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

[JamesRenner]

The book was written in 2013 but I was stuck in contractual stuff. Luckily that's given me some time to improve on it. There are 50 some chapters in the book. Alden appears in 3. I knew what book I was writing around 2011. Nothing has changed from that. The focus is still Maura and where she is, now. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Fireweed]

The book was written in 2013 but I was stuck in contractual stuff. Luckily that's given me some time to improve on it. There are 50 some chapters in the book. Alden appears in 3. I knew what book I was writing around 2011. Nothing has changed from that. The focus is still Maura and where she is, now. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I am sure it will be a good book; I am simply pointing out that it is not really the book you promised the blog readers, and that to me at least the book you promised us sounded a lot better.

I do not think you were lying or anything and I recognize that circumstances changes but surely you must be able to see this from the reader's POV. We were promised a book about Maura in 2013. Instead we get a book about you in 2016. It is not really the same thing. And if the book is 90% about Maura then the title ought to reflect that. Look, obviously I can only speak for myself but I find true crime interesting. I do not find people who are interested in true crime interesting.

I really wish you and your publisher would reconsider all this. The original idea for the book was a thousand times more interesting. I have read one of your other books and you are a very talented writer but maybe you are not reaching your full potential. There is a really great true crime book connected to the Maura Murray case and unfortunately I do not see the book you are promoting as being it. I have stuck up for you many times here and I had really high hopes for this book but if it is told form the perspective of your own experience as a true crime aficionado then I am disappointed.

 

[scoops]

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.

I have to remember that they were just grazing over the details of the case in that podcast, but they left out some pretty basic factual information for whatever reason, when trying to be basic about the facts of the case

There was a whole lot more for instance done the night Maura went missing than their description of police investigators just scooping up Maura's car and calling it a night.

Close to a dozen volunteer firemen joined police with the help of the witnesses to include the couple that were eye-balling the accident from their windows -- all out trying to piece together what happened (how the car accident took place) and where the girl went that went missing from the car.

They, in detail describe what the one witness thought she saw looking out her kitchen window, but they rather oddly didn't even mention that this witnesses husband was in a different room viewing out a different window and what he saw didn't matchup with his wife.

They introduce as fact that Fred Murray brought up the rag in the tailpipe, but that contradicts multiple reports and statements, considering the fact that police were allegedly already asking about the rag the same night Maura went missing before they even knew who Fred Murray was.


So I am just a little disappointed that they (the documentary folks) seem to be all about setting the record straight and trying to break this case down in a responsible fact-based way, yet they seem to be engaged in the same sort of things that they accuse others of which just eventually leads to more and more questions and confusion concerning this case

 

[Fireweed]

I have to remember that they were just grazing over the details of the case in that podcast, but they left out some pretty basic factual information for whatever reason, when trying to be basic about the facts of the case

There was a whole lot more for instance done the night Maura went missing than their description of police investigators just scooping up Maura's car and calling it a night.

Close to a dozen volunteer firemen joined police with the help of the witnesses to include the couple that were eye-balling the accident from their windows -- all out trying to piece together what happened (how the car accident took place) and where the girl went that went missing from the car.

They, in detail describe what the one witness thought she saw looking out her kitchen window, but they rather oddly didn't even mention that this witnesses husband was in a different room viewing out a different window and what he saw didn't matchup with his wife.

They introduce as fact that Fred Murray brought up the rag in the tailpipe, but that contradicts multiple reports and statements, considering the fact that police were allegedly already asking about the rag the same night Maura went missing before they even knew who Fred Murray was.


So I am just a little disappointed that they (the documentary folks) seem to be all about setting the record straight and trying to break this case down in a responsible fact-based way, yet they seem to be engaged in the same sort of things that they accuse others of which just eventually leads to more and more questions and confusion concerning this case

I agree. This is my big complaint. They introduced a lot of things that are contradictory to what we already know with no explanation. They need to explain how they got that information. How did they get the figure of $360 from the ATM? Who told them that?

You have already listed some other stuff so no need for me to mention it too but it seems that these guys are just jerking us around. Again, if they are reading this they must get it through their heads that we do not know them and so they do not have any credibility to us. Either they are just getting their facts wrong or they somehow got some information that no one else knows. I am totally confused as to why they would offer no explanation. It's weird.

 

[scoops]

I agree. This is my big complaint. They introduced a lot of things that are contradictory to what we already know with no explanation. They need to explain how they got that information. How did they get the figure of $360 from the ATM? Who told them that?

You have already listed some other stuff so no need for me to mention it too but it seems that these guys are just jerking us around. Again, if they are reading this they must get it through their heads that we do not know them and so they do not have any credibility to us. Either they are just getting their facts wrong or they somehow got some information that no one else knows. I am totally confused as to why they would offer no explanation. It's weird.

I am personally still holding out hope for this documentary as I think these guys are in a position to create some good/fresh attention for this case as well as I believe the same about James Renner's book.

I just hope they aren't done digging, because it seems (just from that first podcast) that they didn't dig too deep when trying to sort out fact from fiction IMO.

 

[takeitfromme412]

I think of Maura's case often. It's my home state (NH). Personally, I feel she met with foul play, though many feel it to be an unpopular theory. I hope that there is closure on her case sooner than later.

 

[Fireweed]

I am personally still holding out hope for this documentary as I think these guys are in a position to create some good/fresh attention for this case as well as I believe the same about James Renner's book.

I just hope they aren't done digging, because it seems (just from that first podcast) that they didn't dig too deep when trying to sort out fact from fiction IMO.

I am holding out hope too; I am merely venting my frustration as to what I see as trashy journalism infecting this case. Too much stuff is put out there by people like Renner and these guys and is left dangling with little or no explanation. It's becoming rather icky and borders on tabloid-style sensationalism. These people are going to have to say where they are getting their information from. No wonder Maura's friends and family want nothing to do with any of this. If Renner et al want to get some real information from them, then maybe instead of letting juicy tidbits (Maura was a *advertiser censored* who went to orgies!) just hang out there for years on end with no explanation as to where the information comes from, they could actually put their sources out there so that we (the audience) can gauge their credibility. This podcast was sort of like the last straw to me. Once more someone has decided to throw some new "facts" out there without giving their basis. I feel like I have been asked to read a dissertation without any footnotes. We ought to be demanding that these new guys offer up some explanations. Until they do, I for one just see them as two jerks exploiting someone else's tragedy. I want people to search for new clues and facts in this case, but they are going to have to show their work so to speak. What started out years ago on Renner's blog as a fresh look at this case and some real hope that Maura could be found has slowly morphed into sleazy gossip.

 

[scoops]

I just got done listening to the second podcast (in buildup for the documentary being done on Maura's case) and I will say that I am excited that these two guys are making the effort to cover multiple angles.

But I wanted to share some things that I think at minimum need to be explored before chasing down rabbit holes that go nowhere.

First and most important:

To my knowledge, it was never established that a phone call upset Maura that Friday morning she was working.

FACT: Maura became upset at work as a dorm monitor sometime after midnight
FACT:Maura's supervisor was asked to go check on Maura which she did shortly before 1 a.m.
FACT:Maura didn't acknowledge the supervisor when first encountered as she stared directly past the supervisor who approached Maura and stood right in front of her as Maura sat frozen for a period of time before breaking down crying. Maura's cell phone was sitting on the desk, but not being used at this time as verified by the supervisor.

FACT: Shortly after Maura went missing, the supervisor gave a written disposition to the police and described in that statement that when she asked Maura what was wrong that Friday morning during Maura's shift, Maura replied "My Sister"

FACT: Police, who were telling the media (very early on) they were searching for the source of what caused Maura to become upset, keyed in on the statement from the supervisor saying "My sister" while also discovering that Maura talked to her sister Kathleen that night leading police to go on record saying they found the source of what caused Maura to become upset that night at work and that was a phone call.

FACT: Media ran with a phone call at work caused Maura to become upset.

FACT:the phone call between Maura and her sister was from precisely 10:10 p.m. to 10:38 p.m., Maura became upset at work around 12:45 a.m. (Doesn't jibe at all and is pure speculation to say this call is what upset her)

Another fact and maybe just a tidbit to this case, but rather interesting one:

One block over from where Maura was working that night at approximately 12:20 a.m., Petrit Vasi was found lying in the road unconscious after being struck by a car from a hit and run driver. He had presumably been laying there for several minutes before police responded.

FACT: that has never been discussed publically by law enforcement:
Maura talked vie her cell phone to her boyfriend Billy Rausch from 12:07 a.m. to 12:14 a.m.
Was Maura on break duing this cell phone call? Could she have been chatting and driving at this time?
Why has police or family for that matter never brought up this boyfriend-girlfriend phone call interaction at this pretty pivotal time?
Why has family allowed a 10 o clock phone call between Maura and her sister to stand as the point of confusion for police and the public for all these years, when they know that phone call absolutely is not what upset Maura?

 

[scoops]

Just some other notes (not as significant likely but still) after listening to that podcast.

--Fred was staying in a hotel in the town over from Amherst (Hadley, Mass) that Saturday night. It's about a 7-9 minute drive to Maura's dorm (if I recall).

----Maura's friend kate who went to the pub with Maura and her father that Saturday night, was a tag-along guest to the dorm party. So it's very likely, she did not know many people, if anyone at that party other than Maura.

the party was at Maura's work friend's dorm Sara Alfieri. kate was friends with Maura through track, a whole separate group of friends.

Sara has gone on record before to talk about Maura. The consensus from that dorm party that Saturday night was that Maura kept mumbling that she had this desire to return her father's rental car back to him that night and her friends thought that was very odd. How Maura ended up doing it without her friend's intervention was two-fold. First, Maura's friend Sara passed out early and was asleep at the time Maura left the dorm party.

Maura lied to her friend kate and assured kate she was going to wait until morning to return the car like a sane person, but Maura went ahead and took the car back to the hotel anyway.

 

[scoops]

and finally,

according to fred, he was actually residing in Shelton Connecticut at the time he swooped in to visit his daughter that Saturday to look for cars.

Fred was on contract as a Radiologist through a hospital in Connecticut for several months and he was staying in one of those extended suites hotels.

According to fred, they did select a car for Maura that Saturday, a 2000 or 2001 geo prizm (I am going off memory) but were going to wait until the following weekend to complete the purchase.

 

[Fireweed]

Thank you Scoops. I listened to podcast and noticed these issues as well. I for one am of the opinion that there was no "upsetting phone call" at all, but of course that is just my own theory, based upon Maura's subsequent actions. Also as you point out, the podcast guys got it wrong (as far as I know) about where Fred was coming from that weekend.

Meh, well every podcast on Maura I have listened to has been wrong about several key points, or has taken something for fact that has not been proven (i.e. the upsetting phone call). I did have somewhat higher hopes for these guys since they are making a documentary. I just assumed that they would be more careful about presenting information, but now I see they are just like everyone else who has looked into this case in that they don't really go very deep into the "facts" to see if they are true or not.

Two things that I have seen no proof for that they take as fact: 1. the upsetting phone call and 2. the dorm party.

 

[McSpy]

I am holding out hope too; I am merely venting my frustration as to what I see as trashy journalism infecting this case. Too much stuff is put out there by people like Renner and these guys and is left dangling with little or no explanation. It's becoming rather icky and borders on tabloid-style sensationalism. These people are going to have to say where they are getting their information from. No wonder Maura's friends and family want nothing to do with any of this. If Renner et al want to get some real information from them, then maybe instead of letting juicy tidbits (Maura was a *advertiser censored* who went to orgies!) just hang out there for years on end with no explanation as to where the information comes from, they could actually put their sources out there so that we (the audience) can gauge their credibility. This podcast was sort of like the last straw to me. Once more someone has decided to throw some new "facts" out there without giving their basis. I feel like I have been asked to read a dissertation without any footnotes. We ought to be demanding that these new guys offer up some explanations. Until they do, I for one just see them as two jerks exploiting someone else's tragedy. I want people to search for new clues and facts in this case, but they are going to have to show their work so to speak. What started out years ago on Renner's blog as a fresh look at this case and some real hope that Maura could be found has slowly morphed into sleazy gossip.

I totally agree with your assessment. Why would the family talk to him when he trashes Maura? When the family doesn't talk to him, he trashes them too! I also don't agree with his theory about a tandem driver/friend/lover scenario. I think she drove to NH alone and told no one of her plans. For some reason he can't fathom the idea that a woman would have the nerve to drive up there alone. Ugh.

 

[Fireweed]

I totally agree with your assessment. Why would the family talk to him when he trashes Maura? When the family doesn't talk to him, he trashes them too! I also don't agree with his theory about a tandem driver/friend/lover scenario. I think she drove to NH alone and told no one of her plans. For some reason he can't fathom the idea that a woman would have the nerve to drive up there alone. Ugh.

I don't think that his intention was to trash anyone. I honestly believe Renner wanted to write a book that looked at the facts from a fresh angle. It just so happened that he puts things up on his blog without naming his sources and often times those "facts" make Maura look bad (they would make anyone look bad). I recall that when the blog first started the date for the book was given at sometime in early 2013 (don't quote me on this exactly). At any rate, it was not going to be long before we got the book and the all the sources and good judge the credibility of what Renner has to say. Well now there will nearly five years from when stuff was put up on the blog and from when the book comes out. I know Renner got sidetracked with another project, but that does not change the fact that so much of his information has been out there in the public with nothing to support it for way too long.

I will give Renner credit for digging up what I consider important facts like the credit card fraud. When I read the track team orgies post though I felt a bit icky about being a supporter of the blog. Now had he offered proof that they were really something Maura did and that one of the guys had a cabin five miles from the crash site, well then I would feel differently about it.

Once he announced that the book was about him and his experiences I had a really bad feeling about the whole thing, and BTW I know Renner defends it but surely he has seen that the overall reaction has been quite negative. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I would not have given him the benefit of the doubt so much had I know that was his angle.

 

[Caffeine]

What an intriguing case. I'm surprised I didn't take the time to read more about it before.

Granted, I haven't really dug deep into this one yet, but it's tough to draw a conclusion here. She's there at the scene of the accident and next minute she's gone.

Going with the simplest explanation possible, I think it's most plausible, and likely, she was taken and killed by a local faux good Samaritan who saw a vulnerable, perhaps drunk, young girl in need.

The Dad seems difficult at times, but I think he's right.

 

[Fireweed]

What an intriguing case. I'm surprised I didn't take the time to read more about it before.

Granted, I haven't really dug deep into this one yet, but it's tough to draw a conclusion here. She's there at the scene of the accident and next minute she's gone.

Going with the simplest explanation possible, I think it's most plausible, and likely, she was taken and killed by a local faux good Samaritan who saw a vulnerable, perhaps drunk, young girl in need.

The Dad seems difficult at times, but I think he's right.

May I ask your reasoning for finding it the most plausible?

 

[scoops]

What an intriguing case. I'm surprised I didn't take the time to read more about it before.

Granted, I haven't really dug deep into this one yet, but it's tough to draw a conclusion here. She's there at the scene of the accident and next minute she's gone.

Going with the simplest explanation possible, I think it's most plausible, and likely, she was taken and killed by a local faux good Samaritan who saw a vulnerable, perhaps drunk, young girl in need.

The Dad seems difficult at times, but I think he's right.

This case will definitely get you thinking, that is for sure.


There are a ton of possible theories as to what happened to Maura.

I would typically agree with you that a young women going missing after her car breaks down or wrecks would be highly vulnerable to a predator, but in pitch dark near the entrance of a forest, a good Samaritan isn't going to know whom he/she is stopping to lend assistance too. So this good Samaritan would have to just get lucky.

I still standby the theory that Maura took her own life.

Regardless of my theory, Maura went missing in the very same place she was planning to have her honeymoon, so I don't think her ending up in the white mountains was random, what happened to her after her wreck is the question that remains to be answered.

 

[Fireweed]

I definitely agree with Scoops that Maura did not wind up there at random. She was going up there for a good reason (to her at least). I think this is where a lot of people are intrigued by this case and where a lot of people are also completely "thrown" by this case. Let's say that Maura lived in the area and this was her normal route. Her life had been pretty routine up until this point and she did not have any real problems. And let's say that Maura's car was just found by someone and that no one saw her after the accident. In that case then yes I would agree that the abduction theory was the best one. But that isn't what happened here at all, and that is why I at least see abduction as a viable theory but far from the most likely thing to have happened to Maura.

 

[Caffeine]

I lean towards abduction and murder by a local because, to me, it seems to be a more logical chain of events in my mind.

She crashes, maybe drunk, maybe not. Immediately declines police involvement. Perhaps then yet another person arrives and offers help. Maybe he's got a house down the road, maybe a way to tow her car back to his place and get it off the road. Most importantly maybe he can do it quickly before cops arrive.

One thing that seems telling to me is the fact she locked her doors. To me that implies, she is going to be gone for some period of time, but perhaps is concerned with items inside and wishes to return to them, or to deter unknown people from looking inside maybe, perhaps initial witnesses.

Even if cops did arrive, if she wasn't present, there would be no sobriety test for her. In her mind, maybe a third party "moving" the car for her would be her best bet and not lead to drunken driving suspicions.

There was a great deal of booze inside the car, perhaps an open beverage. That along with the locked doors seem to jump out at me. Along with the mention of potentially several other cars passing at the time.

Of course, IMO.

 

[Fireweed]

I guess what I am wondering is what you think the odds are that the worst type of human predator what happen upon Maura at that moment.

 

[takeitfromme412]

There are so many scenarios that could have happened when she disappeared. I respect each and every one of you WS members who brainstorm all your theories, whether we agree on each other's theories or not. Maura has been missing for 11 years. That is a long time. Personally, if she is ok I want it to be known she is just fine. If she took her own life and her remains are just yet to be found I want to see them found so her loved ones have closure. If she fell victim to foul play again I want her found and suspects investigated and closure to the case.
My own feeling on this is she was having one super hell of a day, done with this crap I'm heading north for a while, the accident happened, her plan derailed and her really bad day got way worse when someone either took advantage of her just being an opportunity or she willingly went with them hoping to get her car out of there and be on her way..... she ended up not being able to get back to the car to be on her way.... end of story so far sadly.... I really think its foul play, I have had that feeling for 11 years and it just won't change. Unless she is found and I am proved wrong.