I could be wrong but I think Fireweed's point of view is that your theory is no more relevant than anyone else's theory, because it's based off the same information, which is available to everyone, and can be interpreted in different ways all of which have pros and cons. She can speak for herself though.
The inactivity by the police though means nothing. The case is 12 years old and it's more common than not that the older a case gets the more inactive it becomes.
The information you provide is not newly discovered information. Their publicized articles that can be interpreted different ways. Maura's room being packed could mean a lot of things. The student said it "looked" like she was never coming back, she didn't say "Maura wasn't coming back" or "Maura was packed because she was leaving Amherst".
Sharon Rausch has stated Maura and Billy had previous relationship issues that had been resolved. A note written 6 months prior to Maura's disappearance doesn't carry the same impact as a more RECENT note written 2 days prior to her disappearance.
Fred Murray to the best of my knowledge early on believed she had been abducted and if that's the case it could explain referencing Maura in past tense.
In my opinion your spinning the Murray's into deceptive people by the way in which you've responded to some posts.
The information out there on Maura is all the same. You interpret it as suicide, I interpret it as she likely died from hypothermia, and James Renner interprets it as she ran off to start a new life. Every theory has pros and cons and the different theories are based off the same information. So your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.
(modsnip)
I have no clue what John Smith's theory is other than she hit a snowbank and not a tree and because of that something notorious happened.
Tim and Lance I believe have good intentions but they've gotten simple facts, easily verified in police documents wrong. I think their realizing how difficult this case is and how little there is to go on because they've decreased the amount of vlogs they do and they have silly people (not you) on their show.
Also it's not uncommon to read a post here in websleuths of someone who appeared on an episode of a show like Disappeared and be upset because their comments were taken out of context or portrayed inaccurately.
** Part 2 **
I had to go pick up my kid..
******
It's also in someways unfair to draw conclusions from comments made by the police and those of family members. A family member is going to speak in more of a conversational manner and will include opinions and the police are trained to stick to the facts and not draw conclusions that can't be supported or released to the public. They can also add to the confusion because sometimes their comments can be so vague they can be taken in different ways. For ie. Cecil Smith isn't going to state an opinion that she died of hypothermia, and Lt. Scarinza state his opinion of something completely opposite, and another officer making a comment of somewhere in between. Their narrative is going to be relatively consistent.
The other issue is because information can be interpreted in different ways people are going to make inferences based on their own experiences. For ie. I've seen it written all over the place, by people not in the know, that Maura had bulimia, when to the best of my knowledge there is no factual information that states she bulimic. These people will then project their experiences with bulimia onto Maura's actions.
For ie. I have generalized anxiety disorder and when it's gotten out of hand I've done some very impulsive things. I once impulsively cancelled my airline reservation only to re-book it a day later and pay a $200.00 penalty. So I could look at Maura's life and her actions draw a conclusion she had anxiety, like me, impulsively packed up her room in a huff and would've comeback later and unpack had she returned. Yet there is no factual information she had anxiety, but her actions appear to be related to anxiety therefore she must have anxiety or bulimia or whatever.
The other issue is logical vs illogical. It's not uncommon to see people refer to Maura as illogical, but then try to place logical thought into her actions. If people want to determine she was illogical then there is no way to determine when she's being logical or when she's being illogical and basing her actions on logical thought would.. well.. be illogical!
One big exception I have with what you are saying here is that I don't personally spend a lot of time trying to get into Maura's head and understand her actions (whether they were spontaneous, out-of-character, momentarily lapses of judgement etc. on and on and on) I knew that getting to the bottom of a case with so much misinformation, that trying to get in anyone's head is only going to make matters worse.
But I can follow the actions of people and see how they respond, see how consistent they remain over the years, see where misinformation originates (that's a big one) and on and on and on.
I was a professional journalist for 14 years and before that I was in a highly sensitive combat-ready unit of the Air Force that often had to deal with the media.
I wrote my final college paper on the conflict between the media's right to know something and the right of military/law enforcement to protect sensitive information. It was nominated (although I never did) to become published
I think I am a little aware of how police interactions with the media go and being on the other side of the fence, I have learned that reporters will make mistakes, especially in stories they write that have developing add-ons over the years, because it's easy to loop old information time and time again, get sloppy and make a mistake in wording.
But the biggest lesson I learned on the media side, is that if you want to get to truth, read past the reporters paragraphs and go right to the quotes.
Now you have to keep context in mind when reading quotes, but reporters rarely ever get quotes wrong, at least the reporters that maintain employment.
I also don't recall ever saying my research into this case was exclusive and no one else had access to it. But I could be wrong.