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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.)
Well said, and well written!!
I thought it strange that Butch first said he did not believe the woman he saw was Maura. But seeing a person in real life and comparing it to a picture can account for that, especially with her hair in a different style.
 
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?

One of the witnesses who called about the wrecked car, Faith Westman, sais she saw a man sitting in the car and smoking a cigarette. According to the "Maura is Missing" series, Part 2,
that information is in the LE call log. Lots of speculation about that, over the years.

I think the times in the call logs would be pretty indicative of the time of the accident. We live on a winding road that leads out of suburbs onto a major state 4-lane. Cars wreck in front of
our house all the time, and we call right away because we are concerned about a wrecked car
being a hazard to other people who are driving too fast on our road. There were 2 calls made about the Saturn, and one was made by Butch, so he would have seen her shortly before that.
I'd find those call logs (they are somewhere) but I am on the iPad and the Steelers are
playing...

And oldsteve, the fact that Butch wasn't sure, and Faith Westman thought she saw a man AND there were some oddities in the accident report (the alcohol-involved checkoff, that trees were involved, etc.) have fueled questions about Maura not being alone (see the May 2011 SOCO
update), or the accident being staged (by Maura and an accomplice, by a bad guy and his accomplice--to stage a disappearance or to cover-up a previous accident related to a kidnapping, etc.)

It may be that LE has better witness statements than we have, given that we are going on the
call logs.

ETA: James Renner has the call logs on his blog. (Thanks, Mr. Renner; it's nice to have them handy. Stuff like this tends to get lost.). See p. 4 for Faith Westman's call and the narrative about seeing a man in the car with a cigarette.
 
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.

Hi, gaia, good to hear from you. What I linked above indicates that they weren't tested but that there's confusion about the samples and their fate. There may be better sources...
 
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.)

Maybe, I'm exhausted by this case, but I think her disappearance is much simpler. I think it was her in the car on Rt. 112 with her AAA card. It just rings true to me. Butch Atwood didn't commit his interaction with Maura to memory and lets not forget, it was very dark that evening. He didn't know she was going to end up missing. He didn't have a crystal ball and he didn't memorize her face. I think what happened to her, happened after that accident. This is just my opinion and I know I could be wrong, but I'm just going with my gut here.
 
One of the witnesses who called about the wrecked car, Faith Westman, sais she saw a man sitting in the car and smoking a cigarette. According to the "Maura is Missing" series, Part 2,
that information is in the LE call log. Lots of speculation about that, over the years.

I think the times in the call logs would be pretty indicative of the time of the accident. We live on a winding road that leads out of suburbs onto a major state 4-lane. Cars wreck in front of
our house all the time, and we call right away because we are concerned about a wrecked car
being a hazard to other people who are driving too fast on our road. There were 2 calls made about the Saturn, and one was made by Butch, so he would have seen her shortly before that.
I'd find those call logs (they are somewhere) but I am on the iPad and the Steelers are
playing...

And oldsteve, the fact that Butch wasn't sure, and Faith Westman thought she saw a man AND there were some oddities in the accident report (the alcohol-involved checkoff, that trees were involved, etc.) have fueled questions about Maura not being alone (see the May 2011 SOCO
update), or the accident being staged (by Maura and an accomplice, by a bad guy and his accomplice--to stage a disappearance or to cover-up a previous accident related to a kidnapping, etc.)

It may be that LE has better witness statements than we have, given that we are going on the
call logs.

ETA: James Renner has the call logs on his blog. (Thanks, Mr. Renner; it's nice to have them handy. Stuff like this tends to get lost.). See p. 4 for Faith Westman's call and the narrative about seeing a man in the car with a cigarette.

Here is the most recent quote from the witness Faith Westman concerning what she saw. this came from James Renner's blog and she clearly notes she did not see a man that night.

Faith Westman -- "I heard a crash and then I went to the window. I saw the car. There was a red light in the car, which I thought might be the light from the end of a cigarette," says Westman. "But I never saw a man and the red light could have been anything. Maybe a cell phone light as she was trying to find a signal to call someone."

Keep in mind there was another witness who was technically closer to Maura named John Marotte. Here is what he said (also from james blog)

John Marotte --- "I saw her get out and walk around the car. When I looked out again, the police were there. She was gone. I don't know what happened. Only man who knows is up there." he points to the sky.

Also about Butch Atwood, be sure we are clear, did he really publically state that he didn't think it was maura that night or is this just being inferred.

From the Maribeth Conway series of articles done --- "According to Atwood, who apparently spoke with Maura that evening, Maura had her hair down. Interestingly, Atwood later told a family member that Maura did not look like the pictures running in newspapers. Atwood clarified in our interview that the woman he spoke with did look like the pictures on the Missing Person signs, though it is worth noting that he and Maura remained 15 to 20 feet apart throughout their entire conversation and their encounter was past dusk."

Off-handidly mentioning something to a family member is a lot different than going public with something.

Finally, one of the theories (by investigators) is that this particular couple (that lived in the A-Frame house) were responsible for Maura going missing and they are the ones who staged this accident at rt 112 and the person butch atwood stumbled upon that night was the women (that lived in the A-frame house) posing as maura as she backed her car up into its final resting place at the accident scene. ... One big issue with this though. The couple is likely in their 50's right now or just below. It would be very hard to portray a 20, 21, 22 year old girl.
 
Two thoughts:

1) If the accident was staged, does that mean someone was riding around with a deployed airbag and fractured windshield, bring the car to the place where it was abandoned? Seems very doubtful.

2) Wonder if there is any evidence in the car today that someone was smoking a cigarette in it when the red light was seen. (MM was a runner, probably not a smoker). Does this model car have a red dashboard indicator light that might have been reflected on window glass?
 
1) If the accident was staged, does that mean someone was riding around with a deployed airbag and fractured windshield, bring the car to the place where it was abandoned? Seems very doubtful.

Very good point Gnomony.


Also is it just me or is anyone else disturbed by the level of apathy of the "eyewitnesses"? Fred Murray must be livid when he reads things such as this...

"I saw her get out and walk around the car. When I looked out again, the police were there. She was gone. I don't know what happened. Only man who knows is up there." he points to the sky.

"I saw HER get out" "SHE was gone" Why not go check on "her" instead of just looking out the window. "When I looked out again". His statement seems to come across as a little lazy. Forgive me though if this man is elderly and was unable to go check on her. Maybe I am out of line here.
The point I am trying to make is that this eyewitness clearly knew it was a female in the accident by his use of "her and she". Most men I know would have walked down to see if she was ok.
 
Two thoughts:

1) If the accident was staged, does that mean someone was riding around with a deployed airbag and fractured windshield, bring the car to the place where it was abandoned? Seems very doubtful.

2) Wonder if there is any evidence in the car today that someone was smoking a cigarette in it when the red light was seen. (MM was a runner, probably not a smoker). Does this model car have a red dashboard indicator light that might have been reflected on window glass?

BBM

Regarding airbag - On that model car it automatically deflates seconds after it is deployed.

Incidentally - the fact the it does deflate so rapidly, brought up much discussion on the old boards when the SBD mentioned he saw MM peering over the inflated airbag - the question being if he saw that, he had to see her only seconds after her crash!
 
Two thoughts:

1) If the accident was staged, does that mean someone was riding around with a deployed airbag and fractured windshield, bring the car to the place where it was abandoned? Seems very doubtful.

2) Wonder if there is any evidence in the car today that someone was smoking a cigarette in it when the red light was seen. (MM was a runner, probably not a smoker). Does this model car have a red dashboard indicator light that might have been reflected on window glass?

Man, oh, man, gnomony, you are smarter than you look! Your #1 paragraph is spot on and it made me laugh! It is a very good point! Why not just leave the car in a lot somewhere, if one wants to confuse police on what happened to Maura? Crashing into a tree doesn't make sense. JMO
 
Very good point Gnomony.


Also is it just me or is anyone else disturbed by the level of apathy of the "eyewitnesses"? Fred Murray must be livid when he reads things such as this...



"I saw HER get out" "SHE was gone" Why not go check on "her" instead of just looking out the window. "When I looked out again". His statement seems to come across as a little lazy. Forgive me though if this man is elderly and was unable to go check on her. Maybe I am out of line here.
The point I am trying to make is that this eyewitness clearly knew it was a female in the accident by his use of "her and she". Most men I know would have walked down to see if she was ok.

In fairness to the witnesses, they probably saw Atwood stop the bus after the accident and saw him conversing with her. Most of them called the police too. I believe the man you quoted was elderly. It was a winter night, so maybe he didn't want to venture out (ice). If Maura came to their door, maybe they would have helped.
 
Here a question -
anyone have a timeline that shows when LE radio call(s) went out in relation to the time MM was last seen, to when she was no longer seen?
Trying to determine if she was taken either before or after the calls went out.
 
I'm trying to remember because it's been a long time and things get fuzzy, but can you restart a car once the airbag is deployed? It seems to me that at least some makes/models would not start with the key once the bag was deployed-I was in an accident in which the airbag deployed and I think the tow truck driver told me this. Like I said, it was a long time ago, and I don't know if this was or is the case will all cars. But if it was true of Maura's car, it makes the staged accident/moving the car theory less plausible to me. Generally, a person's last action before exiting a car is to turn off the engine. It's almost a reflex; a friend of mine was recently in an accident and not only did she do this, but she took the keys and locked the door out of habit. Even if someone did something to cause her to crash, it's highly likely that she'd have turned the car off when it stopped. That would, if the airbag/ignition thing is true, mean that the car would not have been able to be driven back to the accident scene.

Once again, I don't remember for sure because so much time has passed, but I'm putting it out there that driving the car to a staged scene after a real crash might not have been possible.
 
Here a question -
anyone have a timeline that shows when LE radio call(s) went out in relation to the time MM was last seen, to when she was no longer seen?
Trying to determine if she was taken either before or after the calls went out.

At 7:27 p.m. is when the first call concerning Maura came into dispatch by Faith Westman. We are only left to speculate how long before the actual wreck took place, but it would seem likely that it would be no more than 1-5 minutes before Faith called.

Timeline according to the 911 dispatch log which slightly differs from the police report, but I feel to be more accurate because they breakdown the times by minutes and seconds (are likely going right in line with radio calls in to their dispatch center) and I would assume are quite accustomed to having accurate and detailed times with their logs.

Staying in time-line order
1. Westman call comes in to haverhill dispatch at 7:27
2. Officer Cecil Smith notified at 7:29:31 --- Smith en route at 7:29:36
3. Atwood's notify different 911 dispatch at (approx 7:40 p.m.) This dispatch notifies proper 911 dispatch for haverhill at 7:43 p.m.
4. Ambulance notified at 7:42:30 ------ Ambulance en route at 7:45:34
5. Fire Dept. notified at 7:42:30 ------- Pumper en route at 7:45:05
6. Officer Cecil Smith arrives on scene at 7:46:20
7. BOL issued from Officer Cecil Smith to all fire units for a female about 5-foot-7 on foot 7:54:00
8. Ambulance arrives on scene at 7:56:08
9. Fire Dept. Pumper arrives on scene at 7:57:12

10. (search for Maura is done, don't have a time-line for this)
11. Ambulance clears scene and departs at 8:02:13
12. Fire Dept. Pumper clears scene and departs at 8:49:07 (am assuming they stayed longer to help search from what investigators have said)
13. Lavoies Auto Care Center tows car away (not sure on specific time but could be 8:50 p.m. that is when dispatch notes that the scene is cleared and car is towed away)
14. Officer Cecil Smith clears scene and departs at 9:26:16 (am assuming he went and talked to neighbors and that explains why he left almost 40 minutes after scene was cleared).
 
Here a question -
anyone have a timeline that shows when LE radio call(s) went out in relation to the time MM was last seen, to when she was no longer seen?
Trying to determine if she was taken either before or after the calls went out.

The log (posted on Renner's blog) has all the police call and response times. I think there are also timelines out there that have been put together based on the log and eyewitness statements to LE. scoops's summary corresponds to what I have seen before, but there may be other docs that can fill in what is meant by "search for Maura."
 
Here is the most recent quote from the witness Faith Westman concerning what she saw. this came from James Renner's blog and she clearly notes she did not see a man that night.

Faith Westman -- "I heard a crash and then I went to the window. I saw the car. There was a red light in the car, which I thought might be the light from the end of a cigarette," says Westman. "But I never saw a man and the red light could have been anything. Maybe a cell phone light as she was trying to find a signal to call someone."



Westman's statement is a textbook example of the problems with eyewitness testimony. There are at least 5 possibilities here, taking the call log narrative and the statement above together. This smart bunch can probably think of even more:
  • Westman told the dispatcher that she saw a man smoking a cigarette and that statement was correctly recorded and that is what she thought she saw at the time. However, she mistook Maura for a man.
  • Westman told the dispatcher something other than what was recorded and the dispatcher made a mistake or misunderstood.
  • Westman told the dispatcher that she saw a man smoking a cigarette, but saw something herself after the call that changed her mind and so she says she "didn't see a man" although that was her first impression.
  • Westman told the dispatcher that she saw a man smoking a cigarette, but her memory changed, not as a result of first-hand "witnessing"--perhaps as a result of learning that Atwood saw a woman, or that a woman was presumably driving the car or that there was only one person in the car and it had to be a woman, etc. This is a very common phenomena in human memory, that we come to "remember" what we think we were supposed to see. The brain is a very efficient pattern-making tool, and we effectively can "change" what we remember by unconsciously going back and correcting first impressions as we get new information.
  • Westman actually did see a man in the car, and that is why she reported that to the dispatcher.
I don't see how we can just blow past the call log because an eyewitness claims she didn't say what she, most likely, told the dispatcher she saw at the scene. We can't know for sure that the dispatcher didn't make a mistake, but "can see a man in vehicle smoking a cigarette" is a pretty specific statement. The re-considered position above sounds like someone who things she is wrong trying to account for what she saw. I have no idea whether she was correct then, or correct now, but her "testimony" only serves to muddy the water. The new SOCO article, which argues there were two people in the car when it wrecked, may in part be considering Westman's original statement. (See below).

I agree with those of you who question the "common-sense" of the idea that someone would relocate a wrecked vehicle with deployed airbag and a cracked windshield in order to stage an accident. McSpy said,

Maybe, I'm exhausted by this case, but I think her disappearance is much simpler. I think it was her in the car on Rt. 112 with her AAA card. It just rings true to me. Butch Atwood didn't commit his interaction with Maura to memory and lets not forget, it was very dark that evening. He didn't know she was going to end up missing. He didn't have a crystal ball and he didn't memorize her face. I think what happened to her, happened after that accident. This is just my opinion and I know I could be wrong, but I'm just going with my gut here.

This makes sense to me, too. Neither Atwood nor Westman had any idea that they would be asked to replay these moments for years and comment on them endlessly. That is another reason why eyewitness testimony is so unreliable: People don't remember things accurately even when they know they will be tested, and what happens afterwards can alter, change or taint the memory. How many times are we "sure" we put the keys on the table or paid the electric bill or got a meeting time right? But someone staging an accident would have to be a very detailed "stager" to put that AAA card there...
 
OK, here is something that drives me insane as a reader, a WSer, and a teacher. The May 11, 2011 SOCO article says this:

We found a piece of information on the web but can't be sure exactly where it came from. It appears that a woman across the street from where the accident occurred noticed what looked like another person in the car--and she also believed she saw what looked like a cigarette tip shining in the dark night from inside the vehicle.

First, this writer builds an entire hypothesis from material even though he or she "can't be sure exactly where it came from." The writer identifies that hypothesis as "speculation," but certainly gives inordinate weight to "information" picked up from the web (some board or blog, no doubt). Now that unidentified, unsourced information has a new luster to it, having been printed in a "traditional" magazine, pictures and all. And careless readers will pick up what that magazine says as "fact" and it will be on more boards and blogs, now with a new status.

We can recognize the basic outlines of the call log narrative, in which the 911 dispatcher is recording, presumably, what Westman said. How easy would it have been for the "reporter" to source and cite? Jiminy crickets, the mods here expect that of us. This is a print magazine. Then, note the shift: "what looked like another person in the car." This seems to imply that the source (whom we know to be Westman) said there was "another" person, not just one person. Our discussion above indicates that the call log refers to "a man," but it certainly never refers to more than one person. Now, if Westman did see a man, and Atwood a woman, we would indeed have two people; however, no one has ever said he or she saw two distinct people at the scene.

This sloppy research and leaping to a conclusion (what a witness describes as a man at the scene turns into "another person") is what causes so many problems in this case. In this case, this writer weaves that other person into a narrative in which Maura was traveling with someone, who put the rag in the tailpipe to stall the car and hid in the woods. That explains (so this story goes) why Maura didn't want LE at the scene and why she left (to join up with the phantom "other person"). As in many loopy conspiracy theories, the writer doesn't explain why a predator would need to stage a wreck in front of a bunch of houses and potential witnesses, in order to abduct and murder Maura, when he's already got her in a car and can just kill her somewhere in private and dump the car.

The article is worth a read, but it makes me more skeptical than I was of the first SOCO piece (which ran in April 2011.)

The new article can be accessed by googling issuu soco May 2011.
 
At 7:27 p.m. is when the first call concerning Maura came into dispatch by Faith Westman. We are only left to speculate how long before the actual wreck took place, but it would seem likely that it would be no more than 1-5 minutes before Faith called.

Timeline according to the 911 dispatch log which slightly differs from the police report, but I feel to be more accurate because they breakdown the times by minutes and seconds (are likely going right in line with radio calls in to their dispatch center) and I would assume are quite accustomed to having accurate and detailed times with their logs.

Staying in time-line order
1. Westman call comes in to haverhill dispatch at 7:27
2. Officer Cecil Smith notified at 7:29:31 --- Smith en route at 7:29:36
3. Atwood's notify different 911 dispatch at (approx 7:40 p.m.) This dispatch notifies proper 911 dispatch for haverhill at 7:43 p.m.
4. Ambulance notified at 7:42:30 ------ Ambulance en route at 7:45:34
5. Fire Dept. notified at 7:42:30 ------- Pumper en route at 7:45:05
6. Officer Cecil Smith arrives on scene at 7:46:20
7. BOL issued from Officer Cecil Smith to all fire units for a female about 5-foot-7 on foot 7:54:00
8. Ambulance arrives on scene at 7:56:08
9. Fire Dept. Pumper arrives on scene at 7:57:12

10. (search for Maura is done, don't have a time-line for this)
11. Ambulance clears scene and departs at 8:02:13
12. Fire Dept. Pumper clears scene and departs at 8:49:07 (am assuming they stayed longer to help search from what investigators have said)
13. Lavoies Auto Care Center tows car away (not sure on specific time but could be 8:50 p.m. that is when dispatch notes that the scene is cleared and car is towed away)
14. Officer Cecil Smith clears scene and departs at 9:26:16 (am assuming he went and talked to neighbors and that explains why he left almost 40 minutes after scene was cleared).


Thanks for this scoops!

I was trying to place the statement by John Marotte --- "I saw her get out and walk around the car. When I looked out again, the police were there. She was gone. I don't know what happened. Only man who knows is up there." into that timeline.

Correct me if I'm wrong:
7:22 Accident happens say 5 min one minute before FW calls
7:29:31Officer Cecil Smith notified.
(approx 7:40 p.m.) Atwood's notify different 911 dispatch at
7:46:20 Officer Cecil Smith arrives on scene

Does this tell us anything? I assuming Officer Smith was notified by radio, so that means someone listening to LE calls
had approx 17 minutes to hear the call and grab MM.
 
Thanks for this scoops!

I was trying to place the statement by John Marotte --- "I saw her get out and walk around the car. When I looked out again, the police were there. She was gone. I don't know what happened. Only man who knows is up there." into that timeline.

Correct me if I'm wrong:
7:22 Accident happens say 5 min one minute before FW calls
7:29:31Officer Cecil Smith notified.
(approx 7:40 p.m.) Atwood's notify different 911 dispatch at
7:46:20 Officer Cecil Smith arrives on scene

Does this tell us anything? I assuming Officer Smith was notified by radio, so that means someone listening to LE calls
had approx 17 minutes to hear the call and grab MM.

I would agree that there is about a 17 minute window between the first alert sent out to officer Cecil Smith and his arrival. But in that 17 minutes, Butch Atwood would've stumbled up upon the accident scene (guestimating around 7:30 or 7:32) stayed for three minutes, then headed to his house. Neighbors that include the Westman's (across the street from accident and John Mayotte (directly above the wreck on same side of the road) that would've been looking out their windows as well).

It would've taken a houdini like abduction for someone to sneak in during that short window of time, not cause a commotion or be spotted by the witnessess looking out their windows and not be spooked off by the sounds of sirens heading that way. Plus if they had heard this over a scanner, then they would already know that police and fire personnel were on their way and that they would have very little time to execute an abduction.
 
I would agree that there is about a 17 minute window between the first alert sent out to officer Cecil Smith and his arrival. But in that 17 minutes, Butch Atwood would've stumbled up upon the accident scene (guestimating around 7:30 or 7:32) stayed for three minutes, then headed to his house. Neighbors that include the Westman's (across the street from accident and John Mayotte (directly above the wreck on same side of the road) that would've been looking out their windows as well).

It would've taken a houdini like abduction for someone to sneak in during that short window of time, not cause a commotion or be spotted by the witnessess looking out their windows and not be spooked off by the sounds of sirens heading that way. Plus if they had heard this over a scanner, then they would already know that police and fire personnel were on their way and that they would have very little time to execute an abduction.

Also to add to that, while this area is considered very remote, the specific site of the accident is not that remote. With the weathered Barn store (owned by the westman's) that has a big street light out in front of it and the school bus driver's house which had yet another big street light by the road, plus the westman's house and the Mayottes house with their lights on. I know If I were looking to abduct someone or even ruse someone into my car, that would not be the place I would want to do it (I would be way too afraid of having my car or license plate spotted). I would have been spooked off and then you have the police that (You would know already would be on their way). Way too risky and most criminals are opportunists, This particular area is not very opportune at that time of the night and in this circumstance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
161
Guests online
1,922
Total visitors
2,083

Forum statistics

Threads
590,041
Messages
17,929,270
Members
228,044
Latest member
Bosie
Back
Top