I take your word for it. Thanks for clearing that up.armywife210 said:It wasn't until two days ago that I was even asked to speak for the family. I haven't lied or hidden information, I haven't really even posted since then until last night. That being said, let's move on and find her.
You are absolutely right as to it being her choice and hers alone. It is also why I am no longer pursuing the willful leaving side of this case. I don't want to find her or cause her to be found if she left willfully as that would violate her privacy. I will still look in on this thread but I am moving along unless or until something indicates foul play. Thanks for reminding us that it's her choice to make.CyberLaw said:How about, if and when Maura wants to "re-surface", and/or contact her family or initiate contact in any way shape for form, we will then give Maura the choice if she wants to return home or not and if she wants "anything" to do with "her loved" ones.
Remember it is what Maura wants, not what her family wants which is important here.
I would be very surprised if anyone in the general public "just happens" to locate Maura.
I wonder if she had a Passport..........in the USA alone it would be akin to locating one gold nugget out of 300 million nuggets spread across the whole country.
Again, I have no doubt that Maura is of the school of thought: Out of site, out of mind when it comes to her "loved ones". They are part of her old life, and are not in her new life.......
Maura's birthday is May 4, 1982. At the time of her disappearance she was 21, just short of her 22nd birthday. Most likely when the particular missing fliers were made it was after her 22nd bday.docwho3 said:One extra little point: The Mauramurray.com website lists her stats this way:
I suppose that means she was 22 when she disappeared in case anyone wondered.
Could be or maybe someone just rounded up the age a few days. Either way its nice to know. I think what threw me was that many missing person sites have an "age at time of disappearance" so I got used to reading the age as that stat.armywife210 said:Maura's birthday is May 4, 1982. At the time of her disappearance she was 21, just short of her 22nd birthday. Most likely when the particular missing fliers were made it was after her 22nd bday.
armywife210 said:I dont think that anyone will argue with that. However, lets keep in mind that the "facts" about her ditching her family and boyfriend are speculation. The "facts" about her packing up her room are speculation. "facts" about her drinking that day are speculation. With 280 dollars in an account, any amount of emergency money you take out to bring on a little trip would seem to be draining it. Many of the "facts" that have been stated are purely speculation by some and have no cooberation. Let's not make this out to be one big "fact". We would all love to find that to be true, but this theory is no more proven than foul play.
She didn't clean it out completely, no. There was no other account that anyone has ever known of. She was a full time student, she paid her own way. Her dad was helping her find new transportation but beyond that she took care of herself. She worked part time, but I cannot fathom it being much more than enough to pay for necessities.KatherineQ said:ArmyWife - so she cleaned out her checking account completely? Did she have any other accounts that she left any money in?
I agree with parts of what you said but I also believe an adult has the legal right to willfully leave. However, I wish we could get a law passed requiring them to fill out a paper at the local police office or sherrifs office so that once they left police could produce the paper and save everyone including L.E. so much wasted time and money.KatherineQ said:. . .I know several on the board believe an adult should have no responsibility to at least let their family know that they're leaving for good and don't ever want to be contacted again, but I don't feel that way. In the case of severe abuse, where the parents can be charged with a crime and imprisoned for their treatment of a family member, then okay. You can leave and don't say bye.
Otherwise, if you just leave and never let anyone know where you went, they waste their whole lives searching for you. That's just a stupid, unfair and cruel waste.
And I completely agree with you. And I point out that this sort of behavior is in no way, shape, or form within her personality. She wrote to her grandma every week. She couldn't wait to be married to her boyfriend and have his children. She looked forward to being an Army Wife. Even at West Point there was no shady behavior.KatherineQ said:Taking a fresh perspective on this.
Some things ARE speculation, like what her complete intent was - did she intend to run away for just a week, or for the rest of her life. What isn't speculation is whether she cleaned out her room - she did or she didn't, it's one or the other and her family and the police know which answer is correct. Yes or no. There's no speculation to it.
except for had she packed her belongings, or not unpacked them from Christmas Break. She had only been back a couple of weeks, both of those weekends were extremely busy for her. If it were me, I would just take things out as I was using them until I had time to completely unpack. Her boyfriends mom stated that often times she just unpacked as she needed things. If she took with her what was unpacked, what exactly had she packed? Those closest to her have stated that it didn't look packed to them.
Looking at this, it seems more and more certain that she intended to leave forever, but that's only my perspective.
That's the problem with so many speculating and stating it as truth if they don't know her habits. I am not saying that to be mean, but it is just fact.
What is more important than what her intent was - whether it was to leave for just a week and then suddenly come back, or whether it was to start a new life elsewhere, is did she meet with foul play in that first couple days? Did she survive beyond the couple days after she wrecked the car into the snowbank and left with just a few things in a backpack?
That seems like that's the focus that everyone needs to be looking at, and put aside the different ways we view her intent.
I know several on the board believe an adult should have no responsibility to at least let their family know that they're leaving for good and don't ever want to be contacted again, but I don't feel that way. In the case of severe abuse, where the parents can be charged with a crime and imprisoned for their treatment of a family member, then okay. You can leave and don't say bye.
There is no abuse. There is no controlling factor coming from any of them.
Otherwise, if you just leave and never let anyone know where you went, they waste their whole lives searching for you. That's just a stupid, unfair and cruel waste.
Actually that was not speculation in the post. It was based on a news report quote made by one of the N.H. state police. You might think he was speculating but as far as I know you would yourself be speculating on that.armywife210 said:. . . The "facts" about her packing up her room are speculation. . .
I don't remember whether she was actually seen drinking but alcohol was involved in that it was with her when she had her wreck, according to News reports. Also I seem to remember reading that a cup of alcohol beverage was found at the scene of the accident but I would need to reread the reports to state that here as an absolute fact tonight. Also I believe one news report said one of the witnesses said she appeared to have been drinking. That does not make it a fact but neither is it rank speculation for someone here to post about drinking based on such a report.armywife210 said:. . ."facts" about her drinking that day are speculation. . .
If you have a certain amount in an account and you remove nearly all that money it is not unreasonable to say the account was nearly "drained" or "emptied". The fact that you interpret that to mean she only needed some money for her trip does not change the facts that the account was basically emptied.armywife210 said:. . .With 280 dollars in an account, any amount of emergency money you take out to bring on a little trip would seem to be draining it. . .
When someone posts links to news reports citing the source for what they say, that does not make their post speculation. It is in fact an example of using the best most verifiable sources of info we have available.armywife210 said:. . .Many of the "facts" that have been stated are purely speculation by some and have no cooberation. . .
Note: I added the bolding.. . .Vaughn wrote. Release of the records could jeopardize the investigation and lead to, among other things, destruction of evidence, intimidation of witnesses and loss of communications with entities providing confidential information. . .
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Dad+denied+access+to+records+on+daughter&articleId=aa79b4ba-1064-48d3-83ec-4d23727040df. . .(The state) maintain(s) that release of the records could result in the destruction of evidence, chilling and intimidation of witnesses and the revelation of the scope and nature of the investigation, Vaughn wrote. . . .
Media... it most certainly doesn't make it gospel though, and most of it IS speculation on someones part. You can quote an officer as having said that it appeared anyway he thinks it appeared, but that doesn't make it fact.docwho3 said:Actually that was not speculation in the post. It was based on a news report quote made by one of the N.H. state police. You might think he was speculating but as far as I know you would yourself be speculating on that.
Well we all know that a complete stranger would have more of an idea about her habits than anyone else. To me, that is speculation on anyones part. And I certainly dont think that was ever stated to anyone as fact, but as how it appeared to the officer.
I don't remember whether she was actually seen drinking but alcohol was involved in that it was with her when she had her wreck, according to News reports. Also I seem to remember reading that a cup of alcohol beverage was found at the scene of the accident but I would need to reread the reports to state that here as an absolute fact tonight. Also I believe one news report said one of the witnesses said she appeared to have been drinking. That does not make it a fact but neither is it rank speculation for someone here to post about drinking based on such a report.
She was not seen drinking alcohol at all that day. She had a box of wine that was busted open at the scene. The impact could have just as easily done that.
If you have a certain amount in an account and you remove nearly all that money it is not unreasonable to say the account was nearly "drained" or "emptied". The fact that you interpret that to mean she only needed some money for her trip does not change the facts that the account was basically emptied.
I, myself, carry cash on me every time I go anywhere as a safe gaurd. Why not close it out if you aren't returning? Coverup, a big coverup.
When someone posts links to news reports citing the source for what they say, that does not make their post speculation. It is in fact an example of using the best most verifiable sources of info we have available.
You have good points!gatetrekker44 said:that were unfortunately lost when they were being merged/moved on this website.
1. That Maura had not one but TWO accidents within a relatively short period of time-and even if she didn't hit the windshield in either case, the whiplash action caused by a violent stop(s) and/or airbag deployment could cause some brain trauma-especially in someone who is 5'5" or less. Even if Atwood stated Maura seemed lucid at first glance, there is still a good possibility that she suffered a cumulative brain trauma akin to a concussion. The cracked windshield is one of the main reasons I continue to be thoroughly ticked off at the local LE for not immediately searching for her since the cracked windshield in and of itself is evidence that this person may have been seriously injured!
Quite possible.
2. That if Maura had truly intended to "disappear" WHY would she contact an establishment that day about the availability of rooms-another lead that the Murray family themselves discovered and that LE TOTALLY missed?
Here here.
3. The call to Bill Rausch-which he swears was Maura sounding scared-or possibly disoriented. I have never seen a reasonable explanation as to why this call could not be traced to a certain area-I mean, how many cell towers are there in that part of NH?
The call to CPT Rausch (then LT Rausch) was not made from a cell phone, but from the same kind of phone card that his mother had given her a couple of months prior. They could not adequately trace that call to a particular place because they did not have the number and pin on the particular card in which the call was made with.
Finally-if what Cyberlaw states in post about this not being a criminal case-then WHY will LE and the courts NOT give Fred Murray the info they are withholding? If there is no crime, then they should be more than happy to give him their info so he can continue to investigate at his own expense. The fact that the info is being withheld is telling in that no matter how hard LE is pushing the "runaway" theory to the public, in private there must be something more...especially since Maura's effects were returned to her family and then requested back by LE FIVE MONTHS LATER for "forensic testing", which at that point would have been totally useless considering by that time how many people had handled them.
Good point.
Bottom line-it just doesn't add up to a runaway scenario in my book!
