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

[BillNH]

Scoops does raise good questions but where I disagree with scoops is that he bundles everything into the the tandem theory and shows how they don't align with each other, thus making the theory unbelievable. Maybe there was no elaborate plan, no 11 year scheme, but they may have actually been with maura in those final days, and knew what she was doing, but not actively participating in a ruse. And if they did have knowledge if what was happening, I think a good way to deflect scrutiny is to say they didn't know her well (after her disappearance). Show me proof from before the disappearance that they didn't know each other well. That would hold more weight for me. After the initial scrutiny of Sara and Kate, they have basically been left alone for the ensuing 10 years, so in my mind, that makes a small secret even easier to keep. The heats been off for a long time, easy to say "I don't recall, I can't remember". It gets easier as the years pass. So while I'm not totally sold on any theory, I still have seen nothing posted by scoops or anyone else to disprove the tandem one. Scoops makes convincing conclusions but only if the interpretation of the actions and statements of others he offers are the only interpretations to come away with, and they are not.
I can also think of a big reason she may have needed to go away and it would be big enough for even a casual friend to keep the secret. Long term and systematic abuse. Whether it be verbal, mental, sexual or any other kind. Family can be biggest enabler of abuse within the family. Loving and caring as they appear, they could also be part of the problem. Often times an abuser does not appear as abusive to the rest of the world, so it could be anyone, but it's definitely a reason to disappear and to get help in doing it.

 

[Tssiemer]

The driving in tandem theory has never made a lick of sense to me, both from a reasoning standpoint and from an evidence standpoint as multiple witnesses had eyes on Maura (by herself) at the site of her wreck up until she went missing.

Scoops is disproving the theory. I'm confused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fireweed]

@BillNh I agree with you completely. Scoops presupposes that Maura's friends would only keep a secret this long if it were something huge. Well maybe and maybe not. As you say Maura could have been in some pretty dire straights, or she could have just told them (i.e. lied) that she was.

Maybe ten years on the "secret" does not seem as big of a deal as it did ten years ago, but I think that often in that situation people tend to double down because they want to avoid the embarrassment and scrutiny of having lied all these years.

Scoops, you really assume way too much. You assume that her tandem drivers were in on a conspiracy to make Maura disappear this whole time. That may or may not be that case. For example, I could see someone around the age of 20 naively thinking that the "hoopla" surrounding Maura's disappearance would die down rather quickly. Perhaps they now feel trapped in their lies.

Again, no one knows with certainty if there was a tandem driver. But seriously to claim it could not have been possible because Maura was alone at the crash site is beyond asinine. She could have been alone there for ten minutes because the tandem driver would have been ahead of her and needed time to turn around and come back. Just because no witnesses saw the tandem car, does not mean it did not exist.

 

[scoops]

@BillNh I agree with you completely. Scoops presupposes that Maura's friends would only keep a secret this long if it were something huge. Well maybe and maybe not. As you say Maura could have been in some pretty dire straights, or she could have just told them (i.e. lied) that she was.

Maybe ten years on the "secret" does not seem as big of a deal as it did ten years ago, but I think that often in that situation people tend to double down because they want to avoid the embarrassment and scrutiny of having lied all these years.

Scoops, you really assume way too much. You assume that her tandem drivers were in on a conspiracy to make Maura disappear this whole time. That may or may not be that case. For example, I could see someone around the age of 20 naively thinking that the "hoopla" surrounding Maura's disappearance would die down rather quickly. Perhaps they now feel trapped in their lies.

Again, no one knows with certainty if there was a tandem driver. But seriously to claim it could not have been possible because Maura was alone at the crash site is beyond asinine. She could have been alone there for ten minutes because the tandem driver would have been ahead of her and needed time to turn around and come back. Just because no witnesses saw the tandem car, does not mean it did not exist.

I can't get behind the tandem driver theory or the abduction and murder theory, not because they are not possible concerning Maura, but because there is nothing that I have researched and found that would even warrant consideration for either one of those theories.

And if you are going to start looking at theories (just because they are possible) then you are opening up a ton of rabbit holes that likely lead to nowhere IMHO.

Succumbing to elements -whether a popular theory or not concerning Maura - is a very practical one backed by plenty of statisitics (one person car wrecks in where the person has gone missing) and because of the elements and location of where Maura went missing, it remains to this day a very viable theory that I would have no problem considering and exploring further.

Suicide theory --- In my research (which has included information gathering and context defining over many years) I truly believe I have developed plenty of evidence that at least supports looking hard at this theory as a viable theory to be explored further. I have yet to come across anything that contradicts this theory.


Just give me one viable thing to work off of concerning an abduction theory or a runaway theory and I would be on board to consider them.

But to argue that you have to consider those theories because they haven't proven to be false is not enough for me.

There are a ton of things that could have possibly taken place that night, everything from a random hit and run to a wild animal attack on Maura that led to the animal dragging Maura off into the woods.

So long story short. It's more of the process that I have had a problem with concerning other people's theories, not that other people don't agree with my particular theory.

I don't at all expect everyone that is interested in this case to come to the conclusion that Maura took her own life, but in the same token, if you want me to believe or buy into another theory, I am going to need something of concrete value to work off of and IMHO with theories such as abduction/murder and tandem driver's, I just don't see it. And I feel confident that I have done my research for this case.

 

[Fireweed]

I can't get behind the tandem driver theory or the abduction and murder theory, not because they are not possible concerning Maura, but because there is nothing that I have researched and found that would even warrant consideration for either one of those theories.

And if you are going to start looking at theories (just because they are possible) then you are opening up a ton of rabbit holes that likely lead to nowhere IMHO.

Succumbing to elements -whether a popular theory or not concerning Maura - is a very practical one backed by plenty of statisitics (one person car wrecks in where the person has gone missing) and because of the elements and location of where Maura went missing, it remains to this day a very viable theory that I would have no problem considering and exploring further.

Suicide theory --- In my research (which has included information gathering and context defining over many years) I truly believe I have developed plenty of evidence that at least supports looking hard at this theory as a viable theory to be explored further. I have yet to come across anything that contradicts this theory.


Just give me one viable thing to work off of concerning an abduction theory or a runaway theory and I would be on board to consider them.

But to argue that you have to consider those theories because they haven't proven to be false is not enough for me.

There are a ton of things that could have possibly taken place that night, everything from a random hit and run to a wild animal attack on Maura that led to the animal dragging Maura off into the woods.

So long story short. It's more of the process that I have had a problem with concerning other people's theories, not that other people don't agree with my particular theory.

I don't at all expect everyone that is interested in this case to come to the conclusion that Maura took her own life, but in the same token, if you want me to believe or buy into another theory, I am going to need something of concrete value to work off of and IMHO with theories such as abduction/murder and tandem driver's, I just don't see it. And I feel confident that I have done my research for this case.

See to me, the suicide theory or the died of exposure theory are just as likely as Maura being murdered or running away. You must know something that we here do not know. Please share, because I am totally baffled as to how you can claim that one theory is definitely superior to another. In fact, as it stands, Maura being a 21 year old attractive female who just disappeared, the best theory would be abduction/murder.

Again, I have seen you on this board for years making statements that the only thing you see as possible is suicide or dying that night from exposure. Unless you know something no one here does, then you have nothing more to back up your claim that what we have, and what we have is evidence that could point to several other possibilities.

All I am asking from you Scoops, is that you for once just tell us what it is that you know that we don't. It's driving me crazy. If you're going to make claims based upon secret information known only to you that you refuse to share, then your contribution here is wasted.

 

[scoops]

See to me, the suicide theory or the died of exposure theory are just as likely as Maura being murdered or running away. You must know something that we here do not know. Please share, because I am totally baffled as to how you can claim that one theory is definitely superior to another. In fact, as it stands, Maura being a 21 year old attractive female who just disappeared, the best theory would be abduction/murder.

Again, I have seen you on this board for years making statements that the only thing you see as possible is suicide or dying that night from exposure. Unless you know something no one here does, then you have nothing more to back up your claim that what we have, and what we have is evidence that could point to several other possibilities.

All I am asking from you Scoops, is that you for once just tell us what it is that you know that we don't. It's driving me crazy. If you're going to make claims based upon secret information known only to you that you refuse to share, then your contribution here is wasted.

It's not about knowing a secret.

But I do know this case very well, to the point that if someone were to bring something up that seems conflicting, I could point to the source and provide context to where that confusion came from and I don't think many people could do that whom follow this case.

I spent 13 plus years of my life as a professional researcher/interviewer/factual story-teller so my skill set falls in line with everything that it would take to decipher this case down to the most minimum noise and basic fact outline.

I have thought out every theory that has been mentioned and then some and narrowed down those theories to what my research found.

Your example above (which I bolded) would be a good statistic example to use to support an abduction/murder theory of an attractive 21-year old, except for one very large point, Maura went missing at pitch-dark in the white mountains during winter-time.

No one is out prowling the back roads of the white mountains in February looking for attractive 21-year olds. That flies in the face of common sense.

So then it would become and abduction of opportunity (which means statistically speaking the odds get less and less) and that would only be a feasible example to pursue an abduction theory off of if you made the leap and believed that whomever stopped to help Maura, could right away tell she was an attractive 21 year old female all alone and vulnerable to be taken advantage of. Try stopping to help a stranded motorist at night time anywhere (where it is pitch black). It will take you several minutes just to process whether or not this person you are even helping really needs help.


My big point I am trying to make here is that I have looked at all the angles of this case, to include entertaining an abduction/murder scenario, but I have been able to deduct that it doesn't back statistics in this particular example and the origin of where an abduction/murder scenario was brought into this case in the first place, was rather done so IMO in quite a shady way to begin.

In context, I think I know why the abduction/murder theory was introduced, but I am confident in saying it was not introduced because some big evidence was found that led the investigation down that path.

 

[stephsb]

@billNH- i absolutely agree that some sort of abuse would be reason to disappear and stay hidden. IMO, sexual abuse by a family member is one of the only scenarios where i could imagine someone staying hidden for a decade w.o a word to anyone. i'm obviously not insinuating MM was abused by anyone in her life since I haven't seen any evidence pointing to that, but if there was evidence of abuse, a running away theory would become more credible

one of the first things we were taught when i took criminal law was to let the evidence and facts lead you to develop a theory, not the other way around- by instead looking for evidence or facts to prove a theory. the reason i don't find a tandem driver theory credible is because there has been no evidence introduced (so far) that supports it. Eyewitnesses at the scene reported seeing her alone. No one has ever come forward saying that they gave MM a ride or that they saw her driving or traveling with anyone else. Now, if LE determines Renner's witness from the grocery store is credible and MM was actually seen traveling w. 2 other people, then the tandem driver theory would certainly hold more weight.

what we know is that MM wrecked her car in the White Mountains, refused assistance from BA, and then disappeared. She had very likely been drinking and driving, and she had earlier that day purchased various alcohol, which were missing from the scene. While I personally think the evidence prior to her disappearance shows she was clearly not in the best emotional state and that is my reason for holding a suicide theory as most likely, it is entirely possible, IMO that she died accidentally due to the elements while attempting to avoid police/leave the scene of an accident, and i also think it's worth considering she met w. foul play while fleeing the scene of the accident. While the area is rural (therefore making it statistically less probable) there were other cars in the area, as well as other houses/people, so it is possible she was either abducted against her will, or that she accepted help from the wrong person after leaving the accident scene and met foul play. I don't see these as statistically probable, but they can't be 100 percent ruled out (IMO). Since she never told anyone why she was in the White Mountains, or where she was heading to, it's possible she was intending on running away, but it's just as likely she was planning a short vacation to get away for awhile, or never intending to come back at all.

In short, no one, to our knowledge, knew where MM was traveling or what she was intending on doing. According to LE and eyewitnesses, she was seen alone. Her cell phone was never used after the accident, so there is no evidence she ever tried to meet up with any tandem driver after the crash. No one has come forward admitting they gave MM a ride after the crash, and no one has admitted to traveling w. her at any time that day. There have been no emails or messages revealed that show someone else was planning on/or helping her disappear. Unless LE is not releasing information to the public, there is nothing that shows that anyone else was involved w. MM's disappearance in anyway, and that's why I believe the tandem driver theory doesn't hold any water.

 

[Fireweed]

It's not about knowing a secret.

But I do know this case very well, to the point that if someone were to bring something up that seems conflicting, I could point to the source and provide context to where that confusion came from and I don't think many people could do that whom follow this case.

I spent 13 plus years of my life as a professional researcher/interviewer/factual story-teller so my skill set falls in line with everything that it would take to decipher this case down to the most minimum noise and basic fact outline.

I have thought out every theory that has been mentioned and then some and narrowed down those theories to what my research found.

Your example above (which I bolded) would be a good statistic example to use to support an abduction/murder theory of an attractive 21-year old, except for one very large point, Maura went missing at pitch-dark in the white mountains during winter-time.

No one is out prowling the back roads of the white mountains in February looking for attractive 21-year olds. That flies in the face of common sense.

So then it would become and abduction of opportunity (which means statistically speaking the odds get less and less) and that would only be a feasible example to pursue an abduction theory off of if you made the leap and believed that whomever stopped to help Maura, could right away tell she was an attractive 21 year old female all alone and vulnerable to be taken advantage of. Try stopping to help a stranded motorist at night time anywhere (where it is pitch black). It will take you several minutes just to process whether or not this person you are even helping really needs help.


My big point I am trying to make here is that I have looked at all the angles of this case, to include entertaining an abduction/murder scenario, but I have been able to deduct that it doesn't back statistics in this particular example and the origin of where an abduction/murder scenario was brought into this case in the first place, was rather done so IMO in quite a shady way to begin.

In context, I think I know why the abduction/murder theory was introduced, but I am confident in saying it was not introduced because some big evidence was found that led the investigation down that path.

I agree that an abduction/murder is unlikely, but I have read many of your posts over the years and your confidence to me speaks of someone who must know something that we do not know.

There is something that I must disagree with in your logic. Yes, pick a random winter night in the White Mountains, and the likelihood that a killer is roaming looking for prey is minimal. However, I think that your reasoning might be a little backwards. We are not looking at a random night. We are looking at a night when a 21 year old female ostensibly on her own vanished. When women vanish, that greatly increases the odds that there was indeed a killer present that night. Do you get what I am saying? When a young woman who would otherwise not have contact with low-lifes simply vanishes into thin air, then very often the reason is that she was the victim of a random abduction and murder.

Look at the Nate Kibby case. In a town of 1800 people in the White Mountains, the odds of running into a kidnapper and being abducted with no witnesses is so rare as to be practically impossible. But it happened. Did LE conclude that AH could not have been the victim of an abduction because it is nearly impossible to be the victim of a random abduction in that area at that time of day? No, of course not. The fact was that a teenage girl was missing and had gone totally dark on social media. In that case, the likelihood of her being abducted at random was very, very high.

You have based a lot of your conclusion on what I consider to be backwards logic. Now, I will agree with you that an abduction/murder on a cold night in the winter in the White Mountains is rare. But it is not improbable or unlikely that a young female who seemingly vanished without a trace was not the victim of such an event. In fact, that would the thing that most likely happened to her.

But seriously Scoops, I get that you are very well versed in this case. However, you are always 100% against any new information that comes out. I am all for discussing the merits one way or another, but you never do that. You simply shut it down as impossible. To me that means that you must know something material that we do not know. Otherwise, I find your logic and reasoning to be odd. You decided a long time ago that there are only two possible outcomes in this case, when, based upon the facts that we have, there are obviously more. Now I am all for weighing out the merits of all theories, and clearly some theories make more sense or are supported by more facts than others, but your insistence that only two theories make any sense is absurd.

 

[poppygirl]

I think, as with a lot of these cases, it can all be broken down into probabilities (not by me though ha!). I also believe that dying by exposure is the most probable explanation for what happened (based on the evidence as well as my personal experience following these types of cases throughout the years)...but I don't believe that abduction/murder can be ruled out. Though the odds may be very low, it's still very much a possibility. There's even a small chance she could be alive out there somewhere - started fresh...yes, people can go 'off the grid' even in today's world where privacy seems to no longer exist.

I guess at this point, while death by exposure may be the most likely outcome (IMO), other theories are still very much worth discussing - if you can't completely eliminate them based on evidence, then they are still possible (even though they may no be probable).

I hope that made sense, I've only had one cup of coffee this morning.

 

[scoops]

I agree that an abduction/murder is unlikely, but I have read many of your posts over the years and your confidence to me speaks of someone who must know something that we do not know.

There is something that I must disagree with in your logic. Yes, pick a random winter night in the White Mountains, and the likelihood that a killer is roaming looking for prey is minimal. However, I think that your reasoning might be a little backwards. We are not looking at a random night. We are looking at a night when a 21 year old female ostensibly on her own vanished. When women vanish, that greatly increases the odds that there was indeed a killer present that night. Do you get what I am saying? When a young woman who would otherwise not have contact with low-lifes simply vanishes into thin air, then very often the reason is that she was the victim of a random abduction and murder.

Look at the Nate Kibby case. In a town of 1800 people in the White Mountains, the odds of running into a kidnapper and being abducted with no witnesses is so rare as to be practically impossible. But it happened. Did LE conclude that AH could not have been the victim of an abduction because it is nearly impossible to be the victim of a random abduction in that area at that time of day? No, of course not. The fact was that a teenage girl was missing and had gone totally dark on social media. In that case, the likelihood of her being abducted at random was very, very high.

You have based a lot of your conclusion on what I consider to be backwards logic. Now, I will agree with you that an abduction/murder on a cold night in the winter in the White Mountains is rare. But it is not improbable or unlikely that a young female who seemingly vanished without a trace was not the victim of such an event. In fact, that would the thing that most likely happened to her.

But seriously Scoops, I get that you are very well versed in this case. However, you are always 100% against any new information that comes out. I am all for discussing the merits one way or another, but you never do that. You simply shut it down as impossible. To me that means that you must know something material that we do not know. Otherwise, I find your logic and reasoning to be odd. You decided a long time ago that there are only two possible outcomes in this case, when, based upon the facts that we have, there are obviously more. Now I am all for weighing out the merits of all theories, and clearly some theories make more sense or are supported by more facts than others, but your insistence that only two theories make any sense is absurd.

You do make some good points, but this case is not your typical missing person case.

If there was nothing else to go on, but a young female who had a minor car accident that then went missing, then I would probably have some sort of foul play scenario up there as a high possibility right behind succumbing to the elements.


Maura had a very unbalanced final three and a half days before she went missing that included a breakdown at her job, two car wrecks and an impression that she must've left with her father (who spent the weekend with her) that led him to believe that she may have been in a mind-frame to want to do harm to herself.

That angle HAD to be pursued (that Maura was suicidal), but really what could law enforcement do with that when they weren't able to find her in those first 48 hours.

Because they had no idea where precisely Maura went in the wilderness, their investigative ability is limited when someone (they believe) has chosen to go missing on their own.

I believe Maura's family quickly realized that law enforcement was only going to do so much (like search around where Maura had her car accident) that they had to develop this local dirtbag theory (not to try and convince the police, but rather to convince the public and media) in order to put the most pressure they could on law enforcement to pull out all their resources and locate Maura.

This case is a whole lot different than a young girl who is out playing in her front yard one second and then a few minutes later vanishes.

Maura put herself (on her own free will) in the white mountains.

Could Maura have been depressed and even suicidal and YET STILL ran into a random serial killer as well.

Sure. But the probability of that would be extremely extremely low.

 

[Fireweed]

I agree that the probability, given what we think we know, is that it is more likely than not that Maura killed herself and was not the victim of a murderer. However, where I take issue with your conclusions is that you base them on what we are told are the "facts" of this case. All I am trying to do Scoops, is to get you to question is those really are the facts.

For example, let's take the breakdown at work. Personally, I do not think that the breakdown at work points to the suicide theory. I think it points to the run away theory and I will tell you why. My theory is that there was no "breakdown". No one can find the phone call that supposedly made Maura so upset as to be catatonic. What we do have is Maura conveniently having a inexplicable breakdown (she never told anyone what she was upset about) at the time her supervisor was making her rounds at Maura's station. I have taken the same "fact" that you have and reached a different conclusion; namely that Maura faked the breakdown so that her "death in the family" email a couple days later would not be questioned by her supervisor.

To me, it seems just as likely that Maura was faking having a hard time as she was actually having a hard time. Is it just possible that Maura's father thought she was upset enough to be suicidal because that is exactly what she wanted him to think?

 

[scoops]

I agree that the probability, given what we think we know, is that it is more likely than not that Maura killed herself and was not the victim of a murderer. However, where I take issue with your conclusions is that you base them on what we are told are the "facts" of this case. All I am trying to do Scoops, is to get you to question is those really are the facts.

For example, let's take the breakdown at work. Personally, I do not think that the breakdown at work points to the suicide theory. I think it points to the run away theory and I will tell you why. My theory is that there was no "breakdown". No one can find the phone call that supposedly made Maura so upset as to be catatonic. What we do have is Maura conveniently having a inexplicable breakdown (she never told anyone what she was upset about) at the time her supervisor was making her rounds at Maura's station. I have taken the same "fact" that you have and reached a different conclusion; namely that Maura faked the breakdown so that her "death in the family" email a couple days later would not be questioned by her supervisor.

To me, it seems just as likely that Maura was faking having a hard time as she was actually having a hard time. Is it just possible that Maura's father thought she was upset enough to be suicidal because that is exactly what she wanted him to think?

But you see, all of that has been thought of and explored before (that Maura may have been faking).

I had a lengthy talk with Maura's supervisor and not only did I find Maura's supervisor to be very credible, she also convinced me that what was going on with Maura that night went well beyond some academy award acting job.

Maura's supervisor's first recommendation for Maura that night was to go seek mental health counseling immediately. The supervisor wanted to escort Maura to seek help.

Maura wasn't only visibly upset, she was also unresponsive.

The supervisor dismissed Maura from her final hour of her shift, but Maura wasn't budging from her desk at all.

The supervisor had to physically pack Maura up herself and lead Maura to the door.

It was the supervisor's decision not to press Maura for answers, she felt whatever was troubling Maura was very personal and very traumatic.


I guess Maura could've been faking to get out of work or something, but man she really scared the p-jesus out of the supervisor and played along with the ruse all the way until she started up the stairs to her dorm room.

I just don't think it was a ruse. (as soon as Maura was dismissed, if she was just trying to get out of work, she could've packed up her own backpack and headed for the door herself, not sit frozen at her desk not responding to anybody.


just a correction to your post: The supervisor wasn't just making her rounds, she was alerted vie radio that Maura was balling her eyes out and she left her break to go respond to check in on maura

 

[Fireweed]

I do not think that Maura was faking to get out of work; I think she was faking to set up her future absence from her life. I think it was over the top and highly dramatic so that her future absence would "make sense" to those around her. So you mean that on early Friday morning she is so distraught as to need to be physically removed from her chair, but two nights later she out for dinner at a brew pub, followed by a party with friends?

If I were to fake a breakdown so that my future disappearance would be "explained" for sufficient period of time, then I would do exactly what the supervisor described.

Whether the supervisor was specifically on her rounds, Maura knew that she would be called over in the event something like that happened. Not one person here has been able to point to the phone call that made Maura upset. No one can figure out what made Maura so upset. All this time, and no can point to a cause. I submit that is because there was no cause. There was no phone call. It was an elaborate ruse so that Maura could disappear.

Additionally, I am also beginning to wonder if Maura crashed her father's car on purpose. Hear me out. No one can come up with a good reason as the why Maura had her father's car. The natural way of doing things would have been for Fred to drop Maura off at her dorm, gone back to his hotel, and then picked her up in the morning. Maura was insisting to her friends at the party that she needed to get her father's car back to him. Again, I am starting to think this was just a set up. She needed an explanation as to why she was going to be on the road that night. So she takes the car out so that she can crash it. I think this could have been her big dramatic way of showing her father how "messed up" and "distraught" she was.

 

[Tssiemer]

Do you ever think we've over thought this waaay too much? Occam's Razor and all? I think sometimes we may give her too much credit lol. She was a 21 year old college girl. Not some spy or something. I think after almost 11 years some people have romanticized her case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fireweed]

Do you ever think we've over thought this waaay too much? Occam's Razor and all? I think sometimes we may give her too much credit lol. She was a 21 year old college girl. Not some spy or something. I think after almost 11 years some people have romanticized her case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is what this board is for. If you think that we are over-analyzing this case, then this is simply not the place for you.

 

[Tssiemer]

Ooooookay. Thanks for being friendly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fireweed]

I was not going for friendly; I was simply making it clear that this is the place where we rehash facts of a case over and over again and discuss theories ad naseum. If you think that is stupid, then seriously this is just not the place for you. I was simply stating how this site works. Like, I would not go to the Nascar board and tell the people there that they were discussing car racing too much. Comprende?

 

[Tssiemer]

Edit to delete.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[scoops]

I do not think that Maura was faking to get out of work; I think she was faking to set up her future absence from her life. I think it was over the top and highly dramatic so that her future absence would "make sense" to those around her. So you mean that on early Friday morning she is so distraught as to need to be physically removed from her chair, but two nights later she out for dinner at a brew pub, followed by a party with friends?

If I were to fake a breakdown so that my future disappearance would be "explained" for sufficient period of time, then I would do exactly what the supervisor described.

Whether the supervisor was specifically on her rounds, Maura knew that she would be called over in the event something like that happened. Not one person here has been able to point to the phone call that made Maura upset. No one can figure out what made Maura so upset. All this time, and no can point to a cause. I submit that is because there was no cause. There was no phone call. It was an elaborate ruse so that Maura could disappear.

Additionally, I am also beginning to wonder if Maura crashed her father's car on purpose. Hear me out. No one can come up with a good reason as the why Maura had her father's car. The natural way of doing things would have been for Fred to drop Maura off at her dorm, gone back to his hotel, and then picked her up in the morning. Maura was insisting to her friends at the party that she needed to get her father's car back to him. Again, I am starting to think this was just a set up. She needed an explanation as to why she was going to be on the road that night. So she takes the car out so that she can crash it. I think this could have been her big dramatic way of showing her father how "messed up" and "distraught" she was.

You have an interesting theory, but I personally would have to understand more why she would want to set this up in this manner before disappearing before I could buy into it.

Let me be clear on one point. My research has found that there was no phone call that night which upset Maura.

Police took something the supervisor told them in an interview and made that assumption that there was a phone call that upset Maura. Once police tracked down Maura's cell phone records, they spotted the phone call on the bill that night between Maura and her sister and they immediately pointed to that as the reason.

That phone call that they pointed to happened two hours before Maura had her breakdown at work.

Maura did have a short seven minute phone call with her boyfriend that literally happened within 20-30 minutes of her breaking down. THAT PHONE CALL HAS NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED BY POLICE PUBLICALLY.

Police, from what I have heard, grilled both Maura's sister Kathleen and Maura's boyfriend Billy (and right from the opening days of Maura going missing, a wedge was created between police and the Maura Murray family).

The Murray family switched gears (from publically supporting the police and their efforts and a media war between them and the police broke out, while at the same time, a boogey man scenario came out of nowhere.

Among things that came out in the press that were totally suggested (and not proven fact) by family were:

-----Maura maybe hadn't had time to unpack her dorm
-----Maura only had that book about the white mountains with her because it was her turn to read that book that her father shared with all the kids
-----Maura was happy go lucky and currently in a great spot in her relationship with billy
-----Maura had Tylenol PM and alcohol with her at the time she went missing because the Tylenol was for a hamstring injury


All defensive answers not based in fact, but rather spin.

 

[Fireweed]

Okay, then let's assume that Maura's breakdown was sincere. What on earth could have made her catatonic she was so upset? I know some would point to Billy troubles, but it seems that Billy troubles were common enough in Maura's life. In fact, she seemingly was able to move on pretty fast when they went on breaks.

Was she just generally upset? She is sitting there alone in the middle of the night, thinking about her life and it turns into a full on emotional meltdown? But she gets over in time for dinner out that Saturday?

Something about the Thursday night meltdown coupled with her father's visit and subsequent disappearance makes me think that the whole thing was just part of the bigger plan.

But I am glad you agree that there was no phone call that triggered it.