I don't think There has to be a formal coverup to stall a case, just LE relectance to go down certain roads. Regardless of whether someone with powerful connections was the cause of Maura's disappearance, I have always felt that this case was screwed up from the jump: out of state plates, a female driver when the car was registered to a man, the cracked windshield on the driver's side, night and winter conditions--all should have led to a call to the car owner once it was abandoned, since it was possible that the driver could have a concussion or closed head injury. The presence of alcohol might have been another factor that would have triggered some concern. Once the Murrays finally learned Maura was missing, the trail was cold. Then NH state police get focused on suicide, which is convenient because it renders the initial LE response moot: she was an outsider bent on killing herself. So the evidence points back to her home and family. Anyone who has spent time in a resort area knows that tourists generally do not generate the same level of attention from LE that local, tax-paying citizens do. And then Fred Murray didn't make any friends, for all of these reasons. So even if a killer was "connected," there are lots of other reasons why LE might choose not to go down some roads, especially if they believe (for whatever reason) it was suicide.
I would say there was no cover-up or any reluctance in pursuing evidence concerning this "Suspect" everyone is talking about.
The A-Frame house on Valley Rd. was searched and the blood evidence the dogs hit upon turned out to come from a clothes hamper (menstral).
So back to square one.
Really. Was the blood evidence verified? What's the source on that? Maybe I've just forgotten, but I can't recall the A-frame blood was resolved.
And I was speaking in general, to the point that a coverup (deliberate and intended to protect someone) is not necessarily to derail an investigation. All it would take would be for one or two investigators to get tunnel vision.
I agree about the tunnel vision.
Last edited by McSpy; 09-21-2011 at 07:04 PM.
The female of this duo then moved the car west into Haverhill so that it would be under Haverhill's small PD jurisdiction and as such they would do just what they did with the limited resources they have.
BA saw this woman before she was picked up by her male accomplice. This is why BA first mentioned he did not think the woman in the car was MM....
Okay, before you blast this theory, I just posted it as an example to show that there were so many theories, we shouldn't be surprised by anything now mentioned, and this theory is on a par IMO with the notion of a perp who had powerful connections....
BUT THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY A FACT. There have been attempts to clear this up, but for some reason they've failed. The truth of the matter on that particular bit of info is that NO TEST RESULTS HAVE BEEN RELEASED. I don't even know if tests have been performed.
I think you should email Renner and suggest he makes attempts to see the ATM picture to see if her hair is down. Maybe he can actually do it?
As for Renner getting to see the ATM video, that's one of the things that her family hasn't even seen. Which strikes me as pretty peculiar in and of itself.
How has the A-frame blood story tried to be corrected? By people like me, posting repeatedly that it's not fact any time it's brought up. As you can see, it's worked real well lol.....
I always dreaded "pony-tail" marks if I put it down again--back in the days when I had long hair. I don't use the head rests in my car; they are there to keep my head from snapping off if there is a whiplash incident....I have always thought long hair was an irritant and liked having it out of the way. But if Maura started out with it down, then for me it increases the odds that the person at the scene was Maura.
Here is what I found in the mainstream accounts about the A-frame. First, Maribeth Conway, in Part IV of the "Maura is Missing" series. She starts out by observing that Fred Murray took the opportunity to get permission to search the house once it went up for sale--so this was not a LE search, from the beginning.
http://southshorexpress.com/extras/s...aftermath.htmlOn the first day, a cadaver dog searched the house and had hits on the second level; the next day four more cadaver dogs were put to work in the house and went "bonkers," Fred said. The strongest hits by the dogs were in a downstairs closet. Cadaver dogs are skilled in sniffing for decomposing bodies but are not able to distinguish the identities of bodies.
Though a dead body could have been stored in this closet, the dogs were not capable of identifying if the body was Maura.
The investigators took a few trash bags filled with items from the house and a piece of carpet from the closet. According to Fred, the carpet was to be divided into two pieces: a portion of the carpet was to be given to state police, who were not present for the search, and the other portion was to be held by the group of volunteer investigators. A medical laboratory examination was to determine if stains on the carpet were blood, and if available DNA matched Maura's. Seven months later, laboratory test results have not been made available from either group.
There is confusion over who has custody of the carpet. Private Investigator Healy was ill the weekend of the search, but said that police were not at all interested in the evidence and would not take the carpet into their possession. Healy said the carpet is in the custody of an investigator who no longer "has business relations" with the group.
The SOCO article also covers this aspect of the search, but sites Fred as the source of information that the carpet samples were never tested for DNA.
Clearly, there have been no briefing from LE to the media or the general public about these carpet samples (as to DNA, blood type, or source of the blood stain). It is indisputable that dogs hit on a scent, and Conway says they were "cadaver dogs," which are NOT looking for blood (menstrual or any other kind) but as anyone who watched the Casey Anthony trial can tell you, are trained to hit on the scent of human decomposition. The purpose of testing supposed blood stains in the closet was to see if Maura's DNA was present, which would have linked her to the A-frame, and presumably to its occupants.Murray recalls that carpet samples were taken from the house and were supposed to be tested for DNA. The samples were never tested, he said, and the leader of the private investigative group didn’t tell the state police about the samples until two and a half years later
Now, we don't know what is going on with the carpet samples. Healy says the state police wouldn't take them, which makes a kind of sense since they weren't evidence collected officially. If they are still out there somewhere, presumably they could be tested for DNA, still, if anyone knows where they are. What no one knows is what kind of blood, if any, or whose DNA, is on the carpet samples. There were supposedly two samples. One should be with the "volunteer investigators," and the other was to go to state police, who reportedly refused to take the sample. So where is it? And if all of this is in private hands, surely it could have been tested. But NONE of this confirms the rumors noted above that the blood (on a carpet, in the closet) was from a clothes hamper (which is a simply ludicrous story).
Last edited by pittsburghgirl; 09-22-2011 at 06:46 PM. Reason: to add and clarify
I thank Jane Birch for helping me remember that the A-frame blood is not a settled issue.
Now, I just went back to our May discussion (much of which I had missed) in order to see if anyone talked about the second SOCO article. I am very intrigued about their theory that a second person was present at the accident.
When I try to link, I get a picture of the cover art and that makes me nervous that I am violating TOS, so you can google SOCO Maura Murray May 2011; the article is on pages 11 and 12.
Maybe someone will figure out how to link this without putting up the magazine cover art.
Hunh. This is the first time I've seen that follow-up. Thanks for alerting me to it.
Aaaaannnnnnd, even that has some inaccuracies. You'll notice it has Maura packing up her dorm room, getting the upsetting phone call that resulted in her having to be escorted to her room, and heading to the ATM, buying liquor, and heading north to Haverhill ALL ON THE SAME DAY, Monday Feb 9.
This is of course incorrect, as she received the upsetting phone call at her security post THURSDAY NIGHT INTO FRIDAY MORNING. (and the knowledge of when she packed up her room, or whether it was just not unpacked, etc etc etc are still being debated)
Oh! Speaking of which, something I've always felt about that. People think it's awfully weird that Maura was hanging out in her own dorm, on a different floor, having some drinks with friends, and then suddenly she was all, "I'm gonna go see my dad." Leaving aside the likelihood that she and her dad were going running together in the morning, as they almost always did when they were together, if her room were still more or less packed, as I believe is possible, this makes a bit more sense.
Let's say she's still more or less packed from winter break. There's piles of crap and boxes on her bed from unpacking she'd been doing earlier that day, maybe. Who the hell wants to go upstairs and deal with all that crap? (Right now there's a pile of clean clothes on my bed in the next room, and the thought of having to put those away before I go to sleep makes me want to cry lol) Who knows--she could have just thought about the mess that her dorm room currently was and thought, "Screw it, I have to meet dad first thing in the morning anyway, and if I go now I can sleep later and I don't have to move all that stuff."
Just a thought?
That makes sense. I never knew they usually ran together. Funny how that point never makes it into discussions of Maura's motives. And speaking as a runner, I don't know many parents and kids who run together, so I would say that this fact suggests a very healthy and close relationship between father and daughter--and absolutely makes me doubt even more than I already do the notion that Maura would be committing suicide or that she was running away from her family.
The conflation of events into one day in this SOCO followup is echoed by the way the Wikipedia entry on Maura slides all sorts of events into a coherent narrative without regard to their ambiguity or their lack of cause-and-effect or chronological relationship.
Still, the notion that she was meeting someone or traveling with someone or someone she knew about was following in another vehicle answers many of my questions: why all the alcohol? why was she so adamant that she didn't need help? where did she go? This SOCO piece states, directly, that there are people who aren't telling what they know. I wonder who the writers and editors think these people are and what they thing these people know? I get tired of all the "hints" without attribution or citation or even evidence.
Last edited by bessie; 09-23-2011 at 11:00 PM. Reason: copy and pasted post from another site and discussion of the posts/posters
At this point, I don't think we have reliable info about what MM said, or how she acted, or whether her hair was up or down, or whether she was inside the car or out, etc. etc. at the time the SBD came by.
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." -- Nietzsche
Last edited by bessie; 09-23-2011 at 10:56 PM. Reason: snipped copy and pasted post from quote
Sorry about whatever formatting error decided to happen there.
The bottom line is that there were cadaver dogs who "hit" on something at the A-frame; that something that looked like blood was on a carpet; that carpet samples were taken but evidently not analyzed, so far as we know; and that an alternative explanation for the blood was offered (alternative to it being from Maura or some other victim). So the A-frame and its occupants are at another dead end in this case.
Last edited by bessie; 09-23-2011 at 10:55 PM. Reason: reference to snipped portion of quote
It can't be both ways.
If the carpet samples have NEVER been tested, then the investigator would've said that the first person (shack) is flat wrong. They could in no way make a claim about the blood being menstraul, because there were no testing done. But instead the investigator goes on to qualify shacks comments and even brings up the example of the clothes hamper.
Last edited by bessie; 09-24-2011 at 01:25 AM. Reason: fixed broken quote