Since this case hasn't been solved, it's an easy misconception to believe that LE knows absolutely nothing and that every new (potential) clue starts everything at square one. I have always believed that LE has a pile of information with nothing to tie it together. This may be the tie that binds it all into a neat bundle. It seems legit, even if it doesn't quite fit into some of our theories. I, for one, am in no way ready to discount this info because it doesn't fit well into my personal theory. This is exciting information for anyone who has been following this case(or should be). Like him or hate him, Renner seems to have done his best to verify this one. I hope the NHCCU is able to stamp it officially as true or false and I hope they share their findings with the public.
NH NH - Maura Murray, 21, Haverhill, 9 Feb 2004 - #11
- Thread starter SheWhoMustNotBeNamed
- Start date
- Status
Scoops, people don't do things logically, so there is no reason to believe Logic will play much of a role in figuring out what happened to Maura. i am skeptical too but it's not an outlandish bit of information. It's reasonable to believe at least a little bit that it could be true.
Fireweed
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,241
- Reaction score
- 35
I do not think this lead is b.s. It could be that the woman was mistaken, but it seems as though she is at least sincere. I have read another of Renner's books and he is quite forthright about anything he screws up or gets wrong, which is one of the reasons I am glad he is writing about this case. Sara and Kate's behavior has always been strange to me. They know something about this case that they are not telling.
Fireweed
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,241
- Reaction score
- 35
I am of the opinion that in many cases, grown men who work in LE are convinced that they cannot be outsmarted by a young female. I recall when I was in my late teens/early 20's (and still a bit to this day), that older men in positions of authority would pretty much always talk down to me like I was really, really dumb. I now wonder if LE in this case put a lot of stock in Atwood and Forcier as witnesses (the adult males) and very little in Kate, Sara, and the cashier (three "girls").
there is a certain degree of logic to conclude that police would've (10 years or so ago) already followed up on this witness account.
Unless Fred is "In" on his daughter's disappearance, at bare minimum, he would've been all over police to follow this lead up to see where it ended up. I am also pretty sure the investigators would've been smart enough to track down camera footage, if there was any.
Logic also leads to the conclusion that there is no incentive for two marginal friends of Maura in Sara and Kate to keep Maura's disappearance a secret for 11 years.
Kate and sara were only friends because they each knew Maura.
Yet they supposedly have formed this 11-year conspiracy together to protect a school friend who wanted to as james would say "go off the grid."
I highly doubt sara and kate even talk to one another anymore.
All of this and at the same time one of Maura's real child hood friends (who was interviewed on the ID Disappearance show) was living just a few miles away from UMASS at the time Maura went missing.
To me, that kind of a friend might be a person to go off into the mountains with Maura, get smashed one last time and then return back to her normal life while keeping Maura's new start at a life a secret, not two people Maura just met in the past couple of years when she transferred to UMASS.
JUST TO CLEAR SOMETHING UP:
I think James has done an overall good job over the years of bringing new interest to this case and I like many look forward to his book coming out. I am hoping (at least) that the book will maybe stir up some interest among folks who have not been following this case and maybe we can get some seasoned investigators that don't have a lot going on right now that will maybe learn about this case and want to do some digging of their own. I would love to see a TV special about the case one day that doesn't just re-hash all of Maura's last known movements, but one that maybe digs into the story a lot deeper.
As it stands now, IMO, this case is as cold as a case can be.
And onto this current goose-chase:
James is continuing to reference Maura's work associate Sara Alfieri as someone that is possibly holding back information and someone that may know more about Maura's disappearance.
James (probably very innocently) has incorrectly attributed a quote that was made (about one of Maura's friends saying they didn't want to say more because it might lead to Maura getting in trouble).
James references a Seventeen Magazine special book that referenced Maura's case in which Sara supposedly told the interviewer she didn't want to say more in fear that it might lead to Maura getting in trouble.
That quote was never made to Seventeen Magazine.
It was made to the police by one of Maura's UMASS friends which was never identified publically in the very early days after Maura went missing.
Why the significance?
The quote was most likely made by Kate and not Sara.
And looking at the quote in its context, the police are the ones that discovered (whatever it was that this friend was trying to hide) because they confronted the friend about it in an interview. And it was police investigators who let it slip to the media that one of Maura's friends wasn't fully forthcoming about Maura.
This leads me to believe that the thing the "UMASS friend" was trying to hide from police, was that Saturday night get-together in which Maura was known to have been drinking most of the night and then known to get behind the wheel of a car and drive.
Because Maura didn't get banged with a DUI, the friend likely didn't want to implicate Maura to police.
And Sara did not know Maura even got into a wreck that night, because according to her, she had fallen asleep before Maura and Kate had even left the party. Sara talked to Maura on Sunday, but Maura never mentioned to her that she had gotten into a wreck and it was only after Maura had gone missing, that sara learned that Maura had been in a wreck after attending a party she had hosted in her dorm.
So in conclusion, and in my interpretation, it was kate who made that infamous quote and whatever it was that she was trying to hide, police already figured it out and confronted her about it, so police already know what it was about.
I think James has done an overall good job over the years of bringing new interest to this case and I like many look forward to his book coming out. I am hoping (at least) that the book will maybe stir up some interest among folks who have not been following this case and maybe we can get some seasoned investigators that don't have a lot going on right now that will maybe learn about this case and want to do some digging of their own. I would love to see a TV special about the case one day that doesn't just re-hash all of Maura's last known movements, but one that maybe digs into the story a lot deeper.
As it stands now, IMO, this case is as cold as a case can be.
And onto this current goose-chase:
James is continuing to reference Maura's work associate Sara Alfieri as someone that is possibly holding back information and someone that may know more about Maura's disappearance.
James (probably very innocently) has incorrectly attributed a quote that was made (about one of Maura's friends saying they didn't want to say more because it might lead to Maura getting in trouble).
James references a Seventeen Magazine special book that referenced Maura's case in which Sara supposedly told the interviewer she didn't want to say more in fear that it might lead to Maura getting in trouble.
That quote was never made to Seventeen Magazine.
It was made to the police by one of Maura's UMASS friends which was never identified publically in the very early days after Maura went missing.
Why the significance?
The quote was most likely made by Kate and not Sara.
And looking at the quote in its context, the police are the ones that discovered (whatever it was that this friend was trying to hide) because they confronted the friend about it in an interview. And it was police investigators who let it slip to the media that one of Maura's friends wasn't fully forthcoming about Maura.
This leads me to believe that the thing the "UMASS friend" was trying to hide from police, was that Saturday night get-together in which Maura was known to have been drinking most of the night and then known to get behind the wheel of a car and drive.
Because Maura didn't get banged with a DUI, the friend likely didn't want to implicate Maura to police.
And Sara did not know Maura even got into a wreck that night, because according to her, she had fallen asleep before Maura and Kate had even left the party. Sara talked to Maura on Sunday, but Maura never mentioned to her that she had gotten into a wreck and it was only after Maura had gone missing, that sara learned that Maura had been in a wreck after attending a party she had hosted in her dorm.
So in conclusion, and in my interpretation, it was kate who made that infamous quote and whatever it was that she was trying to hide, police already figured it out and confronted her about it, so police already know what it was about.
Fireweed
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,241
- Reaction score
- 35
Scoops, I agree with you that after 11 years, it would be silly to keep certain "secrets". My only issue with your conclusion is that there are secrets and then there are secrets. Your conclusion is based on the assumption that there is not a good reason for anyone in this case to keep a secret. People are very good at keeping secrets is they have a good reason to. I am not yet willing to conclude that no one attached to this case has a reason to keep a secret. We simply do not have enough facts to support that supposition. You have concluded, without enough evidence, that neither Kate nor Sara has a big secret here.
You are losing me on this one.
If you are going off of what james is currently talking about then you believe that Maura's school friends went off into the mountains to have one last hurrah with their friend before Maura took off to parts unknown to begin a new life.
that "Secret" would not be enough (IMO) for two fairly new friends of Maura to keep from everyone, some 11 years later. What kind of friend would Maura have been to put that kind of burden on these two girls, knowing that they would have to return to Amherst and face heat from both police and family?
If you are not talking about the theory du jour of James, then are you implying that maybe kate and Sara killed Maura up somewhere in the white mountains?
Because, yes that would be the kind of "Secret" that you would keep, but I just don't see how anyone could arrive at that theory from what is known about this case. that is not just a stretch of imagination, but that sounds more like a made-for-tv after school special script IMO.
What other kind of "Secrets" could you be referring to?
Philigumbo
Verified registered nurse
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2012
- Messages
- 733
- Reaction score
- 1,276
You were lucky...it is very dangerous...not everyone is that lucky...
Fireweed
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,241
- Reaction score
- 35
BBM. There is absolutely no instance where either I or James said this. You are the only person who has said this. I never once said that this is what happened and neither did Renner. You have discredited his theory based upon something that is not even his theory. In fact, all he has said is that he has a tip that Maura was seen with two other women. That does not mean that those women were there with Maura to have a "last hurrah". Again, those words are yours and yours alone.
Philigumbo
Verified registered nurse
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2012
- Messages
- 733
- Reaction score
- 1,276
Again, Tylenol PM is dangerous when mixed with alcohol. Both tax the liver. Both sedate and supress respirations. OTC does not mean non-toxic.
http://www.drugs.com/food-interactions/acetaminophen-diphenhydramine,tylenol-pm.html
Fireweed
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,241
- Reaction score
- 35
No it's not. It is not dangerous because OTC sleeping pills are not dangerous if taken in small quantity. I was pointing out that people conflate OTC with RX pills, when RX pills are indeed dangerous if misused.
Fireweed
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,241
- Reaction score
- 35
If you used some reading comprehension you would see that I was never talking about tylenol PM, and in fact, I conceded that Tylenol mixed with alcohol is a bad idea.
Philigumbo
Verified registered nurse
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2012
- Messages
- 733
- Reaction score
- 1,276
Regarding reading comprehension, I was replying to SchoolgirlShamus regarding Tylenol, not you, Fireweed.
I will respectfully agree to disagree with you regarding the safety of mixing alcohol and OTC sleeping aids.
I will respectfully agree to disagree with you regarding the safety of mixing alcohol and OTC sleeping aids.
M
I totally agree with this. We barely know any details. The type of secrets and/or secrets that are being held could be absolutely anything!
I totally agree with this. We barely know any details. The type of secrets and/or secrets that are being held could be absolutely anything!
The "last Hurrah" was my comment - correct.
But the theory that Maura was traveling in tandem with friends to help her get away and start a new life has been one of Renner's for many years now.
I would call that a "Last Hurrah" because the friends would likely never see Maura again if she was running away from her life.
James continues to believe the condo inquiry Maura made is proof that she attended to stay in the Bartlett Area in the white mountains with several people and throw in the volume of alcohol that was purchased (supposedly now 2 different stops for liquor) and what you end up with is friends having a last hurrah together before one of them disappears off the grid.
So how did I get that wrong exactly?
We do know that the comments James is attributing to Sara Alfieri have never been proven to be her and likely were not made by her, but rather Maura's other friend Kate.
It makes sort of a big difference because the comments that were actually made ("I didn't want to get Maura in trouble" were made by one of Maura's friends who were being interviewed by police.
If I offer up to a reporter that I am not going to say anymore because I don't want to get my friend in trouble, then I am implying that I know more about the situation and I am just not giving any more comments.
If I tell a police officer (during an interview about my missing friend that everyone is so desperately looking for) that I am not saying anymore because I don't want to get my Friend in trouble, I would be in some serious trouble.
The truth of the matter is the police already knew the answer to what they were asking Maura's friend during the interview and they were just waiting and ready to see how the friend would respond.
And when the friend left out a key detail, the investigator called out Maura's friend who then replied "I just didn't want to get Maura in trouble."
Same statement we are talking about, but under a completely different context.
southernyankee
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2013
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 11
Guys, I want so badly to believe that there is some substance to this news + that it cracks this case wide open, I really do... but I just don't. And I've followed it since I was a freshman at UMass when Maura went missing (crazily enough: my roommate at the time had gone to her same high school). I remember that flier going up in my dorm in the middle of that February. It was 2004.
Based on Renner's recent posts: Maura + friends went to a supermarket called Butson's in Woodsville the evening of February 9th, 2004, around 5:45-6:00pm. It sounds like Butson's was one of a few outlets in a small supermarket chain that was locally owned + operated in that area of New Hampshire. However, a much larger (but still quite provincial) supermarket chain, Shaw's, bought them out + took over later.
Here's where things get thrown off for me: A quick search yields three different news stories archived such that Shaw's took over the Woodsvile Butson's in October 2003 - a few months before Maura's trip to Woodsville - and that the transition happened rather quickly. If that's the case, Butson's was not Butson's in Woodsville in February 2004 - it was already Shaw's. That seems like quite a big detail not to have correct. I am willing to be wrong, I really am, but I'm wondering if someone else has an answer for this that says otherwise.
Links here:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Shaw'...r+Butson's+Associates+Hired+by...-a0109228256
http://www.nhbr.com/Archive-2003/Shaws-strategy-raises-competition-questions/
http://business.highbeam.com/4524/article-1G1-108718701/shaw-buys-butson-cs
Based on Renner's recent posts: Maura + friends went to a supermarket called Butson's in Woodsville the evening of February 9th, 2004, around 5:45-6:00pm. It sounds like Butson's was one of a few outlets in a small supermarket chain that was locally owned + operated in that area of New Hampshire. However, a much larger (but still quite provincial) supermarket chain, Shaw's, bought them out + took over later.
Here's where things get thrown off for me: A quick search yields three different news stories archived such that Shaw's took over the Woodsvile Butson's in October 2003 - a few months before Maura's trip to Woodsville - and that the transition happened rather quickly. If that's the case, Butson's was not Butson's in Woodsville in February 2004 - it was already Shaw's. That seems like quite a big detail not to have correct. I am willing to be wrong, I really am, but I'm wondering if someone else has an answer for this that says otherwise.
Links here:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Shaw'...r+Butson's+Associates+Hired+by...-a0109228256
http://www.nhbr.com/Archive-2003/Shaws-strategy-raises-competition-questions/
http://business.highbeam.com/4524/article-1G1-108718701/shaw-buys-butson-cs
gnomony
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2010
- Messages
- 397
- Reaction score
- 348
In my judgment, you get it wrong when you represent a hypothesis as a belief. In my judgement, you get it wrong when you exaggerate and embellish what someone presents as a bare-bones hypothesis, and then cast doubt on the exaggerated points and the embellishments, as if they were not your own.
I assume JR has a pretty strong idea about at least some of what happened, based on evidence he has posted and other evidence that he has not. I assume that the reason he has not posted some evidence is that he may get sued over it and that he is prudent enough to chose the most defensible time, place and method for publishing certain details. I also judge that he would look forward with relish to getting sued under the right conditions, since it would give him a chance to cross examine certain people under oath.
back on Dec 28, 2002 in a post on his blog entitled "What I BELIEVE" James lays out the foundation of his tandem driver theory.
Ever since, James has been zoned in on trying to add to that theory and over time that theory has turned into very much what I have stated. He believes Maura went to the New Hampshire area with friends driving in tandem.
He believes evidence supports that because Maura inquired about a condo in the Bartlett area that would have room for more than one person.
If I am not mistaken, when trying to answer questions about the alcohol James has used that amount of alcohol purchased as proof that Maura was not going to be alone on her trip.
He has stated multiple times that he believes Maura may have been looking to start a new life and may of needed help in doing so.
So again ... Where am I going wrong?
- Status