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

[Fireweed]

I think that the police likely did not think that these two "girls" were lying to them and so when they said they did not recall who was at the party, they just dropped it. I mean, all the journalists did. No one has actually looked critically at the "known facts" of this case. Renner is the first.

So like, when "journalists" interview Fred, then never ask him obvious questions that any journalist should ask, like why Maura came back to his hotel that night. That is the low level of journalism that has gone into this case. All the journalists who have had the opportunity to interview Fred have just thrown nice little softballs at him.

 

[carpanthers]

I think that the police likely did not think that these two "girls" were lying to them and so when they said they did not recall who was at the party, they just dropped it. I mean, all the journalists did. No one has actually looked critically at the "known facts" of this case. Renner is the first.

So like, when "journalists" interview Fred, then never ask him obvious questions that any journalist should ask, like why Maura came back to his hotel that night. That is the low level of journalism that has gone into this case. All the journalists who have had the opportunity to interview Fred have just thrown nice little softballs at him.

I agree that Fred has never been asked the questions that need to be asked. Or, he has refused to give an interview to anyone who would ask those questions. I think the police did think at least one of the girls lied to them, hence the Globe quote about one of Maura's friends withholding information because she "didn't want to get Maura in trouble."

 

[scoops]

In addition to Kate's comments being that IT didn't make sense, not that Maura wasn't making sense, how can you be so confident that the police know the name of every person at the dorm party? I agree with you that the police know things that we do not, and therefore it is just as likely that they know there was no party, and they aren't sharing that with us either.

I disagree.

Maura on several occasions that night blurted out randomly that she felt the need to take her father's car back to him and Kate is the one who provided that information because it stood out to her that it didn't make a lot of sense.

So technically, Maura said things that didn't make much sense and wasn't making much sense.

They have interviewed Kate about the party, that is a fact. So it's not a pretty big leap to assume that they would've also interviewed the person that hosted the party and KNEW the folks that were attending it.

Police gave Kate crap for not being able to recall names, but nothing has ever been said publically about sara doing the same.

Why is it automatically assumed that Sara is hiding who was at that party? I haven't come close to seeing anything like that and I read and follow-up on everything.

 

[carpanthers]

I am saying that if this party happened, it is unverifiable by us. The only people who know whether or not this party happened are the police. The police may have determined that this party happened, they may have determined it did not. What the police know is not known to any of us. I agree that they interviewed both girls about the party, and the only information we have regarding that interview is that one of them allegedly withheld information because "she didn't want to get Maura in trouble." How does that verify to us that they spoke the truth? How does it prove they didn't lie at first, to protect Maura? The police could just as easily know that this party never happened as they could be able to verify the guests. We have no idea what they know, except that they presumably caught one of them withholding information.

 

[Fireweed]

You know what's funny? If Fred and Kate and Sara just came out and explained what really happened that weekend and just answered some very basic questions, then we could all move on and start focusing on the "dirtbag" theory.

They cannot all be that out of it, can they? That is why I suspect that they know something about where Maura is and what happened to her.

 

[carpanthers]

There is also no reason to presume that the police don't know that Sara and Kate fabricated that story. Why would they come running to the press with that? Sara and Kate could have retracted their statements to law enforcement at any time, and we would have no way of knowing.

 

[scoops]

I agree that Fred has never been asked the questions that need to be asked. Or, he has refused to give an interview to anyone who would ask those questions. I think the police did think at least one of the girls lied to them, hence the Globe quote about one of Maura's friends withholding information because she "didn't want to get Maura in trouble."

Guys/gals.

A couple very big points.

While we have sat here over the years turning this case into the biggest perry mason episode ever with twists at every corner, the fact of the matter is police (from all indications) have never treated this case as anything more than an adult who chose to disappear on her own.

We can talk about inconsistent statements and the like, but the FACT is that in every interview I have ever seen dating back to 2004 to in the most recent year, Police have made the very same statement. "There is no evidence of foul play concerning Maura Murray."

Yes Police do hold back information, but if they had a serial killer on the loose ... Don't you honestly think they would have alerted the public by now to be cautious.

As far as police being "in" on knowing that Maura ran away to start a new life. that is also complete bunk. Police would not tell family where Maura was located currently, but they would let them know that they had located her and she wishes not to be contacted.

Police quit actively pursuing this case ... Oh, I don't know, one or two months after Maura went missing.

yes they are open to tips coming in through their tip-line and they would follow up on them because that is standard procedure.

But as far as them actively going out and chasing boogey-men or tracking down the elusive Maura, they gave up on that not too long after Maura went missing.

Most of what you have read about (concerning new leads and breakthrough discoveries) have panned out over the years to be a lot of nothing.

I don't like to go down the road of several theories (WITHOUT SOMETHING TO WORK WITH) because why add more to this story, when it has already become so complicated for really no good reason.

I entertain the vasi hit and run (that doesn't really even matchup with my suicide theory) because I think there is enough substance there to at least look at that theory harder.

But some of this other stuff. Show me something of substance and I will gladly get on board with trying to pursue the truth about it.

 

[Fireweed]

I disagree.

Maura on several occasions that night blurted out randomly that she felt the need to take her father's car back to him and Kate is the one who provided that information because it stood out to her that it didn't make a lot of sense.

So technically, Maura said things that didn't make much sense and wasn't making much sense.

They have interviewed Kate about the party, that is a fact. So it's not a pretty big leap to assume that they would've also interviewed the person that hosted the party and KNEW the folks that were attending it.

Police gave Kate crap for not being able to recall names, but nothing has ever been said publically about sara doing the same.

Why is it automatically assumed that Sara is hiding who was at that party? I haven't come close to seeing anything like that and I read and follow-up on everything.

I do not think that Sara is hiding who was at the party, but rather is lying about what happened that day. I think that she, Kate and Maura were together that day, but I do not think it was at a party. I think that is a lie to cover up the fact that all three of them were together in the small hours of the morning.

They have not "interview Kate about the party" but rather they interviewed Kate and she said there was a party.

 

[Fireweed]

Guys/gals.

A couple very big points.

While we have sat here over the years turning this case into the biggest perry mason episode ever with twists at every corner, the fact of the matter is police (from all indications) have never treated this case as anything more than an adult who chose to disappear on her own.

We can talk about inconsistent statements and the like, but the FACT is that in every interview I have ever seen dating back to 2004 to in the most recent year, Police have made the very same statement. "There is no evidence of foul play concerning Maura Murray."

Yes Police do hold back information, but if they had a serial killer on the loose ... Don't you honestly think they would have alerted the public by now to be cautious.

As far as police being "in" on knowing that Maura ran away to start a new life. that is also complete bunk. Police would not tell family where Maura was located currently, but they would let them know that they had located her and she wishes not to be contacted.

Police quit actively pursuing this case ... Oh, I don't know, one or two months after Maura went missing.

yes they are open to tips coming in through their tip-line and they would follow up on them because that is standard procedure.

But as far as them actively going out and chasing boogey-men or tracking down the elusive Maura, they gave up on that not too long after Maura went missing.

Most of what you have read about (concerning new leads and breakthrough discoveries) have panned out over the years to be a lot of nothing.

I don't like to go down the road of several theories (WITHOUT SOMETHING TO WORK WITH) because why add more to this story, when it has already become so complicated for really no good reason.

I entertain the vasi hit and run (that doesn't really even matchup with my suicide theory) because I think there is enough substance there to at least look at that theory harder.

But some of this other stuff. Show me something of substance and I will gladly get on board with trying to pursue the truth about it.

I do not think anyone thinks that the police are in on it or anything. I do not think that the police are involved in a cover-up. In fact, I have read this board pretty regularly for years and I have never seen that brought up before.

Please look at the part I bolded. Surely having a human being missing without a trace is a good reason get complicated after 11 years with no leads. I mean, I do not find it "needless." Indeed, to me it is necessary at this point.

And scoops, nothing that we were told is what happened has any substance either. I say, strip it down to the bones and begin the analysis anew. I know that you are convinced that this only happened a certain way, but that has done nothing to find Maura.

 

[scoops]

I do not think anyone thinks that the police are in on it or anything. I do not think that the police are involved in a cover-up. In fact, I have read this board pretty regularly for years and I have never seen that brought up before.

Please look at the part I bolded. Surely having a human being missing without a trace is a good reason get complicated after 11 years with no leads. I mean, I do not find it "needless." Indeed, to me it is necessary at this point.

And scoops, nothing that we were told is what happened has any substance either. I say, strip it down to the bones and begin the analysis anew. I know that you are convinced that this only happened a certain way, but that has done nothing to find Maura.

Whenever I hear about police-led searches in the white mountains along the hiking trails to try and locate Maura, then I will believe that my theory has been properly looked into.

But that has never taken place and won't take place.

Unless a person can be traced to a certain area that they went missing in the mountains, police will not do a search because its too dangerous.

That is my whole point.

The lead investigator of this case has stated that people go missing in the mountains all the time. He didn't follow that up with and we do everything in our power to locate them.

An adult has the right to disappear.

I don't think that was good enough of an answer for fred and Maura's family.

they wanted police to take a more pro-active response. Using the media to put pressure on police, hint to the locals that there was a serial killer loose among them were all techniques used (IMO) to force the police to do more than what they were doing.

A case of someone going missing on their own power quickly turns into the crime of the century, and it's all based on manipulations.

No doubt Fred has said some untruths to the media and no doubt police are puzzled by Fred and most of Maura's family.
They have basically said as much.

But if you think police swat team (any second) are about to reign down on someone like Sara Alfieri's house or Kate's because of some big conspiracy, then I would have to say that it aint happening.

if this case is ever going to be solved it is going to come down to dumb luck. Somebody stumbling on a bone or a backpack, IMO.

And we can't solve that on our end conversating through message boards.

This case is still very interesting and there are still details that would be great to learn about.

But as far as finding Maura, I have to agree with Fred. That needed to take place during those first 24 hours when she was still within grasp of being helped.

 

[carpanthers]

Guys/gals.

A couple very big points.

While we have sat here over the years turning this case into the biggest perry mason episode ever with twists at every corner, the fact of the matter is police (from all indications) have never treated this case as anything more than an adult who chose to disappear on her own.

We can talk about inconsistent statements and the like, but the FACT is that in every interview I have ever seen dating back to 2004 to in the most recent year, Police have made the very same statement. "There is no evidence of foul play concerning Maura Murray."

Yes Police do hold back information, but if they had a serial killer on the loose ... Don't you honestly think they would have alerted the public by now to be cautious.

As far as police being "in" on knowing that Maura ran away to start a new life. that is also complete bunk. Police would not tell family where Maura was located currently, but they would let them know that they had located her and she wishes not to be contacted.

Police quit actively pursuing this case ... Oh, I don't know, one or two months after Maura went missing.

yes they are open to tips coming in through their tip-line and they would follow up on them because that is standard procedure.

But as far as them actively going out and chasing boogey-men or tracking down the elusive Maura, they gave up on that not too long after Maura went missing.

Most of what you have read about (concerning new leads and breakthrough discoveries) have panned out over the years to be a lot of nothing.

I don't like to go down the road of several theories (WITHOUT SOMETHING TO WORK WITH) because why add more to this story, when it has already become so complicated for really no good reason.

I entertain the vasi hit and run (that doesn't really even matchup with my suicide theory) because I think there is enough substance there to at least look at that theory harder.

But some of this other stuff. Show me something of substance and I will gladly get on board with trying to pursue the truth about it.

Foul play means death. This statement only means that there is no evidence of foul play in terms of her death. Nobody is saying he killed her.

Why couldn't she have become suicidal after the New Hampshire car crash? The evidence that she was suicidal before the crash is all speculation about her state of mind, and is unprovable. "Show me something of substance" and I will believe you.

Just because Fred Murray thought she was suicidal when he called the police doesn't mean he had prior knowledge of suicidal intent or state of mind on her part. It means that knowing the circumstances of the crash (facing credit card fraud charges and failure to control in the Hadley crash, and then a DUI crash in New Hampshire), his knowledge of Maura's personality led him to assess that the potential consequences Maura was facing would be upsetting enough to her that she could be a risk to herself.

If someone did kill her, why does this person have to be a serial killer rather than an opportunist? It's also not like nobody has ever been murdered in the White Mountains.

Nobody here has suggested that police are "in" on Maura running away to start a new life, and I think that we can all agree that is ridiculous. They would have closed the case.

Why does the police issuing the statement that "there is no evidence of foul play concerning Maura Murray" convince us that she committed suicide? Obviously the police aren't convinced she committed suicide, or this wouldn't be an open investigation. If they believe she took her own life, why would the court largely deny Fred Murray's request for the investigative records? In the court records, officers express concern that if the documents were released, that they would tip off the individual who was the "focal point" of their investigation.

The police gave up on this case? I'm pretty sure that New Hampshire spent hundreds of thousands of dollars looking for her. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Maura's case been assigned to a cold case unit? The sole purpose of a cold case unit is to work actively to solve cold cases, why should we assume they aren't doing that? How do you know that they aren't?

Here is the substance of the Vasi theory:
Maura left her post at campus security. She probably wasn't on her break at the time Vasi was hit, based on the fact that she made a twenty minute phone call to her sister in what would be prime-time for students signing into the dorm. She somehow managed to leave her post, get to her car (wherever it may have been parked), drive downtown for reasons unknown, hit Vasi, drive back, park again, and return to her post without being noticed. I think it is strange that of all the theories, this is the one you think has enough substantive evidence to look at harder. If anything, the evidence speaks against it.

The book isn't evidence that Maura was suicidal before the New Hampshire crash. It isn't a handbook to suicide, it's a book about the White Mountains, which by all accounts was an area that she loved and frequented. She was a hiker, in the very mountains that this book is about. Why wouldn't she read this book?

There is plenty to work with on lots of other theories. In fact, I think looking at any of them would be more valuable than barking up the Vasi alley again (I think even he is sick of this) or speculating about Maura's state of mind. There are less objective facts in these two theories than any of the other ones I have ever heard.

 

[Fireweed]

I agree with you that the cops likely did not do potentially dangerous searches in the White Mountains when they had no solid evidence that Maura was out there. I think they did the level of work that any police department would have done in the case like this. In other words, they did not do a whole lot of real investigating.

 

[scoops]

Foul play means death. This statement only means that there is no evidence of foul play in terms of her death. Nobody is saying he killed her.

Why couldn't she have become suicidal after the New Hampshire car crash? The evidence that she was suicidal before the crash is all speculation about her state of mind, and is unprovable. "Show me something of substance" and I will believe you.

Just because Fred Murray thought she was suicidal when he called the police doesn't mean he had prior knowledge of suicidal intent or state of mind on her part. It means that knowing the circumstances of the crash (facing credit card fraud charges and failure to control in the Hadley crash, and then a DUI crash in New Hampshire), his knowledge of Maura's personality led him to assess that the potential consequences Maura was facing would be upsetting enough to her that she could be a risk to herself.

If someone did kill her, why does this person have to be a serial killer rather than an opportunist? It's also not like nobody has ever been murdered in the White Mountains.

Nobody here has suggested that police are "in" on Maura running away to start a new life, and I think that we can all agree that is ridiculous. They would have closed the case.

Why does the police issuing the statement that "there is no evidence of foul play concerning Maura Murray" convince us that she committed suicide? Obviously the police aren't convinced she committed suicide, or this wouldn't be an open investigation. If they believe she took her own life, why would the court largely deny Fred Murray's request for the investigative records? In the court records, officers express concern that if the documents were released, that they would tip off the individual who was the "focal point" of their investigation.

The police gave up on this case? I'm pretty sure that New Hampshire spent hundreds of thousands of dollars looking for her. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Maura's case been assigned to a cold case unit? The sole purpose of a cold case unit is to work actively to solve cold cases, why should we assume they aren't doing that? How do you know that they aren't?

Here is the substance of the Vasi theory:
Maura left her post at campus security. She probably wasn't on her break at the time Vasi was hit, based on the fact that she made a twenty minute phone call to her sister in what would be prime-time for students signing into the dorm. She somehow managed to leave her post, get to her car (wherever it may have been parked), drive downtown for reasons unknown, hit Vasi, drive back, park again, and return to her post without being noticed. I think it is strange that of all the theories, this is the one you think has enough substantive evidence to look at harder. If anything, the evidence speaks against it.

The book isn't evidence that Maura was suicidal before the New Hampshire crash. It isn't a handbook to suicide, it's a book about the White Mountains, which by all accounts was an area that she loved and frequented. She was a hiker, in the very mountains that this book is about. Why wouldn't she read this book?

There is plenty to work with on lots of other theories. In fact, I think looking at any of them would be more valuable than barking up the Vasi alley again (I think even he is sick of this) or speculating about Maura's state of mind. There are less objective facts in these two theories than any of the other ones I have ever heard.

You do a lot of word-splicing. That is not very nice.


Give me one clue, circumstance, fact, shred of anything that Maura was murdered?

Give me one clue, circumstance, fact, shred of anything that Maura fled to Canada?

Give me one clue, circumstance, fact, shred of anything that Maura is still alive and living a great life somewhere?


Yet u think its beyond ridiculous to even consider the vasi-hit and run angle which happened one block over from where Maura was working and took place right at the same time Maura had her breakdown at work.

While I agree, none of that proves anything with Maura and vasi, at least its something to work with.

Where does the murder theory come from? --- and saying well they haven't found Maura so therefore she could've been murdered, is not a good answer either.

 

[Fireweed]

Just because Fred Murray thought she was suicidal when he called the police doesn't mean he had prior knowledge of suicidal intent or state of mind on her part. It means that knowing the circumstances of the crash (facing credit card fraud charges and failure to control in the Hadley crash, and then a DUI crash in New Hampshire), his knowledge of Maura's personality led him to assess that the potential consequences Maura was facing would be upsetting enough to her that she could be a risk to herself.

I always thought there was a possibility that the reason that Fred and her family thought Maura was suicidal was because that is exactly what she wanted them to believe. Maybe Maura was itching to "get back to her father's hotel" because she was planning on wrecking his car so that her situation would look even worse to him.

 

[scoops]

which is why fred has did what he felt he had to do, even if that meant lying or exaggerating or manipulating.

I think he is a pretty smart person.

When police didn't locate his daughter that first night, all indications that I have been able to interpret is that Fred already knew it was too late.

He knew police didn't feel like their whole community was in danger of some random killer.

But Fred, like most parents, IMO, still wanted his daughter found, so he went off on his own, hired his own investigators, kept the case alive (That is key) in the media (because police really weren't doing a whole lot to keep the case alive).

 

[stephsb]

I (sadly) agree that if she ever is found, it's probably going to be someone stumbling upon something. I think it's extremely likely she's somewhere in the area surrounding where she went missing, it's just a matter of finding her. If FM's "local dirtbag" theory pans out, then she could literally be anywhere and I doubt we'll ever find her. I hope all of these hours of speculation someday turn up something, but w. each year a case goes unsolved, the more likely it becomes it'll never be solved. I hope these hours of speculation can help find some new lead or evidence, but it's been 11 years and I think nearly every theory and then some has been proposed, and still nothing.

Calling FM a suspect is IMO, quite a stretch. Yes, he has made inconsistent statements, but unfortunately so do a lot of people who are being questioned/giving statements to police. Just because someone gives inconsistent statements to investigators or their statements appear "deceptive" does not make them guilty of anything- it would likely warrant more investigation, which I'm sure police initially did. Unless they were completely incompetent, the first thing they likely did was focus on the people last seen w. her, and those extremely close to her...like her family or boyfriend. From every statement I've seen released by them, it doesn't appear they ever considered this case much more than a case of someone who wanted to go missing, and met an untimely death in some way, or committed suicide. Even if they did believe she committed suicide, it would remain an open missing persons case until she was either found alive, or a body was found. They may not investigate it as much, but it wouldn't shut down the investigation. Like I've said earlier, I think their refusal to release records to FM doesn't have anything (or very little) to do w. MM, and it's more likely in the process of following up leads/investigating her disappearance, LE discovered some sort of unrelated criminal activity, and for that reason was keeping the records sealed...so as not to compromise that particular investigation. JMO of course.

 

[carpanthers]

Whenever I hear about police-led searches in the white mountains along the hiking trails to try and locate Maura, then I will believe that my theory has been properly looked into.

But that has never taken place and won't take place.

Unless a person can be traced to a certain area that they went missing in the mountains, police will not do a search because its too dangerous.

That is my whole point.

The lead investigator of this case has stated that people go missing in the mountains all the time. He didn't follow that up with and we do everything in our power to locate them.

An adult has the right to disappear.

I don't think that was good enough of an answer for fred and Maura's family.

they wanted police to take a more pro-active response. Using the media to put pressure on police, hint to the locals that there was a serial killer loose among them were all techniques used (IMO) to force the police to do more than what they were doing.

A case of someone going missing on their own power quickly turns into the crime of the century, and it's all based on manipulations.

No doubt Fred has said some untruths to the media and no doubt police are puzzled by Fred and most of Maura's family.
They have basically said as much.

But if you think police swat team (any second) are about to reign down on someone like Sara Alfieri's house or Kate's because of some big conspiracy, then I would have to say that it aint happening.

if this case is ever going to be solved it is going to come down to dumb luck. Somebody stumbling on a bone or a backpack, IMO.

And we can't solve that on our end conversating through message boards.

This case is still very interesting and there are still details that would be great to learn about.

But as far as finding Maura, I have to agree with Fred. That needed to take place during those first 24 hours when she was still within grasp of being helped.

Again, I have no idea to whom you are attributing this. Who said that the police were coming after Sara and Kate? Who said conspiracy? All that had to happen was that Kate and Sara lied to police at the very beginning of this investigation, when they may have suspected that Maura was missing of her own accord, and then came clean soon after. According to the Globe, one of them did lie, and claimed she did it to protect Maura. I see no reason that the police would go after Sara and Kate today if they had quickly admitted that there was no party. And why would they tell us, the public? That won't help us find her.

The only thing I am accusing Sara and Kate of is being a good friend to Maura. I think there is a very strong possibility that they originally lied to the police to protect her, and then recanted this when they realized that she was in serious danger and not just hiding from DUI charges. I'm not accusing them of any immorality or of being liars. I am saying that her close friends would probably want to protect her, especially if they thought she was just hiding from a DUI. They were just college girls who may have told a fib to the police because of genuine interest in their friend's well-being (according to the Globe, one of them did). Again, we don't know that Sara and Kate haven't recanted the original statements to the police, and there would be no purpose for the police to tell us this information. We do know that they have not made these statements in a long, long time. I even specifically said on this board that I didn't think anybody should harass Kate and Sara about this, and that I didn't think they owed us, the public, an explanation.

You say yourself that police have basically said they are puzzled by Fred and most of Maura's family. I agree with law enforcement that they are puzzling. If law enforcement is suspicious, why shouldn't we be? He lies on the record about material facts regarding the night of the Hadley crash. Fred's lies in the interview aren't designed to make it look like Maura is not suicidal. If anything, he fans the flames of her potential instability, offering us the following for us to consider about Maura's state of mind:
1. Even though Officer Ruddock didn't feel the need to arrest her for drunk driving, Fred told her that she was lucky she didn't get a DUI.
2. He tells us that Maura was making whimpering sounds in the car.
3. He tells us that Maura said "this is the wors[t]"
4. He tells us Maura was feeling bad because she let him down.
5. He tells us that she slumped her way into the dorm.

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

It's fine by me if you want to declare the case unresolvable without strokes of luck. But I still want to talk about this case, and other people do too. If you are done exploring your theories and are confident declaring there is nothing to be found, then what's the harm in going down other avenues?

 

[scoops]

Again, I have no idea to whom you are attributing this. Who said that the police were coming after Sara and Kate? Who said conspiracy? All that had to happen was that Kate and Sara lied to police at the very beginning of this investigation, when they may have suspected that Maura was missing of her own accord, and then came clean soon after. According to the Globe, one of them did lie, and claimed she did it to protect Maura. I see no reason that the police would go after Sara and Kate today if they had quickly admitted that there was no party. And why would they tell us, the public? That won't help us find her.

The only thing I am accusing Sara and Kate of is being a good friend to Maura. I think there is a very strong possibility that they originally lied to the police to protect her, and then recanted this when they realized that she was in serious danger and not just hiding from DUI charges. I'm not accusing them of any immorality or of being liars. I am saying that her close friends would probably want to protect her, especially if they thought she was just hiding from a DUI. They were just college girls who may have told a fib to the police because of genuine interest in their friend's well-being (according to the Globe, one of them did). Again, we don't know that Sara and Kate haven't recanted the original statements to the police, and there would be no purpose for the police to tell us this information. We do know that they have not made these statements in a long, long time. I even specifically said on this board that I didn't think anybody should harass Kate and Sara about this, and that I didn't think they owed us, the public, an explanation.

You say yourself that police have basically said they are puzzled by Fred and most of Maura's family. I agree with law enforcement that they are puzzling. If law enforcement is suspicious, why shouldn't we be? He lies on the record about material facts regarding the night of the Hadley crash. Fred's lies in the interview aren't designed to make it look like Maura is not suicidal. If anything, he fans the flames of her potential instability, offering us the following for us to consider about Maura's state of mind:
1. Even though Officer Ruddock didn't feel the need to arrest her for drunk driving, Fred told her that she was lucky she didn't get a DUI.
2. He tells us that Maura was making whimpering sounds in the car.
3. He tells us that Maura said "this is the wors[t]"
4. He tells us Maura was feeling bad because she let him down.
5. He tells us that she slumped her way into the dorm.

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

It's fine by me if you want to declare the case unresolvable without strokes of luck. But I still want to talk about this case, and other people do too. If you are done exploring your theories and are confident declaring there is nothing to be found, then what's the harm in going down other avenues?

there is no harm and discussing this case and looking at various theories.

I just can't get on board with some of the theories mentioned, because IMO, they were theories that were brought into the case under false pretenses and not developed by naturally looking at evidence and seeing where it takes you.

It's odd that the very same people that are screaming about how fred was deceptive about that Saturday night, are the same people that buy into this local dirtbag theory.

Guess what, Police didn't come up with that theory, I didn't come up with that theory, the evidence never has supported that theory. It was fred that introduced that theory and many seem to fall hook, line and sinker for it.

Same with Maura's room being not unpacked from winter break yet.

that is false. the evidence doesn't at all support that, yet because fred and his family introduced it (to defend against Maura not being happy go-lucky) everyone wants to spend months arguing against theories such as suicide because (from what they read) Maura may have not just had enough time to unpack yet and that explains her dorm being left the way it was.

There are tons of examples of this kind of thing.

And on one hand, you want me to believe that Fred is lying about everything, but much of the stuff that comes out was from Fred himself or family spokespeople. So isn't that a little contradictory.


Maura didn't take her own life because she was in a very happy relationship with Billy
Maura's room left the way it was (to include a note on top of her boxes) was simply a misunderstanding, Maura just didn't have enough time (2 weeks) to move boxes from her bed onto the floor. (Get real!)
Maura just happened to have a book about dying in the white mountains at the very same time she went missing in the white mountains. Nothing to see here, lots of people carry books with them that glorify survival attempts in impossible situations that end in tragedy to the very same place they disappear off the face of the earth from.

SO which is it.

Do we believe evidence and follow what is known or do we pick and choose statements from fred and family (as an example) and determine that in one instance he is completely lying (the Saturday get-together)

But about everything else, Maura's dorm room, Maura's relationship status, those things definitely point towards Maura not wanting to harm herself because fred and family said so to the media.

 

[carpanthers]

I also want to make very clear that I am not accusing Fred Murray of killing Maura. I am saying that I don't think we can eliminate him as the driver of the Corolla. I think it's odd that for all the speculation and conjecture we participate in here, it's somehow out of bounds to talk about Fred Murray lying in a police interview.

Plenty of people have faced intense scrutiny and criticism in this case: Butch Atwood, Rick Forcier, Officer Ruddock, all of the investigating police officers, almost everyone who lived in the area of the crash, people who happen to look like Maura, people who dated Maura, people who were friends with Maura, people who one time typed her shopping card number into a Stop and Shop database, and the dog handler who used her gloves instead of some theoretical better item. Why is it unreasonable to raise conjecture about the one person that we actually know lied on the record? And I'm not even suggesting he killed her, which is better treatment than Butch Atwood and Rick Forcier got. Fred is willing to accuse "local dirtbags" of murdering her without a scrap of evidence. He has basically never met a police officer he liked, and accuses them of incompetency on a regular basis. Why shouldn't we ask questions about Fred Murray? He's the one who lied to police. He's the one willing to accuse everyone under the sun of wrong doing. He's the one whose statements don't make any sense. His lies are not useful in proving that Maura was suicidal, and that is not his motive for telling them. He lies about material facts to the case, and his comments about her mental state make her seem more unstable, not less.

I would be suspicious of literally anybody who lied in a police interview regarding a missing person, especially a person who then refused to speak to other departments about this case for two years, and then finally showed up with two lawyers. I wonder what he told them, if anything, in this interview with lawyers present. He is her father, and I see no reason to simply dismiss the fact that he lied to police about his daughter's missing persons case.

 

[gnomony]

Just want to say that I've been following this discussion for years and have had to wade through a lot of crap, but I really appreciate the level of engagement in these recent postings and the level of civility among posters who disagree with each other. I especially like the ideas (just ideas) that FM could actually have been driving or riding in the car that got into the first accident, or that he might have been sleeping out in the parking lot, which would have been the real reason MM had to drive back to the motel. Those ideas are new to me -- and intriguing. It's been a long while since I've read anything really new on this thread. Thank you to all!