NH NH - Maura Murray, 21, Haverhill, 9 Feb 2004 - #12

[BillNH]

So what does everyone think about the two new sightings on Renner's blog?

I think the Florida one is a longshot. We all could surely recognize her as she looked 11 or more years ago, but now? Not so sure. A weight change, or even a hairstyle change would make her look very different and with the exception of her plump cheeks and dimples, she has very average looks. I am certainly not ruling it out, but as I said, a longshot.

The other sighting is interesting personally as I was just in Pittsburg, on Back Lake a few days before the post. Probably unremarkable in that respect to everyone except me. As for the actual sighting, I think it has some merit. People think Woodsville is backwoods North Country NH, Pittsburg makes Woodsville seem like a thriving metropolis in comparison. I have no doubt that word of a missing girl from 3 hours south was not big news up there so they would have had no idea who this girl possibly was. I have friends that have a place on one of the lakes and they say that people along route 3 have had cable for some time but most of the people on roads around the lakes only have a dish or must access their dish through DSL service and a notebook. And that's just the ones who are there in winter. A good portion of the population in winter is snowmobilers renting someones summer home. So, for me its believable. I wish we had more details, I hope he does. I know both sightings fit very snugly with James' theory but as skeptical as many are, he very well may be correct.

 

[Fireweed]

I hope his sightings are legit. I would have know a lot more detail before I could really comment one way or another.

 

[leilarose68]

I'm curious... has anyone who knows Maura personally ever posted here? Former classmate or something?

 

[Vivette]

I have been busy reading a loooooot of the posts about Maura, but I am still confused about one thing.

It's about her school books, and how she wouldn't have intended to kill herself because she brought those. Or that she just had them in her car and never took em out about because those classes took place somewhere else?

But if I remember correctly, I thought she didn't really drive her car anymore? Could be that I'm mistaken and read about this in a thread about someone else... But I thought it was Maura.

 

[scoops]

I have been busy reading a loooooot of the posts about Maura, but I am still confused about one thing.

It's about her school books, and how she wouldn't have intended to kill herself because she brought those. Or that she just had them in her car and never took em out about because those classes took place somewhere else?

But if I remember correctly, I thought she didn't really drive her car anymore? Could be that I'm mistaken and read about this in a thread about someone else... But I thought it was Maura.

No you are correct.

Two of Maura's "school books" were found in her car along with one tablet of paper (notebook).

Family right away pointed to those to show proof that Maura wasn't suicidal (because why would someone suicidal go to the trouble to bring their "school books" with them if they had no intentions of being in school or alive anymore.

The ironic thing about those is that very few people (myself excluded) have ever believed that Maura took her own life, yet family introduced this very early on as a defense to something not very many people were even challenging to begin with (that Maura may have taken her own life). It always stood out as a red flag to me (that family was so insistent on letting this nugget out to the public who had no way of knowing what Maura brought with her and were mostly convinced that like the family had been telling the public, Maura was abducted.

One of those books was a nursing reference guide (a huge book) that I personally don't believe she would carry around with her all of the time.


Any way you slice it.

Maura is believed to have taken off with her book bag, which if in fact that is what happened and the bag did contain those books, then she removed them prior to leaving her car.

My guess would be, she had no use for the books anymore, but had some use for the book bag/ backpack.

 

[Fireweed]

I have been busy reading a loooooot of the posts about Maura, but I am still confused about one thing.

It's about her school books, and how she wouldn't have intended to kill herself because she brought those. Or that she just had them in her car and never took em out about because those classes took place somewhere else?

But if I remember correctly, I thought she didn't really drive her car anymore? Could be that I'm mistaken and read about this in a thread about someone else... But I thought it was Maura.

I personally think that she just had them stored in her car, as from what I have read, they were mainly those big reference books. The family uses it as proof that Maura planned on returning to school, but to me it is weak evidence. Well, my own conclusion is that even if Maura was in some way planning on returning to school, the fact that she was willing to take a week off and lie about a death in the family in order to do so, is good enough evidence for me that her mind was not on school at all.

 

[Murkywaters]

[video=youtube;KSImUC77S70]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSImUC77S70[/video]
This is a segment on Maura on 20/20. I haven't seen this one before.

 

[Lolacat]

Hmmmm, interesting that Sharon says in this interview that police believed Maura had run away to start a new life and told her, "she's 21 and she has that right". I wonder if this is why police don't access her social security records- presumably to access that info they'd have to have evidence of some kind of foul play?

 

[scoops]

Hmmmm, interesting that Sharon says in this interview that police believed Maura had run away to start a new life and told her, "she's 21 and she has that right". I wonder if this is why police don't access her social security records- presumably to access that info they'd have to have evidence of some kind of foul play?

that is the standard immediate answer police give every family who come to the police looking for help in finding their young adult missing loved one.

It's short for saying, we don't really have the time and resources to spend looking for someone that could've very well freely chosen to go missing on their own accord.

Unless there is evidence, that true foul play is involved, police are leery to get too involved in these kind of cases.

So ... enter a "Local dirt-bag", enter a rusty knife, enter a blood-stained carpet in an A-frame house and apply tons of pressure on the police to the media ... and all of a sudden you can force the police to get more involved whether they want to or not even if none of that noise means that the probability of foul play increased or not or is even real

 

[wendybtn]

I have been interested in the Maura Murray case since I saw her "Disappeared" episode. I have not read through all the threads here on websleuths. But IMHO, I always assumed she was a closet alcoholic that was going to go off to a cabin for one last binge, then detox herself before returning to school. When she had another car accident, she was so mortified of her family finding out, she ran. From there, she either met with foul play (less likely) or froze to death in remote terrain with few remains left to find at this point. I did not know her family mentioned possible suicide. I never thought that was her intent. She gave a story to cover her being gone for 11 days max, including weekends. I am sure I am not the first to come up with this theory. I have just never expressed it out loud, but this is what I have always thought.

 

[Fireweed]

Hmmmm, interesting that Sharon says in this interview that police believed Maura had run away to start a new life and told her, "she's 21 and she has that right". I wonder if this is why police don't access her social security records- presumably to access that info they'd have to have evidence of some kind of foul play?

As far as I know, the police cannot do that. I know it sounds odd. Brandi Stahr worked under her social security number in Kentucky for seven years. Meanwhile, the police had interrogated a few suspects with respect to her "murder." This is one of the main reasons that I get into debates here on the board with people who think that if Maura were using her social security number, that she would be found by now. LE cannot search federal tax records, which is the is the main place a SSN would be used.

Brandi Stahr was not a mastermind. She left home one day, went to Kentucky and got a job working at Sam's Club. She had friends and lived with roommates. She worked under her social security number but did not get a driver's license or put bills in her name. I want to make this very clear: in the age of the internet a woman who was a "high profile" missing person and who was even presumed murdered, went home every day and had conversations with two young people who used the internet. It took seven years before someone came into her store and recognized her. Imagine if that one person had not seen her that day. Would she still be missing?

 

[fasteddy8170]

Have any of you listened to this yet?

[video=youtube;8r1xPdHXFqo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1xPdHXFqo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1xPdHXFqo[/video]

There were a couple things that stuck out to me after listening to this first episode--and I thought I knew everything there was to know about Maura's disappearance.

First, the guy who came upon Maura at her did not originally identify Maura when he first saw a picture of her. He didn't believe it was Maura until later, probably after some police prodding.

Second, the woman who could see the car right after the accident stated she saw more than one person at Maura's car right after the accident. Granted, maybe the woman saw both Maura and the man who came upon the wreck. But what if that's not the case? What if what the woman saw wasn't that? What if she saw two different people at the car?

What I'm saying is, is it possible Maura wasn't driving her car? Is it possible she wasn't there at all? Anybody who's followed the case knows how the people closest to Maura--including a couple of her closest friends--have been very tight-lipped about the night of her disappearance. Could it be the car wreck was nothing but a diversion? I wonder.

 

[Fireweed]

Have any of you listened to this yet?

[video=youtube;8r1xPdHXFqo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1xPdHXFqo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1xPdHXFqo[/video]

There were a couple things that stuck out to me after listening to this first episode--and I thought I knew everything there was to know about Maura's disappearance.

First, the guy who came upon Maura at her did not originally identify Maura when he first saw a picture of her. He didn't believe it was Maura until later, probably after some police prodding.

Second, the woman who could see the car right after the accident stated she saw more than one person at Maura's car right after the accident. Granted, maybe the woman saw both Maura and the man who came upon the wreck. But what if that's not the case? What if what the woman saw wasn't that? What if she saw two different people at the car?

What I'm saying is, is it possible Maura wasn't driving her car? Is it possible she wasn't there at all? Anybody who's followed the case knows how the people closest to Maura--including a couple of her closest friends--have been very tight-lipped about the night of her disappearance. Could it be the car wreck was nothing but a diversion? I wonder.

Yeah it was interesting. I think the guys behind this podcast have gotten some good information, but they presented it in an odd way. They had information which seemed to contradict a lot of the information we already had but then they would not explain it. Like, they claim Maura took $360 out of the ATM that day, which is not the $280 sum I have always seen and yet they did not explain how they got that information.

As to there being two people in the car, I suppose that is possible. Also, I am not sure Butch Atwood was really the most reliable witness as to who was the driver of the car. This happened at night from a bit of a distance and Maura was someone Butch had never seen before. He had just gotten off work and he had health issues to boot. At the time he was not witnessing a murder or anything, but rather a minor accident. Was he really paying all that good of attention to details? Probably not.

 

[Vox_Veritas_JT]

Have any of you listened to this yet?

[video=youtube;8r1xPdHXFqo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1xPdHXFqo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1xPdHXFqo[/video]

There were a couple things that stuck out to me after listening to this first episode--and I thought I knew everything there was to know about Maura's disappearance.

First, the guy who came upon Maura at her did not originally identify Maura when he first saw a picture of her. He didn't believe it was Maura until later, probably after some police prodding.

Second, the woman who could see the car right after the accident stated she saw more than one person at Maura's car right after the accident. Granted, maybe the woman saw both Maura and the man who came upon the wreck. But what if that's not the case? What if what the woman saw wasn't that? What if she saw two different people at the car?

What I'm saying is, is it possible Maura wasn't driving her car? Is it possible she wasn't there at all? Anybody who's followed the case knows how the people closest to Maura--including a couple of her closest friends--have been very tight-lipped about the night of her disappearance. Could it be the car wreck was nothing but a diversion? I wonder

.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It makes some challenges to what many of us have taken to be facts of the case.

If we still believe it was Maura behind the wheel of the now abandoned car then for me her motive in drinking becomes key. I cannot be flip on this issue, I think its due to the amount of alcohol and the fact she was drinking it in the car while driving. With the red wine decorating the inside of the auto-mobile was Maura drinking to celebrate or was she drinking to forget? Considering the amount of alcohol purchased was Maura drinking in anticipation of others or purely to (heavily) medicate? I suppose this question becomes key when one considers if Maura was suicidal or not.

Perhaps I dwell too much on these details but I just always felt that if the considerable amount of alcohol and the rag in the exhaust could be definitively explained (impossible without Maura I guess) then we would be pointing in the right direction. I should add that, like some other sleuths, Fred Murray's explanation of the exhaust rag always seemed fishy to me, actually closer to absurd.

Incidentally is anyone else disappointed with the title of the James Renner book about this case? 'True Crime Addict' seems at best a somewhat trivial title, at worst holds trashy connotations. Although Rennner's work on the case has led down a fair few digressive cul-de-sacs his work has been honourable and in some cases highly valuable. The book deserves a better title, one that at least indicates and publicizes Maura Murray's case.

 

[Fireweed]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It makes some challenges to what many of us have taken to be facts of the case.

If we still believe it was Maura behind the wheel of the now abandoned car then for me her motive in drinking becomes key. I cannot be flip on this issue, I think its due to the amount of alcohol and the fact she was drinking it in the car while driving. With the red wine decorating the inside of the auto-mobile was Maura drinking to celebrate or was she drinking to forget? Considering the amount of alcohol purchased was Maura drinking in anticipation of others or purely to (heavily) medicate? I suppose this question becomes key when one considers if Maura was suicidal or not.

Perhaps I dwell too much on these details but I just always felt that if the considerable amount of alcohol and the rag in the exhaust could be definitively explained (impossible without Maura I guess) then we would be pointing in the right direction. I should add that, like some other sleuths, Fred Murray's explanation of the exhaust rag always seemed fishy to me, actually closer to absurd.

That is one more thing that was sort of irritating about this podcast. I have always read that FM told the police that he told Maura to put the rag up there. I just assumed that information was the result of a question asked by LE, yet the guys on this podcast are adamant that it was something FM volunteered on his own.

Mild rant here: It has been years since Renner first started the blog, and now these guys have a documentary coming out in "sometime in 2016". You know, it is just getting on my every last nerve to hear and read so much contradictory information, the source of which is not going to be revealed yet. Maybe these guys just need a middle finger as their logo for their documentary which they started promoting well over a year ago and which has no clear release date. I mean, I understand that books and documentaries take time, but here we have now more people who claim to have different information yet they naturally give no sources or explanations. It's obnoxious. I would really like it if for once someone who is working on this case would either shut up entirely or back up what they are saying with an explanation of its origin.

Maybe the guys from the podcast could come here and offer an explanation as to why they think that they deserve credibility with absolutely no explanation as to why.

 

[ZooSleuth]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It makes some challenges to what many of us have taken to be facts of the case.

If we still believe it was Maura behind the wheel of the now abandoned car then for me her motive in drinking becomes key. I cannot be flip on this issue, I think its due to the amount of alcohol and the fact she was drinking it in the car while driving. With the red wine decorating the inside of the auto-mobile was Maura drinking to celebrate or was she drinking to forget? Considering the amount of alcohol purchased was Maura drinking in anticipation of others or purely to (heavily) medicate? I suppose this question becomes key when one considers if Maura was suicidal or not.

Perhaps I dwell too much on these details but I just always felt that if the considerable amount of alcohol and the rag in the exhaust could be definitively explained (impossible without Maura I guess) then we would be pointing in the right direction. I should add that, like some other sleuths, Fred Murray's explanation of the exhaust rag always seemed fishy to me, actually closer to absurd.

Incidentally is anyone else disappointed with the title of the James Renner book about this case? 'True Crime Addict' seems at best a somewhat trivial title, at worst holds trashy connotations. Although Rennner's work on the case has led down a fair few digressive cul-de-sacs his work has been honourable and in some cases highly valuable. The book deserves a better title, one that at least indicates and publicizes Maura Murray's case.

His book is not just about Maura Murray anymore, that's why it's called that. IIRC it's now about Renner's life as an investigator which will include some stuff on Maura's case.

 

[Fireweed]

His book is not just about Maura Murray anymore, that's why it's called that. IIRC it's now about Renner's life as an investigator which will include some stuff on Maura's case.

This is why I don't think he has really dug that much up on this case. I read his other book on Amy Mihaljevic and it was a lot about himself and his investigation. I don't have anything against books like this per se, but it strikes me as being a bit lazy. It is easy to write in the first person about you and what you are doing. It is much harder but produces a much better final product to just write about the event itself. Maybe I am not one to talk since I am not writing the book, but to me a far more interesting book would have Maura's story be the main one (the case that gets it all started so to speak) with other strange missing persons' cases from the North Country supporting the eerie and mysterious quality of that region. There is clearly enough out there to write a really great book on the subject.

Anyway when Renner announced the title of the book and subject matter I knew that he did not have even half the information he pretended to have over the years.

 

[Vox_Veritas_JT]

It is easy to write in the first person about you and what you are doing. It is much harder but produces a much better final product to just write about the event itself. Maybe I am not one to talk since I am not writing the book, but to me a far more interesting book would have Maura's story be the main one (the case that gets it all started so to speak) with other strange missing persons' cases from the North Country supporting the eerie and mysterious quality of that region. There is clearly enough out there to write a really great book on the subject.

Anyway when Renner announced the title of the book and subject matter I knew that he did not have even half the information he pretended to have over the years.

I completely agree with everything you have written here. It has been very disappointing to see the blog go cold and then digress onto tenuously related matters.

His book is not just about Maura Murray anymore, that's why it's called that. IIRC it's now about Renner's life as an investigator which will include some stuff on Maura's case.

And yet initially the book was to be about Maura Murray principally with the sole aim of solving the case. Will the Maura work be bumped to a succession of footnotes next? Perhaps the main focus is now on the creepy guy who stalked Renner on the blog and seemingly IRL.

I guess after following the blog for years I just feel cheated and somewhat frustrated. JMO.

 

[JamesRenner]

His book is not just about Maura Murray anymore, that's why it's called that. IIRC it's now about Renner's life as an investigator which will include some stuff on Maura's case.

Have no fear. The book is 90% about Maura's disappearance. The subtitle will reflect that. There will be a few surprises, I'm sure, but those following the blog clearly know how I lean toward probable solutions. I'm not deliberately holding back any info that might solve the case.

As to why it took so long, there was a lot of research involved. Remember, we didn't know about the credit card stuff, the affair with the track coach, stealing makeup from West Point, etc. It took time to track down records. Then, it takes typically 18 mos to 2 years for a book to make it through editing and arrive on the book shelf. Lawyers have to come through it, etc.

On top of this, I was under contract for another novel that had to come out before this nonfiction book. That book, The Great Forgetting will be published November 10. If you like conspiracies and mysteries, you may like that one as well.

We're ahead of schedule right now on True Crime Addict. I believe we're shooting for March but I will have a firm date and cover to share soon.

In the meantime, I'm shoring up some loose threads. There's more about Alden Olson on my blog today.

 

[Fireweed]

Have no fear. The book is 90% about Maura's disappearance. The subtitle will reflect that. There will be a few surprises, I'm sure, but those following the blog clearly know how I lean toward probable solutions. I'm not deliberately holding back any info that might solve the case.

As to why it took so long, there was a lot of research involved. Remember, we didn't know about the credit card stuff, the affair with the track coach, stealing makeup from West Point, etc. It took time to track down records. Then, it takes typically 18 mos to 2 years for a book to make it through editing and arrive on the book shelf. Lawyers have to come through it, etc.

On top of this, I was under contract for another novel that had to come out before this nonfiction book. That book, The Great Forgetting will be published November 10. If you like conspiracies and mysteries, you may like that one as well.

We're ahead of schedule right now on True Crime Addict. I believe we're shooting for March but I will have a firm date and cover to share soon.

In the meantime, I'm shoring up some loose threads. There's more about Alden Olson on my blog today.

Glad to hear it. I see now that it takes awhile but if you recall correctly, when the blog first started you said that book would be ready in 2013. The complaint is not that we don't understand that books take some time to write, but rather that you are three years beyond the initial time you promised. Then, when the book details are finally released you tell us it is going to be a different book. I have absolutely nothing against you personally and you seem like an intelligent and good man, but I am sure I am not the only one who is feeling like you strung us along this whole time with not much to show for it. It seems that one of the "hooks" of the book will be about this Alden Olson guy harassing you as a way to show that getting too involved in true crime is dangerous. I dunno James, but to me anyway the guy is just an internet creep doing the stuff creeps do. I am sure he has made your life unpleasant on occasion but other than that I simply do not find him to be at all interesting. Again, I will buy the book when it comes out but just from my end (as someone who was on the blog from the start), the release date and the title of the book is a let-down. You must understand that you hinted at much bigger things on your blog over the years.