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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh I've never meant to imply that he's lying, or that Renner is. There are a million ways information gets mis-managed.
 
After reading a ton of info on this case I have come to realize we know little more than the fact that Maura is missing. If we go by the police who state she all but packed up almost everything in her room, pics off of the wall, stuff out of draws, why? leaving some kind of note and taking some of the alcohol from her car after she wrecked. Lets not forget she looked into renting a condo. One could think she was suicidal, but why rent a condo and drive all that way to do that? Was she possibly wanting to start a new life with somebody or is it a lot more simpler than that? Did Maura get in a car with someone and they killed her forever hiding her body? This could be the case and if so forget about ever finding out short of a death bed confession. Here's a dumb thought, maybe Maura was pregnant and was driving to meet the babies father and she reached her destination and she is living a happy life with him and her child and has been very careful to not enter into the system so no one knows where she is at.
 
1. Regarding the 48 hours rules--I was writing from what I imagine would be Fred's point of view. The car was wrecked and Maura was nowhere to be found. LE of course had a wrecked, abandoned car and assumed she was picked up, walked away, etc. I was trying to explain why a parent would not be "nice"--in fact might be terrified, angry, horrified, and feeling totally alone. How many times have we heard that the first 48 hours is crucial to a missing person case. We know NOW that she was missing, and whether she ran away or something happened to her, the trail was already cold by the time Fred found out.
2. Thanks for the response, Peabody. I was sure that there were multiple sources for the liquor bottle story, and Maribeth Conway's reporting has generally held up under scrutiny. It's always been a troubling aspect of the case. Why pack out the liquor bottles?
3. Scoops, I don't know what to say. Scarinza's statement implies that it was a suicide note. We have no idea when she packed or what that note meant to her at the time. She might have
meant to throw it away, even. Who knows? Fred's words have always meant, to me, that he was angry at the implication of suicide.
4. Jane Birch, I agree with your points.

ETA: 5. Peabody has been a long-time contributor to this thread. Some of us old hands were also active on other boards that included insiders to the case. And from my point of view, knowing none of the Murrays or the Rausches, I have seen nothing in any mainstream media account that indicates that the first priority was anything but to find Maura. If Maura died as a result of homicide, accident or exposure, all of the stuff about her personal life is, as we have said, white noise.
 
1. Regarding the 48 hours rules--I was writing from what I imagine would be Fred's point of view. The car was wrecked and Maura was nowhere to be found. LE of course had a wrecked, abandoned car and assumed she was picked up, walked away, etc. I was trying to explain why a parent would not be "nice"--in fact might be terrified, angry, horrified, and feeling totally alone. How many times have we heard that the first 48 hours is crucial to a missing person case. We know NOW that she was missing, and whether she ran away or something happened to her, the trail was already cold by the time Fred found out.
2. Thanks for the response, Peabody. I was sure that there were multiple sources for the liquor bottle story, and Maribeth Conway's reporting has generally held up under scrutiny. It's always been a troubling aspect of the case. Why pack out the liquor bottles?
3. Scoops, I don't know what to say. Scarinza's statement implies that it was a suicide note. We have no idea when she packed or what that note meant to her at the time. She might have
meant to throw it away, even. Who knows? Fred's words have always meant, to me, that he was angry at the implication of suicide.
4. Jane Birch, I agree with your points.

ETA: 5. Peabody has been a long-time contributor to this thread. Some of us old hands were also active on other boards that included insiders to the case. And from my point of view, knowing none of the Murrays or the Rausches, I have seen nothing in any mainstream media account that indicates that the first priority was anything but to find Maura. If Maura died as a result of homicide, accident or exposure, all of the stuff about her personal life is, as we have said, white noise.

I agree about Fred. I can see why he was upset do doubt. Now what he did later on I think was detrimental to him as far as LE sharing things with him. I think they would have been more open to do this had he not sued them.

I also agree about the white noise, but this is not your typical missing persons case. Maura did some really strange tings before she left that can be taken a number of different ways. What a coincidence that it seemed she in some ways wanted to start over and or run away or even end it all and then all of the sudden disappeared with out a trace. Maybe the car wreck was just a bump in the road and she did succeed in her plan after all.
 
Yes, that is what makes Maura's case a real mystery. We don't know what matters and what does not.

Well the Fred/LE issue can be turned around. He filed a suit because he couldn't get answers. What did he have to lose? His girl was already gone beyond his reach. When he pressed people for answers, he was trying to ge whatever he could of her back.
 
I will admit that I am basing my info of the contents of the note from what the blogger James Renner unconvered. I have no reason to believe he was lying about what he uncovered.

If it is true. That Maura had printed out an old email from billy to her about his infidelity and laid it on top of her packed boxes in her dorm room, then there is no way around it, Billy and Sharon have provided spin.

Sharon has said from day one as you point out that there was no note from Maura to Billy. (Technically true, but clearly not the whole story because the police did indeed find a note).

The same scenario would be that if I went into a store and stole a candy bar and got busted for it.

The newspaper the next day says I was busted for stealing a pack of gum.

I come on record defending myself the following day by saying, the newspaper was totally wrong, I never stole a pack of gum from that store and leave it at that. I would be right, but the whole point of me stealing would then be lost in the scenario.

The Rausch'es didn't like the contents of the note and didn't want them to be discussed, so they minimalized it as much as possible. You can't do that in a
missing person investigation. You have to look at everything you uncover very openly and very thoroughly and try to link it or dismiss it to how it relates to someone going missing. They have always painted a picture that Maura's relationship with Billy was going perfectly and they were gearing up for marriage.

Yet information being discovered seven years later is painting a much different picture about their relationship. Someone is purposefully wrong, or at least is
being purposefully misleading.

My bold

It depends how the question was asked and for what reason. Mrs. Rausch was answering a particular question. It was an old note. As far as Mrs. Rausch knew at the time, her son and Maura were in love and had a steady
relationship.
 
1. Regarding the 48 hours rules--I was writing from what I imagine would be Fred's point of view. The car was wrecked and Maura was nowhere to be found. LE of course had a wrecked, abandoned car and assumed she was picked up, walked away, etc. I was trying to explain why a parent would not be "nice"--in fact might be terrified, angry, horrified, and feeling totally alone. How many times have we heard that the first 48 hours is crucial to a missing person case. We know NOW that she was missing, and whether she ran away or something happened to her, the trail was already cold by the time Fred found out.
2. Thanks for the response, Peabody. I was sure that there were multiple sources for the liquor bottle story, and Maribeth Conway's reporting has generally held up under scrutiny. It's always been a troubling aspect of the case. Why pack out the liquor bottles?
3. Scoops, I don't know what to say. Scarinza's statement implies that it was a suicide note. We have no idea when she packed or what that note meant to her at the time. She might have
meant to throw it away, even. Who knows? Fred's words have always meant, to me, that he was angry at the implication of suicide.
4. Jane Birch, I agree with your points.

ETA: 5. Peabody has been a long-time contributor to this thread. Some of us old hands were also active on other boards that included insiders to the case. And from my point of view, knowing none of the Murrays or the Rausches, I have seen nothing in any mainstream media account that indicates that the first priority was anything but to find Maura. If Maura died as a result of homicide, accident or exposure, all of the stuff about her personal life is, as we have said, white noise.

First off, if I was a parent of a missing child, I would be all over the investigation from day one like Fred has been. So I don't question anything that Fred has done and the ways he has gone about trying to put pressure on the police to treat the case in an urgent manner (like pushing the homicide theory)

But why seven and a half years later are we are still left questioning a basic concept such as was billy and Maura in a strong happy relationship, or was there serious issues going on.

Maura doesn't have to be around to answer that. Plenty of people are still around that knew the couple really well, yet there seems to be two stories coming out about their relationship.

And with all the stuff James Renner has uncovered leads one to believe that someone is either hiding info or misleading about info and that is not a good sign when the ultimate goal in this whole mess is to locate a missing person. Not to save reputational face.
 
First off, if I was a parent of a missing child, I would be all over the investigation from day one like Fred has been. So I don't question anything that Fred has done and the ways he has gone about trying to put pressure on the police to treat the case in an urgent manner (like pushing the homicide theory)

But why seven and a half years later are we are still left questioning a basic concept such as was billy and Maura in a strong happy relationship, or was there serious issues going on.

Maura doesn't have to be around to answer that. Plenty of people are still around that knew the couple really well, yet there seems to be two stories coming out about their relationship.

And with all the stuff James Renner has uncovered leads one to believe that someone is either hiding info or misleading about info and that is not a good sign when the ultimate goal in this whole mess is to locate a missing person. Not to save reputational face.

There is no doubt Maura and Billy had issues at one time--most couples do and sometimes they make it and sometimes they move on. The problem is that we can read too much into their past problems and get side tracked in the process. There is that possibility their relationship has nothing to do with why she traveled to NH and why she is missing. JMO
 
There was a cracked windshield but no signs of blood or blunt trauma and there was no waiting 48 hours to do anything, a search was done that same night.

But in a situation where the investigators deem an accident "Minor" (whether they are right or wrong) they handled the situation correctly based on it being a minor accident. They had the info for who owned the car (responsible for the car) and they did a search in the area for Maura figuring she was willfully hiding from them based on Butch Atwood's account. They also really believed she got into a car and left the scene.

Worst case, if Maura hadn't come forward to claim the car by the next day, they could hunt down the registered owner and pursue the matter that way and that sounds like what they did.

It was only after the first 24 hours had passed that this became more than a person avoiding police, but based on the info they had at the time of their initial investigation of the accident scene, I say they did things by the book based on what I have heard and read.

IIRC Fred felt LE never bothered to immediately search/drive east of the accident scene, instead they just stayed where her car was.
When he asked a trooper about this he got no answer...
Why wasn't a BOL issued that night instead of at noon the next day. Tuesday, Feb. 10, police issued a "BOL" (Be on the Lookout) for Maura Murray.
ETA Considering there was alcohol and a crash strong enough to crack a windshield had happened as night was approaching in a wooded, cold area - that's plenty of reason to be looking for an endangered person IMO.
 
IIRC Fred felt LE never bothered to immediately search/drive east of the accident scene, instead they just stayed where her car was.
When he asked a trooper about this he got no answer...
Why wasn't a BOL issued that night instead of at noon the next day. Tuesday, Feb. 10, police issued a "BOL" (Be on the Lookout) for Maura Murray.
ETA Considering there was alcohol and a crash strong enough to crack a windshield had happened as night was approaching in a wooded, cold area - that's plenty of reason to be looking for an endangered person IMO.

There was a BOL for Maura on the night she went missing. That is a fact. It was mentioned/addressed in the 911 dispatch log.

In fact to be specific, a BOL was sent out at 7:54 p.m. the night Maura went missing, almost an hour before her car was even towed away from the scene. It was sent to all fire personnel in the area and as I understand it there were a ton arond haverhill that night and a ton that showed up to the accident scene to help search for Maura.

The dispatcher (Rhonda Marsh) even followed up by asking if they found the girl or had she shown up to the cottage (not sure what she is referring to, whether it be a police station or that swiftwater store or somewhere else). Sounds like they expected she would turn up somewhere that night.
 
Also keep in mind, they were going off of Butch Atwood's statements and he described her as not appearing hurt or as being noticeablly drunk. And he also described her as not wanting law enforcement to intervene.

And as a former police officer that was friends with at least one of the responding police officers that night, I am pretty sure they took him (Atwood) for his word and therefore couple that with it being what they deemed a "Minor Accident" and that would explain their seemingly lack of urgency.

They likely felt Maura was safe, just trying to avoid trouble. But of course that changed the next day.
 
I've really enjoyed reading all the new info (or supposed info) and theories posted lately from people who have been discussing this case much longer than I have. Two quick things I wanted to contribute. Other than this, I don't have much I can add to what's already been said.

1) With regard to the discussion about whether or not Fred aggravated the situation by suing LE and whether or not that was a smart move - I can see that in hindsight (or second-hand hindsight, if you will, since it's coming from our perspective) it might seem like it wasn't the best way to encourage a cooperative relationship with LE. However, like others have said, what did he have to lose at this point? I think until a person's been in that situation, it's hard to throw stones.

My husband went missing in a dangerous part of our city and was beaten and robbed (ultimately returned home and healed). I know how it feels to feel like LE is not taking a case seriously. I came to the point of weighing the pros and cons of filing an internal affairs complaint about the way the investigation and the missing persons reports were handled (or, rather, mishandled) until I realized it was better for our sanity just to let it go.

After having been in that position, I empathize a lot more with Fred Murray and other family members who feel like LE isn't letting them in on what's going on. In my case, for example, they told me his parents, who live out of state, would be contacted before I would in the event my husband was found, because their first reaction was that I looked too young to be married. They didn't take me seriously at all, didn't tell me what to do in the interim, were very insensitive, and were ready to send me home by myself with no plan and no investigation starting until Monday (this happened on a Saturday), with the plan to call his PARENTS instead of me if he was found. It was insulting and devastating, not to mention the double victimization of how poorly the beating was handled later. Anyway, all this is to say that I've ALWAYS been a supporter of LE, my FIL is a police chief, my degree is in CJ, and I never thought I'd find myself in opposition with LE, but being the family member of a victim and feeling like LE is not on your side is a terrible feeling.

On to my second point/question, finally...

2) There's been mention of LE saying they believe Maura is deceased and can be found within a 5 mile radius of the crash site. I know 5 miles in each direction is a lot of ground to cover, but I wonder if anyone's ever thought about calling in an organization like Texas Equusearch to at least give it a shot if LE is so confident about this? I know at this juncture a lot of their tools, like tracking dogs, would be useless, but they still have a lot of manpower and can put a lot of feet on the ground to cover the area. I know there are "hotter" cases, and maybe the family thinks it would be in poor taste to ask them to use their resources on a case this old, but I believe they'll come out to pretty much any case they're called to help with, and I don't see what it could hurt.

We just had a search here by the Laura Recovery Center for a girl who's been missing for over a year. One year, seven years, no difference, really. The dogs weren't going to pick anything up in her case, either, and if she were out there she'd be deceased at that point, so they were just looking for either her body or some evidence - same thing they'd be doing in Maura's case.
 
The dispatcher (Rhonda Marsh) even followed up by asking if they found the girl or had she shown up to the cottage (not sure what she is referring to, whether it be a police station or that swiftwater store or somewhere else). Sounds like they expected she would turn up somewhere that night.

The "cottage" is the Cottage Hospital in Woodsville. They were assuming she might have injuries for which she would seek medical treatment.
 
One thing I will never, ever, ever understand is why Fred was not contacted by police until 3:26 the next afternoon.
 
Also keep in mind, they were going off of Butch Atwood's statements and he described her as not appearing hurt or as being noticeablly drunk. And he also described her as not wanting law enforcement to intervene.

And as a former police officer that was friends with at least one of the responding police officers that night, I am pretty sure they took him (Atwood) for his word and therefore couple that with it being what they deemed a "Minor Accident" and that would explain their seemingly lack of urgency.

They likely felt Maura was safe, just trying to avoid trouble. But of course that changed the next day.

Not to be argumentative, but it sounds like you a saying BA was a former police officer? I have read that he never was, though in an interview it was said he mentioned he was.

Also, regarding the BOL, then what I mentioned was wrong? It was mentioned in this article:
"At noon the next day. Tuesday, Feb. 10, police issued a "BOL" (Be on the Lookout) for Maura Murray. She was described as wearing a dark coat" Perhaps two BOL's ? One local that night, and one covering a larger area the next day?

http://southshorexpress.com/extras/special-reports/76-maura-is-missing-part-ii-the-accident.html

Okay, does any of what I'm saying really mean anything, do anything? Other than bumping this case up and keeping it on the first page of webseulths, the answer is of course no...
 
The bus driver was not ever a police officer. He was a former police department employee of Taunton MA, but in a civilian capacity. This is yet another thing that has gotten misunderstood and misreported over the years. How that one more than likely happened is he said to a reporter at one point "I used to work for the police department in Taunton" and assumptions were made. It's an innocent enough mistake. But it's a mistake nonetheless. Atwood was never a cop. Period.
 
The bus driver was not ever a police officer. He was a former police department employee of Taunton MA, but in a civilian capacity. This is yet another thing that has gotten misunderstood and misreported over the years. How that one more than likely happened is he said to a reporter at one point "I used to work for the police department in Taunton" and assumptions were made. It's an innocent enough mistake. But it's a mistake nonetheless. Atwood was never a cop. Period.

Yeah, I will be honest on that one, I heard from two varying sources that he was a police officer and typically I will use two sources (with no relation to one another) to help me determine whether or not something is correct or false. And then I found an article in which they quoted him as saying he use to be a police officer, so that is why I believed it to be fact.

I did my own research on the matter and found out that his mom (who was living with him the night Maura went missing) was both a retired RN and a speical police officer for the Raynham Police department (I'm assuming that is either in NH or MASS) It is also possible his father was a police officer from Taunton as well who was shot and killed in the line of duty, but I just had uncovered that bit of info last night, so I haven't checked to see if that arthur atwood was his father or grandfather or no relation at all.

Seems like his family has a strong police connection though.
 
Just doing some basic math, it was probably his grandpa if this particular Arthur Atwood from the same home town as Butch was the police officer killed while on duty.

The school bus driver's actual name is Arthur Everett Atwood and he died in Sept of 2009 in Homosassa Flordia.
 
There is no doubt Maura and Billy had issues at one time--most couples do and sometimes they make it and sometimes they move on. The problem is that we can read too much into their past problems and get side tracked in the process. There is that possibility their relationship has nothing to do with why she traveled to NH and why she is missing. JMO

Yes, good points. And of course, this was a college girl, age 21. A "strong, happy relationship" at that age is nothing like (say) a marriage of some years duration, with property and children. The only issues about their relationship grow out of either the question of why Maura was in NH (to commit suicide? to meet a lover? because she was under stress, etc.) or whether she was traveling with or meeting someone who would either have important information or who might be suspect. Billy was not anywhere near Mass. or NH, so it's not like he's a suspect.

I am not sure how much any parent knows about the emotional life or love life of a 21-year old woman. Many times, the parents are the last ones to learn that someone in a relationship wants out. All that is normal, normal, normal for people in this age group; moreover, it is healthy. The whole point of late adolescence and early adulthood is for young people to separate and differentiate from the parents. In addition, if the extended families have become fond of a boyfriend or girlfriend, it is less likely that the families will know if one party is planning to break off the relationship, as kids have enough trouble breaking up without negotiating the disappointments of a whole family. In other words, Fred, the Rausches and everyone else may be telling all that they know. They may have differing perspectives. And it is possible that no one knew exactly what Maura was thinking about her relationship and so of course we can't know either.
 
Yeah, I will be honest on that one, I heard from two varying sources that he was a police officer and typically I will use two sources (with no relation to one another) to help me determine whether or not something is correct or false. And then I found an article in which they quoted him as saying he use to be a police officer, so that is why I believed it to be fact.

I did my own research on the matter and found out that his mom (who was living with him the night Maura went missing) was both a retired RN and a speical police officer for the Raynham Police department (I'm assuming that is either in NH or MASS) It is also possible his father was a police officer from Taunton as well who was shot and killed in the line of duty, but I just had uncovered that bit of info last night, so I haven't checked to see if that arthur atwood was his father or grandfather or no relation at all.

Seems like his family has a strong police connection though.

Yes, get on Wikipedia entry for this case and look how things get collapsed and elided into a narrative that misrepresents key aspects of the case--and that without any of our sort of debate. Just what should be facts. And that stuff gets to be everywhere, all over the web.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
2,498
Total visitors
2,583

Forum statistics

Threads
590,013
Messages
17,928,989
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top