NH NH - Maura Murray, 21, Haverhill, 9 Feb 2004 - #12

[Fireweed]

I agree. Part of me wonders if Fred actually really was telling the truth - that is, he really did tell Maura to put the rag there to stop smoke coming out. We spend a lot of time wondering why it got there, but maybe the answer is staring us right in the face - Fred knows nothing about motor care, and gave some terrible advice.

What would that mean for Maura? No dirtbag sabotaging her car, for a start. She would have accidentally sabotaged it herself. No half-witted impromptu suicide attempt on the roadside in full view of several houses. No attempt to hide a rag potentially used to mop up alcohol - on that note, it might even mean that she wasn't driving drunk. So in that case, why the vast amount of alcohol?

That one tiny bit of evidence... if we could unlock that, the case could open in so many different directions.

I always sort of thought that it was a hare-brained attempt to restart the car after the accident. You can see that the car is not totaled and that anyone driving a car that sustained that amount of damage might reasonably believe it could still be driven. She tries starting it and it won't start but there is a lot of smoke spewing out the tailpipe. Perhaps it was just one last desperate attempt to start the car.

 

[Steleheart]

I always sort of thought that it was a hare-brained attempt to restart the car after the accident. You can see that the car is not totaled and that anyone driving a car that sustained that amount of damage might reasonably believe it could still be driven. She tries starting it and it won't start but there is a lot of smoke spewing out the tailpipe. Perhaps it was just one last desperate attempt to start the car.

I do not believe that the car will start once the air bags are deployed.

MOO

 

[Fireweed]

I do not believe that the car will start once the air bags are deployed.

MOO

True, but I wonder if Maura knew that. If you are a little buzzed and running on adrenaline and fear you will try and get that car started.

 

[Caffeine]

She had a 90s Saturn, so Im not all that familiar with the safety features. However, back in the day my mother had a 97 Nissan. The driver airbag deployed after an accident and the car still ran. Just speculating but I think cars of that age, and maybe even today still run after the air bags go off so the car isn't necessarily immobilized after a minor accident in a busy area. This might vary from company to company.

Judging by the front end of the front end of the Saturn it seems likely the radiator could have been cracked, once that gets pushed back towards the engine a whole slew of problems can occur. All in all I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't start after.

As far as the rag goes, it seems like it was fully stuffed in the muffler and not entirely visible until close inspection. A small rag probably would have not caused a problem, a large one maybe. But then you have to consider - a large piece of fabric stuffed into a 2 inch opening...you'd certainly need a broomstick to get it in there. A well driven car is going likely have a warm muffler too, not something I want my hands near.

Also, it's being described as a rag. Your average rag is not big enough to fill the volume of a muffle enough to create problems. Maybe a towel would but a small breathable piece of fabric? I still doubt it could impede air flow enough to make a noticeable difference. If it did - it would have been noticed right from start up with rough idling, sputtering etc.

Its a rag, not a tampon. There's no expansion here.

Ultimately, the rag is indeed an enigma. Either way it was either the worst automotive advice ever or worst attempt to disable a vehicle ever.

If some evil doer was, say, following her and had a small window of opportunity during a gas station stop and wanted cause problems with her Saturn a few miles down the road in a less public area than a gas station...why not just puncture a tire? A medium sized gash to the sidewall or tread and the tire would be flat in 20 minutes or less.

The rag just seems like a lackluster and unpredictable way to sabotage a car, IMO.

 

[OldSteve]

Are you referring to the People article that noted that a rag (or some other item) was found stuffed in her exhaust, and under those conditions the car wouldn't have been drivable for more than a short distance? And she had just recently stopped and gotten gas? It appears someone stuck that in her exhaust pipe very shortly before her car plowed into the bank and was abandoned.

I was referring to, and thanks for asking - we've been told from day one that her car ran poorly and we know Fred had visited with cash to buy another car before her tip.... But, just how badly was her car running is my question.

Appears no attempt was made after the accident to see how the engine was running. I don't recall there being mention of any records of repairs made in the weeks and months before her trip (that might contain notes about it's condition)... - did it backfire, did it smoke. We've been told the rag was used to stop it from smoking - but did it really smoke?

Two avenues of thought - the worse her car was running, the more she might have known in the back of her mind this was going to be a one-way trip.

The other thought; driving a smoking or backfiring car could bring all sorts of unwanted attention to herself....

 

[Fireweed]

It also seems that such sabotage would cause the car sputter and slow down and eventually stall, not spin out on the road and cause an accident.

 

[Fireweed]

I was referring to, and thanks for asking - we've been told from day one that her car ran poorly and we know Fred had visited with cash to buy another car before her tip.... But, just how badly was her car running is my question.

Appears no attempt was made after the accident to see how the engine was running. I don't recall there being mention of any records of repairs made in the weeks and months before her trip (that might contain notes about it's condition)... - did it backfire, did it smoke. We've been told the rag was used to stop it from smoking - but did it really smoke?

Two avenues of thought - the worse her car was running, the more she might have known in the back of her mind this was going to be a one-way trip.

The other thought; driving a smoking or backfiring car could bring all sorts of unwanted attention to herself....

I personally do not believe her car was in that bad of shape. Unless it was towed all the way to Haverhill, we know that the car performed well enough to drive more than three hours in the middle of the winter. Also, Fred and Maura never bought a car and Maura was confident enough in the performance of her car to call around about booking rooms several hours from college. She also emailed her profs and bosses that she was going to be gone. At least in Maura's own mind, the car ran.

I think Fred is lying about the Saturn being in bad shape and I also think he is lying about his reasons for being in Amherst that weekend. I am not saying this makes him a "bad person" or anything like that. I simply believe that Fred was there to help Maura with a personal crisis and he does not think it is anyone's business. He is convinced that whatever Maura had going on before the crash has nothing to do with her disappearance and so he has told a lie to protect Maura's privacy and reputation.

 

[Ricochet]

Yes but that is only if you are planning on returning and continuing in the program with a passing grade.

I do not know the answers to the questions I'm about to ask and don't want to read through 12 threads to try and find the answers.

My theory has always been Maura intended to return to the University and that's the reason for the email to her professor.

1. Has anyone associated with Maura ever confirmed that she was or intended to leave the nursing program?

2. Has anyone associated with Maura ever confirmed she was leaving UMass?

I'm not certain about the first question, but with the second question it seems the assumption is she was leaving UMass because she had boxes packed and pictures off the wall. Maybe she was moving to a different dorm. Maybe she was moving off campus. Maybe she was quitting. Maybe she was doing something that I'm not thinking of. It seems in general people consider a lot of her actions eradicate / impulsive / illogical and then try to apply logic to some of her other actions. If she has boxes packed and pictures off the wall it would logically appear that Maura's leaving UMass, but Maura is often illogical and impulsive so logic doesn't apply or maybe she was having a lucid moment and logic does apply. Did the helicopter fly over an area that one would logically take if fleeing on foot or did they also consider that it's not uncommon for Maura to be eradicate and illogical and maybe she went in a direction that makes no logical sense at all. It's further complicated by the fact her friends and family won't discuss the case and if they did it's likely they'd paint a picture of Maura that's not accurate.

I feel like so many people miss the point of what I am getting at. If Maura missed two days of these clinicals, there would not have been a search party called. The consequences of missing clinicals would have been purely academic in nature. Scoops is totally convinced that if Maura missed two days of school (even these you-miss-one-and-the-world-ends clinicals), that her parents and the police would have been called. That is not how things operate at a university. If Maura missed two days of clinicals then her grade would have suffered, or she would have been kicked out of the program, but FFS, she would not have been a "missing person".

I agree with this 100%.


In regards to James Renner, I think this case/book has made him less than credible, at least with people in this forum. I went back and read some of his blog entries from June 2011 and it's clear that the book was going to be about the Maura Murray case and not his addiction to the Maura Murray case. Through the years the blog has been consistent with his belief that Maura is off living a new life somewhere. He recently posted about major new information, a big announcement, his belief that she's now most likely deceased, the moratorium, the original intent of the blog and now all of those blog entries have now been deleted. He's now 90% certain she's deceased (no reference to this on his blog), and yet he leaves up the blog entries about people having disappeared only to be found later. The case is no longer about Maura Murray, but his addiction to the Maura Murray case. I think it would've fairly easy to put a different spin on the book that would've still make him appear credible.

On a random side note. A lot is often discussed about the ATM footage. I suspect if it's ever released people will be disappointed. It'll likely just show Maura walking up, withdrawing cash, taking the cash and walking away.

 

[Fireweed]

I do not know the answers to the questions I'm about to ask and don't want to read through 12 threads to try and find the answers.

My theory has always been Maura intended to return to the University and that's the reason for the email to her professor.

1. Has anyone associated with Maura ever confirmed that she was or intended to leave the nursing program?

2. Has anyone associated with Maura ever confirmed she was leaving UMass?

I'm not certain about the first question, but with the second question it seems the assumption is she was leaving UMass because she had boxes packed and pictures off the wall. Maybe she was moving to a different dorm. Maybe she was moving off campus. Maybe she was quitting. Maybe she was doing something that I'm not thinking of. It seems in general people consider a lot of her actions eradicate / impulsive / illogical and then try to apply logic to some of her other actions. If she has boxes packed and pictures off the wall it would logically appear that Maura's leaving UMass, but Maura is often illogical and impulsive so logic doesn't apply or maybe she was having a lucid moment and logic does apply. Did the helicopter fly over an area that one would logically take if fleeing on foot or did they also consider that it's not uncommon for Maura to be eradicate and illogical and maybe she went in a direction that makes no logical sense at all. It's further complicated by the fact her friends and family won't discuss the case and if they did it's likely they'd paint a picture of Maura that's not accurate.




I agree with this 100%.


In regards to James Renner, I think this case/book has made him less than credible, at least with people in this forum. I went back and read some of his blog entries from June 2011 and it's clear that the book was going to be about the Maura Murray case and not his addiction to the Maura Murray case. Through the years the blog has been consistent with his belief that Maura is off living a new life somewhere. He recently posted about major new information, a big announcement, his belief that she's now most likely deceased, the moratorium, the original intent of the blog and now all of those blog entries have now been deleted. He's now 90% certain she's deceased (no reference to this on his blog), and yet he leaves up the blog entries about people having disappeared only to be found later. The case is no longer about Maura Murray, but his addiction to the Maura Murray case. I think it would've fairly easy to put a different spin on the book that would've still make him appear credible.

On a random side note. A lot is often discussed about the ATM footage. I suspect if it's ever released people will be disappointed. It'll likely just show Maura walking up, withdrawing cash, taking the cash and walking away.

I think people just think it strange that at least no stills were released from the ATM footage. After all, this is what she looked like on the day she disappeared. That is normally something which LE would want the public to see.

There are obviously some things LE is keeping secret. The fact that they never released footage of a missing person as she appeared less than 4 hours after never being seen again leads me to believe it possible that there is something relevant about the footage. Does she have a bruise on her face maybe?

 

[stephsb]

JMO but I've always took it as LE won't release the ATM footage to the public for the purpose of determining the credibility of anyone coming forward w. Any supposed sightings of her that day. I've seen it speculated that she could have had a bruise or been injured, which is certainly not outside the realm of possibility (and I'd think then LE would def withold the footage) but perhaps she was just wearing something distinguishing, or had her hair styled differently. I feel like if she had some sort of visible facial injury, they would have been more likely to consider the possibility of foul play right from the beginning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bluesneakers]

JMO but I've always took it as LE won't release the ATM footage to the public for the purpose of determining the credibility of anyone coming forward w. Any supposed sightings of her that day. I've seen it speculated that she could have had a bruise or been injured, which is certainly not outside the realm of possibility (and I'd think then LE would def withold the footage) but perhaps she was just wearing something distinguishing, or had her hair styled differently. I feel like if she had some sort of visible facial injury, they would have been more likely to consider the possibility of foul play right from the beginning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In most of the missing persons cases I've followed LE releases a photo from the last place someone was seen. And of course when they do that it's before they have any idea which way the case will go. Sometimes they've specifically mentioned the person is wearing something distinctive or unusual, or looks different from other photos shared. I think getting an accurate image out to help locate her is more important than possibly testing a potential witness.

JMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Fireweed]

Well at the risk of looking like I am "bashing" LE, let me just add the other possibility is that the investigators working this case have/had a limited idea as to how to proceed in this case right from the start, and that is why they never released the ATM footage.

 

[Tarik]

IMO, if Renner had a compelling story to tell about Maura's disappearance, he would have published his book a long time ago. What great insight can he offer in this missing case when none of the primary people will even talk to him? All he has is a few facts and his own spin. Is that why he changed the focus of his book to be about his obsession? IDK At least now, with the podcast, we are hearing from some new people who have also researched this case for many years and can offer different perspectives. That's refreshing to me and who knows? It just may shine some new light on this case.

If there's any truth to Renner's bombshell, I want to hear it from LE, as it seems to suggest some kind of foul play. Otherwise it's just another rumor in a book by a blogger/writer with an agenda and that's not fair to Maura or her family.

All just MHO!

THIS!!! That's probably the reason why a lot of people are starting to doubt his credibility. You can only fool people for so long before they realize it.

 

[Fireweed]

THIS!!! That's probably the reason why a lot of people are starting to doubt his credibility. You can only fool people for so long before they realize it.

I also feel that there have been a lot things he dug up about Maura that have now just been "hanging" out there with no credible source for years. For example, Renner posted on his blog that Maura participated in orgies. Okay. Fine. If that is true then it is entirely possible that Maura had some secret lifestyle choices that no one knew about. But Renner just posts stuff like that with no sources and no way to check the credibility of what he says. Now had he posted that and the book came out six months later with the source of it, then I would feel differently. The time from the "teaser" to the release of the book is going to be three years. It is just so icky to put something out there like that as a teaser for the book so many years before the book was actually published. And then there is this: we now know that the book is actually about Renner's experience writing the book. To me this means that it is entirely possible that the "Maura loved orgies" part in the book will just be Renner talking on the phone to someone on the track team (who he does not name) about it and Renner himself musing as to whether or not it is even true. By making the book about his experience writing it, that means that he is off the hook when it comes to making sure he has credible sources. He can write something like: "the janitor at the athletic complex said that he sometimes found condom wrappers and that he also heard that athletes had orgies there." In other words, he can now just write anything and everything any person ever told him and put it in the book. See, it is technically true that someone told him something; what is not true is if what that person said is true.

 

[Caffeine]

By putting the orgy story out there based on hearsay, I can't help but think the "new" info he had was sketchy at best or perhaps so slanderous to an individual a lawsuit could result.

Overall, I'm pretty disappointed with the book. I surely don't care about his personal journey, I don't want a one sided perspective that she ran away to Canada and now teasing possible crap info doesn't help either.

I'm hoping the documentary, at the very least, takes an unbiased approach and looks at different angles and talks to a lot of different people. With Renner involved I'm not going to hold my breath but perhaps his part will be short at least. I'd be much more interested in hearing from LE or private investigators and folks like that anyway.

 

[Fireweed]

By putting the orgy story out there based on hearsay, I can't help but think the "new" info he had was sketchy at best or perhaps so slanderous to an individual a lawsuit could result.

Overall, I'm pretty disappointed with the book. I surely don't care about his personal journey, I don't want a one sided perspective that she ran away to Canada and now teasing possible crap info doesn't help either.

I'm hoping the documentary, at the very least, takes an unbiased approach and looks at different angles and talks to a lot of different people. With Renner involved I'm not going to hold my breath but perhaps his part will be short at least. I'd be much more interested in hearing from LE or private investigators and folks like that anyway.

Well the post was deleted, but scoops was also under the impression that the "new info" was from a sketchy source, and I believe that scoops actually knows what it is.

I really do not have high hopes for the documentary. The guys making it seem inexperienced and without any direction. The fact that they go to a psychic is just so completely ridiculous that it ruined any sort of credibility they might have had. Also, despite what they claim, they are clearly wrapped up with Renner and whatever he is doing.

I do not really want to buy the book, but since I know it will be discussed here I guess I will. I am sure there are a few gems in there but that it will mainly be Renner talking about himself.

 

[Lolacat]

Agree with everyone's points about James Renner. I enjoyed his blog up until his claims of Maura being a "sociopath". Thats the point where it descended into utter farce for me. That is a very serious clinical diagnosis and to be throwing around labels like that which clearly hold a stigma in the society in which we live is highly irresponsible in my view. I work in mental health and its hard enough trying to encourage people to come forward or talk about their mental health issues because of stigma and social exclusion. Making it into some kind of salacious gossip that wouldn't look out of place on a daily mail headline is not helpful. On his blog, he didn't even spell psychopathy correctly. He is not in a position to be diagnosing serious mental health conditions of a person he has never even known, or met. Its fine to have suspicions about it, or to wonder about it, or to point out behaviour that might be dysfunctional, or to believe it internally, but to actually come out and publicly declare a diagnosis like its fact? No. Just NO.

One interesting thing from the most recent podcast was the interview with "John Smith" the private investigator who claims that from looking at Billy Rausch's phone records, he thinks Billy was aware of the problems that Maura was having and he implies that Billy might know why she left UMass that night. He claims that Billy made 46 phone calls the day before Maura went missing and 52 phone calls on the day she went missing (this was all BEFORE anyone knew she was gone). He claims that a normal amount of phone calls for Billy on an average day would be approx. 17-20 so this amount is obviously above the norm for him. He makes it clear that he does NOT think Billy was involved in her disappearance as he was in another location, but simply that he might have known what was troubling Maura and perhaps been worried about it himself.

 

[Tarik]

By putting the orgy story out there based on hearsay, I can't help but think the "new" info he had was sketchy at best or perhaps so slanderous to an individual a lawsuit could result.

Overall, I'm pretty disappointed with the book. I surely don't care about his personal journey, I don't want a one sided perspective that she ran away to Canada and now teasing possible crap info doesn't help either.

I'm hoping the documentary, at the very least, takes an unbiased approach and looks at different angles and talks to a lot of different people. With Renner involved I'm not going to hold my breath but perhaps his part will be short at least. I'd be much more interested in hearing from LE or private investigators and folks like that anyway.

The theory about her running away to Canada is ridiculous. There is no way she could have just walked there on her own in the winter snow and if someone drove her there they would have been stopped and arrested at the border. It's just an easy explanation that some people including law enforcement like to throw out often when a person disappears "near" the Canadian border. The funny thing about that is that Haverhill, NH is not near the Canadian border. It's 130 miles or a 3 hour drive away from the closest city in Canada.

 

[Ricochet]

I also feel that there have been a lot things he dug up about Maura that have now just been "hanging" out there with no credible source for years. For example, Renner posted on his blog that Maura participated in orgies. Okay. Fine. If that is true then it is entirely possible that Maura had some secret lifestyle choices that no one knew about. But Renner just posts stuff like that with no sources and no way to check the credibility of what he says. Now had he posted that and the book came out six months later with the source of it, then I would feel differently. The time from the "teaser" to the release of the book is going to be three years. It is just so icky to put something out there like that as a teaser for the book so many years before the book was actually published. And then there is this: we now know that the book is actually about Renner's experience writing the book. To me this means that it is entirely possible that the "Maura loved orgies" part in the book will just be Renner talking on the phone to someone on the track team (who he does not name) about it and Renner himself musing as to whether or not it is even true. By making the book about his experience writing it, that means that he is off the hook when it comes to making sure he has credible sources. He can write something like: "the janitor at the athletic complex said that he sometimes found condom wrappers and that he also heard that athletes had orgies there." In other words, he can now just write anything and everything any person ever told him and put it in the book. See, it is technically true that someone told him something; what is not true is if what that person said is true.

He also mention in his blog dated June 28, 2011 and titled "My Methodology" point 2. That he'll name suspects provided their dead or have a criminal record of violence against women. However, he won't name suspects if their not dead nor a creep and instead use a moniker with a notation.

How do you define creep and if their not a creep then it could be anyone. It would seem that he could use that rationale anywhere in the book he chooses whether their a suspect or not.

If their not dead, don't have a record, nor a creep isn't that a roundabout way of saying their not a person of interest? If their not a person of interest then they wouldn't be a suspect.

 

[Fireweed]

Agree with everyone's points about James Renner. I enjoyed his blog up until his claims of Maura being a "sociopath". Thats the point where it descended into utter farce for me. That is a very serious clinical diagnosis and to be throwing around labels like that which clearly hold a stigma in the society in which we live is highly irresponsible in my view. I work in mental health and its hard enough trying to encourage people to come forward or talk about their mental health issues because of stigma and social exclusion. Making it into some kind of salacious gossip that wouldn't look out of place on a daily mail headline is not helpful. On his blog, he didn't even spell psychopathy correctly. He is not in a position to be diagnosing serious mental health conditions of a person he has never even known, or met. Its fine to have suspicions about it, or to wonder about it, or to point out behaviour that might be dysfunctional, or to believe it internally, but to actually come out and publicly declare a diagnosis like its fact? No. Just NO.

One interesting thing from the most recent podcast was the interview with "John Smith" the private investigator who claims that from looking at Billy Rausch's phone records, he thinks Billy was aware of the problems that Maura was having and he implies that Billy might know why she left UMass that night. He claims that Billy made 46 phone calls the day before Maura went missing and 52 phone calls on the day she went missing (this was all BEFORE anyone knew she was gone). He claims that a normal amount of phone calls for Billy on an average day would be approx. 17-20 so this amount is obviously above the norm for him. He makes it clear that he does NOT think Billy was involved in her disappearance as he was in another location, but simply that he might have known what was troubling Maura and perhaps been worried about it himself.

I would love to see the actually phone records. The fact that John Smith has some rather exact numbers though, leads me to believe that it is true.

Did you all see the comment from Renner on the youtube video of this podcast? It looks like Renner (stupidly) blew this guy off as a troll, when now it turns out that he has some rather compelling information. Even though Truth Seeker comes across as a bit of a conspiracy theory nut, I will say that he took care to answer all the questions in a reasonable way.

At any rate, I now believe that Billy and Maura were not just having problems, but that Billy believed that Maura was either suicidal or in a very bad state. 52 calls the day she disappeared? He was in a panic.