NH NH - Maura Murray, 21, Haverhill, 9 Feb 2004 - # 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
why was she so adamant that she didn't need help?

I don't think we know that she was "so adamant." IIRC, the only source for her being adamant, or for saying she didn't need help, for saying she was calling AAA, etc. etc. was the SBD; another witness, the PI, claims the SBD told different stories at different times.

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.

Frustrating!
 
I have to stand corrected. I thought I had read the clothes hamper bit from an actual news article (but apparently it came from an old message board <modsnip>

I'm sorry, what?



<Modsnip>

Now, Weeper as I understand it was an investigator who claims to have been there the day they searched the A-frame house. So if that is true and it is pointed out that he (Frank Kelly) is supporting this shack lady's post, then wouldn't that be kind of like splitting hairs here. Yes, technically its not fact, but it is all but fact if you are to believe weeper and shack and firecat. Shack states it as fact, weeper (who was there duirng the search) doesn't vehemently discredit shack (since its not fact and all) and firecat is the whole reason we are talking about damn carpet in a meaningless A-Frame house for pointing all this nonsense out.

Yeah, that's not my reading of this. Isn't Weeper saying what I'm saying, that it might have been menstrual blood? How are you getting "all but fact" out of this if it hasn't bee ntested? Firecat seems to try to be confirming that it's actually not fact? if I'm reading that right.
 
I have to stand corrected. I thought I had read the clothes hamper bit from an actual news article (but apparently it came from an old message board instead...

<Modsnip>

<Modsnip>

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.
 
Firecat seems to try to be confirming that it's actually not fact? if I'm reading that right.

And if I'm reading it right, Firecat is on one hand confirming that it's actually not fact, but on the other hand is confirming that the investigator agrees/ qualifies with the person that said the blood was found to be menstraul.

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.
 
Firecat seems to try to be confirming that it's actually not fact? if I'm reading that right.


And if I'm reading it right, Firecat is on one hand confirming that it's actually not fact, but on the other hand is confirming that the investigator agrees/ qualifies with the person that said the blood was found to be menstraul.

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.

Ok, then you and I are having a complete and total disagreement (which is fine, obvs!) because my read on it is, if the stuff hasn't been tested, how can the investigator say that someone is flat wrong? S/he doesn't know this other person is flat wrong, because.....it hasn't been conclusively prooved one way or the other.

If, on the other hand, nothing's been tested, then.....by all means, speculate away. You, me, the investigator, your uncle tony, whoever. Such as "yeah we got blood samples, but they may not mean anything. They may not be Maura. They could be somebody's old menstrual blood from the cloths hamper for all we know."

Wow. Sorry, my tpiyng apparently sucks today!

ETA: I can't get the quotes to come up as quotes, so the part I've quoted I edtied to put in italics. Hope that makes it clear, since for whatever reason the nesting quote function isn't working.
 
snipped to what I'm commenting on:
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.
.

Didn't know there was a second SOCO article - thanks for mentioning!
 
Firecat seems to try to be confirming that it's actually not fact? if I'm reading that right.


And if I'm reading it right, Firecat is on one hand confirming that it's actually not fact, but on the other hand is confirming that the investigator agrees/ qualifies with the person that said the blood was found to be menstraul.

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.

Ok, then you and I are having a complete and total disagreement (which is fine, obvs!) because my read on it is, if the stuff hasn't been tested, how can the investigator say that someone is flat wrong? S/he doesn't know this other person is flat wrong, because.....it hasn't been conclusively prooved one way or the other.If, on the other hand, nothing's been tested, then.....by all means, speculate away. You, me, the investigator, your uncle tony, whoever. Such as "yeah we got blood samples, but they may not mean anything. They may not be Maura. They could be somebody's old menstrual blood from the cloths hamper for all we know."

Wow. Sorry, my tpiyng apparently sucks today!

ETA: I can't get the quotes to come up as quotes, so the part I've quoted I edtied to put in italics. Hope that makes it clear, since for whatever reason the nesting quote function isn't working.

The investigator can say the person is "flat wrong" because no testing had been done The investigator would know one way or the other about testing and results. There can be no end result either way (menstrual blood, Maura's blood, a monkey's blood) without there ever being a test done and the information released. So for anyone to claim that it came back menstrual blood would be flat wrong (unless they were on the inside of this case).
 
Something about the A-frame blood thing confuses me.

I know a little bit - not much, but a little bit - about training cadaver dogs, and I know that they are cross-trained not to hit on anything other than a decomposing human body. Are we sure they were cadaver dogs that were used or some other type of scent dogs? Because a cadaver dog shouldn't hit on menstrual blood or any other kind of blood, as far as I understand it.

That leads me to believe that either it was a different type of scent dog that was used or that the menstrual-blood-in-the-hamper explanation is BS.

Please correct me if I'm wrong if anyone on here is a professional cadaver dog handler.
 
@goldiegirl, that's my understanding of it too--that cadaver dogs are trained to hit on (without getting too graphic) other particular.....stuff....rather than just blood.

@scoops--I see what you are saying, but I sitll think it's a matter of semantics and I disagree. Whatever.
 
@goldiegirl, that's my understanding of it too--that cadaver dogs are trained to hit on (without getting too graphic) other particular.....stuff....rather than just blood.

@scoops--I see what you are saying, but I sitll think it's a matter of semantics and I disagree. Whatever.

I hear you ... But then we can say that Butch Atwood (not offically being a cop, but working as a special officer for the police is kind of like semantics as well.
 
MOD NOTE: If your post contains a broken quote, please alert on the post so a mod can repair the quote for you. Also, please do not quote a post that contains an incomplete or broken quote. Doing so results in a tangled mess that is time consuming and difficult to clean up. Thanks.
 
@goldiegirl, that's my understanding of it too--that cadaver dogs are trained to hit on (without getting too graphic) other particular.....stuff....rather than just blood.

@scoops--I see what you are saying, but I sitll think it's a matter of semantics and I disagree. Whatever.

Right. I actually became confused during the Casey Anthony trial, because a cadaver dog handler testified that the dogs were cross-trained against hitting on rotting meat, animals, etc. and were trained with either a rag that had been placed in the chest cavity of a cadaver or on placenta. The placenta made me wonder whether or not they might also alert on menstrual blood. With this case in mind, I asked a handler of both narcotics and explosives detection dogs (but NOT cadaver dogs, for the record) whether or not the placenta training might cause them to hit on menstrual blood, and her response was that no, placenta is an organ and is different from menstrual blood. That's why I'm confused and am wondering if the menstrual blood explanation was created as a coverup or something.
 
Scoops, I'm not going to get into an argument with you, but this is exactly why people need to be clear. Butch Atwood saying he worked for the police resulted in it being reported erroneously that he was a cop. The whole thing about the blood in the A-frame resulted in people being confused and disagreeing even to this day.

See my point?
 
Scoops, I'm not going to get into an argument with you, but this is exactly why people need to be clear. Butch Atwood saying he worked for the police resulted in it being reported erroneously that he was a cop. The whole thing about the blood in the A-frame resulted in people being confused and disagreeing even to this day.

See my point?

I think the point I am seeing is that investigators that get on message boards and produce wild theories out of their behind (clothes hamper menstrual blood) need to actually get off their behinds and get something REAL accomplished instead of coming up with all of these hollywood-type storylines (like somene posing as maura and staging that wreck on Rt. 112).
 
Right. I actually became confused during the Casey Anthony trial, because a cadaver dog handler testified that the dogs were cross-trained against hitting on rotting meat, animals, etc. and were trained with either a rag that had been placed in the chest cavity of a cadaver or on placenta. The placenta made me wonder whether or not they might also alert on menstrual blood. With this case in mind, I asked a handler of both narcotics and explosives detection dogs (but NOT cadaver dogs, for the record) whether or not the placenta training might cause them to hit on menstrual blood, and her response was that no, placenta is an organ and is different from menstrual blood. That's why I'm confused and am wondering if the menstrual blood explanation was created as a coverup or something.

Don't think so. Think it was just people mis-hearing, mis-speaking, mis-understanding, and all around confusion. Though of course anything's possible.
 
Something about the A-frame blood thing confuses me.

I know a little bit - not much, but a little bit - about training cadaver dogs, and I know that they are cross-trained not to hit on anything other than a decomposing human body. Are we sure they were cadaver dogs that were used or some other type of scent dogs? Because a cadaver dog shouldn't hit on menstrual blood or any other kind of blood, as far as I understand it.

That leads me to believe that either it was a different type of scent dog that was used or that the menstrual-blood-in-the-hamper explanation is BS.

Please correct me if I'm wrong if anyone on here is a professional cadaver dog handler.

The Whitman-Hanson article by Conway says "cadaver" dogs. I have never seen that corrected in print; the only other dogs I am aware of a tracking dogs and search-and-rescue dogs, who look for live people. We of course have no idea who the handlers are or how well-trained the dogs are.
 
I think the point I am seeing is that investigators that get on message boards and produce wild theories out of their behind (clothes hamper menstrual blood) need to actually get off their behinds and get something REAL accomplished instead of coming up with all of these hollywood-type storylines (like somene posing as maura and staging that wreck on Rt. 112).

I cannot speak as to what anyone says on message boards, but some PIs involved in this case have spoken in the mainstream media, and those are the statements I look at. Even so, I am always aware that reporters and their subjects at times miscommunicate, as well. That is why "sleuthing" via the internet is so hard and why WS requires us to source and cite, which is what makes this board worthwhile.

I don't think it is impossible that the wreck was staged...there has been a lot of work done by PIs to examine the Saturn because the damage is inconsistent with the police report (that she hit trees) and the conditions at the site where the car was found. Moreover, eyewitness testimony, especially identifications, are notoriously inaccurate. Only the SBD saw Maura close enough to make an ID. One of the other witnesses saw a man in the car. It's why I always wanted to know about the ATM surveillance photo (or of the liquor store had cameras). Think about the Jennifer Kesse case...someone (not Jennifer) had her car and then dropped it off...we know that from surveillance photos. In the puzzling Mc Stay case, their vehicle was found days after they left their house for the last time, but no one is sure who left the car there or why. It is a reasonable question to wonder if it was Maura or some other femalethere, especially if the car damage doesn't add up in light of what she hit or supposedly hit. It might be worth looking at old Maura boards to recover that argument, those debates, and the lines of thinking of people who reconstructed the accident because we KNOW in some cases that cars of missing victims have been left in places that create mystery. If Maura was taken, say, in a fast-food parking lot or some place other than where her car was found, this case would look very different than it does with a victim who apparently vanished on a road yards away from a wrecked vehicle (and who may justifiably be considered as someone who was running away, suicidal, or something other than a homicide victim.)
 
I cannot speak as to what anyone says on message boards, but some PIs involved in this case have spoken in the mainstream media, and those are the statements I look at. Even so, I am always aware that reporters and their subjects at times miscommunicate, as well. That is why "sleuthing" via the internet is so hard and why WS requires us to source and cite, which is what makes this board worthwhile.

I don't think it is impossible that the wreck was staged...there has been a lot of work done by PIs to examine the Saturn because the damage is inconsistent with the police report (that she hit trees) and the conditions at the site where the car was found. Moreover, eyewitness testimony, especially identifications, are notoriously inaccurate. Only the SBD saw Maura close enough to make an ID. One of the other witnesses saw a man in the car. It's why I always wanted to know about the ATM surveillance photo (or of the liquor store had cameras). Think about the Jennifer Kesse case...someone (not Jennifer) had her car and then dropped it off...we know that from surveillance photos. In the puzzling Mc Stay case, their vehicle was found days after they left their house for the last time, but no one is sure who left the car there or why. It is a reasonable question to wonder if it was Maura or some other femalethere, especially if the car damage doesn't add up in light of what she hit or supposedly hit. It might be worth looking at old Maura boards to recover that argument, those debates, and the lines of thinking of people who reconstructed the accident because we KNOW in some cases that cars of missing victims have been left in places that create mystery. If Maura was taken, say, in a fast-food parking lot or some place other than where her car was found, this case would look very different than it does with a victim who apparently vanished on a road yards away from a wrecked vehicle (and who may justifiably be considered as someone who was running away, suicidal, or something other than a homicide victim.)

I don't think anyone ever specifically said there was a man in the car. Someone thought they saw someone light a cigarette, but it also could have been the red light from Maura's cell phone. Also, did anyone ever think that maybe Maura wrecked her car twice? Maybe she hit a tree along the way or something else.

I would love to know how long after Maura wrecked that BA got to the scene? The Co2 from the air bag makes if very difficult to see inside a car for a few good minutes. Maura would have def had to get out of the car quickly as it would have been hard to see and breath for a while. Wonder if BA happened to see this smoke in her car?
 
If I remember correctly from the articles and such that I have read; Maura's Dad was furious because they did submit carpet samples from the A-Frame house to LE and they never bothered to test it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
2,457
Total visitors
2,643

Forum statistics

Threads
589,968
Messages
17,928,480
Members
228,026
Latest member
CSIFLGIRL46
Back
Top