all of what, 3 days? In case you haven't checked a calendar lately, February 2004 - when Maura disappeared, is well past us and over a year ago. The reason why people were led to believe that Jennifer Wilbanks was supposedly acting out of character is because that is the story that her family and that of her fiance was telling everyone. But we know that the Wilbanks family was not being completely forthcoming on that because they knew about her history, even if the Masons didn't know everything. Despite the fact that you don't like Fred Murray, I've never heard him say that Maura was perfect and we all know that things like the phone calls and her drinking have been made public for all to read. Maura's last known situation was at the very least dangerous, being alone in below freezing weather in the middle of nowhere where your cell phone doesn't work and neither does your car anymore. That is absolutely nothing like the Jennifer Wilbanks scenario.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[Peabody]

Quote by Cyberlaw from the Thread:
Mystery Briton Doesn't Speak, Plays Piano

CyberLaw http://websleuths.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif
Registered User



Yeah I just read this story on the BBC.

Interesting. I hope that they find the family of this man.

I wonder if he was performing somewhere, so that is why he was in a formal suit. Or maybe he came to England for a wedding.

But apparently he does not speak and has "mental health issues." I am thinking autism. Or they are right, he could have had some sort of trauma. Or he has autism and has no current support network, surrounded by strangers, and now feels trauma.

He may have travelled from another part of the U.K. or the EU.

At least he is in a country that is very caring and has excellent medical care.

England is ab fab.



I am confused -

We don't know Maura's state of mind - perhaps she suffered some type of mental or emotional breakdown. We have been told that she was crying hysterically on the Thursday before she disappeared. We know that she chose to leave suddenly......and we know little else.

We don't know "piano man's" state of mind other than he doesn't speak. We do know now that he has been identified.

There is no doubt that this man is extremely distressed and depressed," said Camp, the social worker. "He has started crying over the last week or so. It may be that some sort of trauma has made him like this."

http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu...tery_piano_man/



Now Cyberlaw has told us he/she does not want Maura's family to find her because as an adult, she has the right to be missing. We won't go into all of the details about Cyberlaw believing that Maura ran away from controlling parents and controlling boyfriend when he/she says she has no connection to the family and will not believe the family because they are biased.

In Cyberlaw's quote, we see compassion for both "piano man" and his family because Cyberlaw hopes that his family finds him.

I am confused as to why Cyberlaw has no compassion for Maura and her family

 

[nhjane]

Awfully quiet in here lately.

It's my guess that a certain poster who shall remain nameless has temporarily won the war of words here, but as far as the battle to find Maura and find some peace for all who love and miss her, this person has contributed nothing.

Perhaps sweet silence is a welcome relief ...

 

[knale]

LE is not allowing Fred Murray to search an area that Maura was last seen over a year ago. He does that on his own for himself, by his own choice. His own agenda

I would say that Mr Murray's "agenda" is to find out what happened to his daughter! If you have a child, of any age, and they are missing, you look anywhere and everywhere to find them. A logical place to look for clues of what has happened to them is the last place they were seen. DUH!

The man is obviously desperate and frustrated.

Of course "the man", "the father", is desperate and frustrated. As any parent would be and should be facing the nightmare in which he lives every day. Is there some other way that he should be? I for one admire Fred Murray for the courage and persistence that he has shown for over a year now to not give up the search for his beloved daughter.

Maura is missing but by choice. Her choice. Voluntarily. So she is missing from the family, but often the person running away does not see themselves as missing. The family sees them as missing, but the runaway does not.

How would you know this? Do you have information on Maura that needs to be shared with LE and the family? You speak as if you have first hand knowledge. I suppose you blew a hole in your own theories here by admitting that a person missing does not even see themselves as missing. If that's the case then I suppose that we should find them and let them know! If a person is missing from their family, then they are missing by all accounts! Especially when you are talking about a 21 year old young woman, alone in a world that we all know from this board can be very dangerous for everyone, especially a young woman, alone and vulnerable.

An adult is free to "runaway" and go missing from their family if they so choose. Their choice, even if the "family" does not like it or agree with the decision that the "runaway adult made". They should respect the choice the person made.

I beg to differ, a missing adult is someones child. They may be free to leave their family if they choose but a family also has a right to know that they are alive. In the world that I live, families help each other, an adult person who is "running away" just may need help. They may not even realize that they need help, but there is nothing at all wrong with their loved ones reaching out to them and offering to help them out of the situations that they may find themselves in. Once there is proof that a person has left on their own and do not wish to be located, then and only then should the family, LE and the public stop looking for them and searching for the truth.

Respect what Maura did and what Maura wants. If Maura wants to come back to the "family" she will, if Maura wants to phone she will also.

This respect can only be given to Maura once it is determined that she left on her own and that harm has not come to her. You are assuming that Maura is able to come back to her family or phone home. First the family must know that she is able to do so, then they can respect her wishes, whatever they may be.

You cannot force her to come back so that she is no longer "missing" from the family

I have not heard anything about anyone trying to "force" her to do anything. I have only heard news of a father and a family desperatly trying to locate a missing loved one. Wake up call! That is exactly what you are supposed to do when a loved one goes missing!

LE has pulled out all of the stops in this case. Put a lot more time, money, effort and resources than there should have been.

This is the reason that we have LE, not to only sit behind a tree or a road sign and wait for someone to speed past them to meet a monthly quota! This is their job! There could never be too much resources, effort or money spent to find a missing young woman. I cannot believe that anyone would say such a thing. I should hope that if you or I were to become missing tomorrow that the same resources would be spent on us.


Please, try to have more compassion for not only this family but others that are facing the same nightmare. If you have not walked in Fred Murray's shoes or the shoes of any parent, spouse, child or friend of a missing person, you cannot possibly understand the trauma and effect that this tragedy has on every aspect of ones life. At least attempt to be a little more sensitive with your post.

:twocents:

 

[Grassyknoll2]

Gatetrekker....I think this is what you were talking about

http://www.airbaginjury.com/how_can_the_brain_be.htm
Did you know?
Air bags can hurt or kill, now or later!
Air bags can cause immediate impact trauma or death.

Air bag fumes can cause immediate or delayed sickness or unnecessary death.

Air bags can cause delayed neurological muscle damage or brain injury.



The brain is vulnerable to traumatic damage in two ways. The cerebral cortex can become bruised - contused - when the head strikes a hard object (or a hard objects strikes the head). Or, the deep white matter can suffer diffuse axonal injury when the head is whiplashed without hitting a hard object (or being hit by one). In serious whiplash injuries, the axons are stretched so much that they are damaged.



When a moving head comes to a quick stop, the brain continues in its movement, striking the interior of the skull. This can cause bruising of the brain (a contusion) and bleeding (hemorrhage). Injury in these types of accidents occurs in parts of the brain closest to the point of impact, quite often the tips of the frontal and temporal lobes. In cases of blunt head trauma the brain can also be injured directly opposite the site of trauma -- on the other side of the brain, an injury known as contrecoup. This injury typically occurs when a moving head strikes a stationary object like the windshield. At impact the brain opposite the site of impact is pulled away from the skull, injuring the brain there.



Indirect Trauma
Medical research has discovered another mechanism of brain injury besides direct blunt trauma to the skull. The well-known phenomenon of the Shaken Baby Syndrome is an example. Severe shaking greatly stretches and damages delicate nerve cells, at times causing very significant injury or even death. In adults, severe whiplash can involve severe forces that may shake or rotate the brain enough to cause permanent brain damage.

Diffuse Axonal Injury
The brain consists of billions of nerve cells located in the gray matter which communicate with distant nerve cells through long nerve fibers called axons, composing the white matter. Severe sudden twisting or torquing of the brain, as occurs in a sudden acceleration/deceleration - whiplash -- accident, can stretch, twist, and damage these delicate axonal fibers. Under the microscope the axonal damage is called Diffuse Axonal Injury (DAI). Although diffuse axonal injury generally results from a severe whiplash injury that renders a patient comatose, recent studies have shown that diffuse axonal injury can also occur - but to a lesser degree -- when there has been only brief loss of consciousness (LOC). Because Diffuse Axonal Injury causes microscopic damage, it cannot be visualized on CT or MRI scans.

http://www.airbaginjury.com/how_can_the_brain_be.htm

 

[gatetrekker44]

You posted EXACTLY what I have been describing-and as been stated so many times in relation to airbags, they are ESPECIALLY dangerous to the short statured!

 

[Grassyknoll2]

You posted EXACTLY what I have been describing-and as been stated so many times in relation to airbags, they are ESPECIALLY dangerous to the short statured!

No problem...I just remember the blinding headache I had for several days after one accident...strange part was that nothing hurt for a couple of hours.

I was talking with someone about this and they were telling me that there is also a problem with a powdery substance on and in the airbag. Apparently, they have the potential to cause severe problems such as anaphylaxis, which is a total body allergic reaction that can interfere with breathing and cause a feeling that the throat is closing. I haven't found much online about it. Mostly, I've found companies trying to sell an alternative to what is currently used.

The things I've learned from reading Websleuths........

 

[Peabody]

<snip>
I was talking with someone about this and they were telling me that there is also a problem with a powdery substance on and in the airbag. Apparently, they have the potential to cause severe problems such as anaphylaxis, which is a total body allergic reaction that can interfere with breathing and cause a feeling that the throat is closing. I haven't found much online about it. Mostly, I've found companies trying to sell an alternative to what is currently used.

The things I've learned from reading Websleuths........

My sister had her airbag deploy in a very minor accident........hardly any damage to the car, but like Maura, her car skidded on an icy road on a curve and she slid off the road. She told me that she could neither breathe nor see for quite a length of time as a result of the powder........the powder and the force from the blow of the airbag caused her to be very disoriented for quite awhile. The accident happened less than a mile from my home, yet she didn't even think to call me on her cell until her husband arrived and asked if she had called me......they live a 40 minute drive from me.........so, we do know that it does not take a serious accident to totally disorient a person.