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

[stephsb]

The phone records, if what he is reporting is true, is really compelling. I totally agree with you Fireweed, if he indeed made 46 calls the day before, and 52 the day she disappeared he was in an absolute panic. 100 calls in two days is unbelievably large.

I've thought from the beginning that FM and BR had a pretty good idea of what her mindset was like leading up to her disappearance, and it would look like BR was certainly worried about something. I'd love to see the phone records.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fireweed]

The phone records, if what he is reporting is true, is really compelling. I totally agree with you Fireweed, if he indeed made 46 calls the day before, and 52 the day she disappeared he was in an absolute panic. 100 calls in two days is unbelievably large.

I've thought from the beginning that FM and BR had a pretty good idea of what her mindset was like leading up to her disappearance, and it would look like BR was certainly worried about something. I'd love to see the phone records.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You know what I find the most interesting of all this? The people closest to Maura act as though they have no idea what drove her to leave town, but clearly at least Billy knew. So here we have Maura, completely ignoring Billy's calls to her when he was clearly in a panic over her. I dunno, is it thus possible that Maura could be the kind of person to skip town and have no qualms about leaving her family in a panic?

Was the Londonderry ping from one of the many people Billy was calling that day? Like did he call someone in the area and ask them to call Maura for him?

 

[Ricochet]

I feel like I'm the only one that's NOT impressed with these podcasts. What information did he really provide? There's no doubt that he knows the area and is familiar with the case, and I'm certain he has good intentions. I believe James Renner has good intentions too! At least James has backed up his investigation with documents and interviews.

1. What do they have, other than his word, that he's a former patrolman? There's two people that sent emails stating they could vouch that John Smith was a patrolman. For all I know John Smith created two different email accounts and sent the emails himself.

2. In my opinion he doesn't come across as a former officer.

3. He's investigating the case but never took the time to interview Rick Forcier. They just bumped into one another. Didn't James Renner actually attempt to interview Rick Forcier?

4. Until he produces phone records, to me the number of calls allegedly made by Billy are nothing more than random numbers.

5. I don't know about New Hampshire, but in the part of the country I live a 911 operator isn't going to stay on the line for the reporting of an accident. They'll take the information and dispatch police, ambulance etc.

6. He seems to imply that Alden Olsen isn't an internet troll and John Green is. Alden Olsen would be the classic definition of an internet troll by which they make people mad which then detracts from the real conversation. John Green is not. I believe him to be genuine, knows a lot about the case, and most likely had clashing theories with James Renner and was then removed as moderator or because he was attempting to poach posters from James blog for a blog that John was creating, did create, and shut it down relatively quickly.

7. I have a hard time taking any investigator seriously when their email begins with dora the explorer. Isn't that kind of a joke in itself?

 

[Fireweed]

Yeah there were for sure some strange things about John Smith. The email address he gave was certainly odd to me as well. I wish he could produce some of the evidence for what he said because there is certainly some stuff about him that is more than just a little off. I did, however, enjoy hearing a fresh and different perspective from someone who lives there.

I have personally corresponded with John Green and he seemed normal enough to me.

But, at the end of the day, people on the internet can be anything they want to be. If we really take a critical look at all the information we have on Maura this is truly a fact, we do not have very much.

 

[Tarik]

I feel like I'm the only one that's NOT impressed with these podcasts. What information did he really provide? There's no doubt that he knows the area and is familiar with the case, and I'm certain he has good intentions. I believe James Renner has good intentions too! At least James has backed up his investigation with documents and interviews.

1. What do they have, other than his word, that he's a former patrolman? There's two people that sent emails stating they could vouch that John Smith was a patrolman. For all I know John Smith created two different email accounts and sent the emails himself.

2. In my opinion he doesn't come across as a former officer.

3. He's investigating the case but never took the time to interview Rick Forcier. They just bumped into one another. Didn't James Renner actually attempt to interview Rick Forcier?

4. Until he produces phone records, to me the number of calls allegedly made by Billy are nothing more than random numbers.

5. I don't know about New Hampshire, but in the part of the country I live a 911 operator isn't going to stay on the line for the reporting of an accident. They'll take the information and dispatch police, ambulance etc.

6. He seems to imply that Alden Olsen isn't an internet troll and John Green is. Alden Olsen would be the classic definition of an internet troll by which they make people mad which then detracts from the real conversation. John Green is not. I believe him to be genuine, knows a lot about the case, and most likely had clashing theories with James Renner and was then removed as moderator or because he was attempting to poach posters from James blog for a blog that John was creating, did create, and shut it down relatively quickly.

7. I have a hard time taking any investigator seriously when their email begins with dora the explorer. Isn't that kind of a joke in itself?

That's less and less true these days, according to people here who have known him for a long time.

 

[missy_g]

I have a lot of issues with several things. I'll try to lay them out so they're easy to understand but I'm on my phone and mostly rambling.
#1-the rag in the tailpipe. I doubt that rag was there for long. My friend shoved a rag between my muffler because it was missing a support thing and made an annoying vibration. The muffler actually got hot enough that it caught on fire.
#2-who was Billy calling that he made almost 100 calls in two days?? Was he calling Maura? Who did Maura call besides the hotel?
#3-Maura only had like $280 cash. That's not enough to run away IMO. Hell, that's barely enough to get away for an overnight trip.
#4-I believe that FM was up there for something besides buying her a car. I also believe he lied to cover for Maura. I think he didn't want to give her a bad name.
#5-I kind of agree with John Smiths theory that she might have wrecked before the final wreck into the snowbank.


Sent By Owl

 

[armywife210]

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.

It was in terrible taste for him to spout that info to the public. And what gain has been made by it? Sometimes it seems he is dead set on a mission to completely destroy her and her family. It's sleazy is what it is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ricochet]

That's less and less true these days, according to people here who have known him for a long time.

Not really. I'm not a defender of James Renner by any means. His blog the past few years has become less and less credible which unfortunately has overshadowed the first couple years of the blog. He has however provided documents that are public record, he did provide the documents verifying her credit card fraud, all free of charge and they do cost money. He could've kept them for himself but he didn't. He did interview people that worked with Maura, and new Maura ie. the track coach. All of which he posted on his blog for all to read. He could've just posted "I spoke to so and so and they provided insight into the case" and left it at that, but he didn't.

So while his blog has gone downhill the past few year. He has produced more verifiable information than any other person I can think of.

 

[TessDeco]

I feel like I'm the only one that's NOT impressed with these podcasts. What information did he really provide? There's no doubt that he knows the area and is familiar with the case, and I'm certain he has good intentions. I believe James Renner has good intentions too! At least James has backed up his investigation with documents and interviews.

1. What do they have, other than his word, that he's a former patrolman? There's two people that sent emails stating they could vouch that John Smith was a patrolman. For all I know John Smith created two different email accounts and sent the emails himself.

2. In my opinion he doesn't come across as a former officer.

3. He's investigating the case but never took the time to interview Rick Forcier. They just bumped into one another. Didn't James Renner actually attempt to interview Rick Forcier?

4. Until he produces phone records, to me the number of calls allegedly made by Billy are nothing more than random numbers.

5. I don't know about New Hampshire, but in the part of the country I live a 911 operator isn't going to stay on the line for the reporting of an accident. They'll take the information and dispatch police, ambulance etc.

6. He seems to imply that Alden Olsen isn't an internet troll and John Green is. Alden Olsen would be the classic definition of an internet troll by which they make people mad which then detracts from the real conversation. John Green is not. I believe him to be genuine, knows a lot about the case, and most likely had clashing theories with James Renner and was then removed as moderator or because he was attempting to poach posters from James blog for a blog that John was creating, did create, and shut it down relatively quickly.

7. I have a hard time taking any investigator seriously when their email begins with dora the explorer. Isn't that kind of a joke in itself?

It's just a Podcast and John Smith is just another person sharing his interest and experience with Maura's disappearance. He's no different than James Renner IMO, except he doesn't have a blog or a book to sell. If John Smith or anyone else can stir up a new lead by speaking out, then good for him. The Podcast sure has inspired new interest in Maura's case and I find it refreshing to hear some different perspectives.

 

[Lolacat]

6. He seems to imply that Alden Olsen isn't an internet troll and John Green is. Alden Olsen would be the classic definition of an internet troll by which they make people mad which then detracts from the real conversation. John Green is not.

I agree. This was the only part of the podcast that made me go WTF? At points, they seemed to be implying that AO was maybe a decent, stand up guy deep down. REALLY? you think someone who gains pleasure from making disturbing videos taunting/stalking a family who are already in significant pain with a missing daughter might not have dubious intentions? SMH.

 

[Fireweed]

I agree. This was the only part of the podcast that made me go WTF? At points, they seemed to be implying that AO was maybe a decent, stand up guy deep down. REALLY? you think someone who gains pleasure from making disturbing videos taunting/stalking a family who are already in significant pain with a missing daughter might not have dubious intentions? SMH.

I have observed as I have gone through life that men who are a little odd themselves sometimes have a hard time seeing how creepy guys are who are really odd.

Obviously AO has absolutely nothing interesting to say about the Maura case. He is desperate for attention and gets off on creeping people out. That is all he contributes here.

 

[TessDeco]

I agree. This was the only part of the podcast that made me go WTF? At points, they seemed to be implying that AO was maybe a decent, stand up guy deep down. REALLY? you think someone who gains pleasure from making disturbing videos taunting/stalking a family who are already in significant pain with a missing daughter might not have dubious intentions? SMH.

I agree with your WTF! But, when I listened to the Podcast, I got the impression they were trying to nudge AO to come forward and do a Podcast interview. John Smith's portrayal of AO as a decent guy might have just been a ploy to appeal to AO so he'd talk to them. I'm not sure why they want to interview an obviously disturbed troll except maybe they think it would make an interesting episode? IDK That's just my impression but I could be totally wrong!

I also get the feeling that John Smith is talking to someone out there (via the Podcast) who he believes knows something about Maura's case and is hoping to encourage them to come forward and talk. IDK if this is related to Renner's cryptic announcement about new information or not but it just seems like he is prompting someone. Maybe it's just me?

All just MHO!

 

[Lolacat]

I got the impression they were trying to nudge AO to come forward and do a Podcast interview. John Smith's portrayal of AO as a decent guy might have just been a ploy to appeal to AO so he'd talk to them. I'm not sure why they want to interview an obviously disturbed troll except maybe they think it would make an interesting episode?

This thought crossed my mind too but then I wondered why on earth they'd want to do a podcast with a known troll.

On the other hand, in his book, "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker, (excellent book btw- on predicting the signs of violence before they happen and how to keep you and your family safe) he suggests that noone should be ruled out for investigation or discussion. He writes, "When interviewing victims of anonymous threats, I dont ask who do you think sent you these threats? because most victims can't imagine anyone they know sent the threats. I ask instead, who could have sent them? and together we make a list of everyone who had the ability, without regard to motive. Then I ask clients to assign a motive, even a ridiculous one, to each person on the list. Its a creative process that puts them under no pressure to be correct. For this very reason, in almost every case, one of their imaginative theories will be correct".

Maybe they're just trying to cover every angle? Either that, or its got to the point where they're just scratching around for material trying to interview every person that has ever mentioned Maura on the internet, ever. lol

 

[Fireweed]

I think the phrase "red flag" is a bit harsh, though I do find it strange that Fred does not want a book written about Maura, period. In fact I wonder if that is even the case. Maybe Fred just did not want a book written by some guy he does not know and has never even heard of. The only "red flag" here to me is that Fred Murray likes to have as much control over all this as possible, and in many ways I don't really blame him.

 

[missy_g]

I think the phrase "red flag" is a bit harsh, though I do find it strange that Fred does not want a book written about Maura, period. In fact I wonder if that is even the case. Maybe Fred just did not want a book written by some guy he does not know and has never even heard of. The only "red flag" here to me is that Fred Murray likes to have as much control over all this as possible, and in many ways I don't really blame him.

I agree. I supported James for the first week or so I actually listened to the podcast. Reading his blog made me go research him and I didn't like what I found.
I don't want to blame Fred for anything but I truly think he knows more then what he lets on. I think he has some information about Maura that he thinks would shame the family.
I don't blame him at all either. I think many families will with hold information for that reason.



Sent By Owl

 

[JamesRenner]

Wrong again. There were several ads in Amherst and Canada. And the ads resulted in multiple leads which were given to the Cold Case Unit, including new sightings in Quebec City.

 

[Ricochet]

Wrong again. There were several ads in Amherst and Canada. And the ads resulted in multiple leads which were given to the Cold Case Unit, including new sightings in Quebec City.

Which is now irrelevant, because according to your blog you now believe she's most certainly dead.

You took all that down though. Why not put all those blog entries back up so everyone can see that you changed your viewpoint, because your blog doesn't reflect that anymore.

Fred Murray, made quite an intelligent decision NOT to talk to you.

Unfortunately, James you've been hostile to the Murrays, wrong in theories, taken down relevant blog entries that make you look bad. You're just not credible, and your blog is dishonest because you're portraying it as she's still likely alive when you now believe she's likely dead according to the blog entry you deleted.

 

[JamesRenner]

My opinion on whether she is alive or dead changes as new info comes in, the way it should when one keeps an open mind about these things. Today, I'm at 50/50. It would be irresponsible for me to take down info that references leads to sightings in Canada until I know for sure she is no longer alive.

 

[Reno]

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.

BBM. Yeah, good post. I don't buy the "tailpipe-as-sabotage" theory. I concur with an Occam's razor-type view of the rag in the pipe, relying on a few simple assumptions: 1.) it's alleged FM told MM a rag in the tailpipe could function to stop a vehicle from smoking, 2.) the vehicle had been smoking from time-to-time prior to the trip, and was smoking after the accident.

Based on that, and relying on credibility of facts we know, my theory is that the tailpipe information MM learned from FM had stuck with her - maybe she had reinforced it with a bit of testing to see if the tailpipe really did stop the car from smoking. Even in a panic state, this prior learning probably would have stuck with her at this moment. Her mannerisms and comments about having contacted AAA and "pleading" BA not to call police would be consistent with trying to minimize attention the accident could cause. It's reasonable to believe this would have been a focus of her attention, especially considering prior evidence - most prominently: her very recent accident with FM's Corolla.

Relying on assumption the car was smoking, sticking the rag in the pipe - especially if she had done it before - would be consistent with an m.o. to squelch the effects of the accident. I also believe BA or one of the other eyewitnesses commented it was an active road, so as every car passed and rubbernecked, MM would be under pressure to minimize attention. Lastly, that threat of attention would be consistent with subsequent fast flight theories - on foot, or by car. The major challenge would be the first BBM - that the tailpipe was really hot - but there are ways to explain that: cooling in cold temps, gloves, big rag, a stick.

So, she knows how to stuff the pipe, has a motive to do so and takes action consistent with other known and theorized conduct surrounding the accident.

 

[Fireweed]

Wrong again. There were several ads in Amherst and Canada. And the ads resulted in multiple leads which were given to the Cold Case Unit, including new sightings in Quebec City.

Then you need to post photos of those ads on your blog. You have only offered solid proof of one of them, and you lied about the billboards. You can call people wrong, but you need to back that assertion up with proof of what you're saying.

Until then, all we have solid evidence of is that you placed one ad and got nothing out of it.

This is what happens Renner when a person blows their credibility - people will start asking them for proof of their claims.