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

[Pettibon Junction]

I live in Cleveland. As a journalist, I covered the Amanda Berry/Gine DeJesus cases. I know Ariel Castro inside and out. You talk about Michelle Knight as if it's in the same ballpark as Maura Murray. It's this kind of short-sightedness that confuses details in this case. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Ariel Castro was an organized human predator. Like a lion on the steppe, he was familiar with his hunting grounds. He was comfortable with his surroundings. He knew the comings and goings of Cleveland police. And when he found his prey, he made sure they were slight of build and that they could be manipulated into coming with him first by charm, and then by force.

The site where Maura Murray disappeared is not a place a predator would attempt an abduction. It is in view of three homes. Maura Murray was not the sort who would easily be taken, either. She was smart. And more, she was a trained cadet, with skills in defense. She was also a cunning con artist in her own right. She would not have gone peacefully. And she would not have accepted a ride -- she'd already turned one down minutes earlier. The only way she could have been taken would be by force and that would have taken time and it would have been loud. And yet nobody saw it happen. Nobody heard it happen.

And she was alone on the side of that road for 5 minutes. On a night when the average number of vehicles driving by at that hour is 7. The odds that a serial killer would cross her path right then, and against all odds, take her without a sound, without beings spotted, are beyond statistics.

Maura Murray was not abducted. Her case is in no way similar to Michelle Knight.

James, all of this conjecture of yours hinges on Butch Atwood being the last person to see Maura Murray. He was not. She took off on foot and was last seen by Rick Forcier later that night. This broadens considerably the time frame and geographical area for something to have happened to her. The claims you make are intellectually dishonest, based on a deliberate denial of eyewitness testimony that fails to conform to the narrative you've created for your blog and book. You have been called out on this before.

But let's say you're right and Maura did disappear of her own volition. Perhaps it's because her issues with her family were every bit as bad as you say they were. But her so-called crimes, which you continually harp on, were minor, at best, symptomatic of emotional problems rather than malicious intent. (This goes double for the rumored sexual experimentation for which you can't help but *advertiser censored*-shame her on your blog.) If this is the case and you're so sure that she left to start with a clean slate somewhere else, then why keep spinning your wheels and shouting down anyone who might think otherwise? What does anyone gain by painting this mentally ill college girl and the family she clearly needed to individuate herself from as some kind of sinister, north country mafia out to fleece the public and stymie your intrepid querying?

All theories aside, there is one FACT surrounding this whole affair of which I am certain: Maura Murray is missing and neither you nor anyone else has found her. Simply saying what you THINK may have happened, no matter how repeatedly, will not, in the absence of tangible evidence, ever make it true.

 

[BillNH]

The person Rick Forcier saw was never confirmed to be Maura. Not by a long shot. They called it a credible sighting, meaning they believed he saw someone wearing dark clothes and a hood and the timeline made it possible it was her. To this day no one knows who he saw, we likely never will unless Maura herself surfaces and confirms it. So yeah, the last person known to see her was Butch Atwood.

 

[Pettibon Junction]

The person Rick Forcier saw was never confirmed to be Maura. Not by a long shot. They called it a credible sighting, meaning they believed he saw someone wearing dark clothes and a hood and the timeline made it possible it was her. To this day no one knows who he saw, we likely never will unless Maura herself surfaces and confirms it. So yeah, the last person known to see her was Butch Atwood.

And yet, there are people who don't even believe that the person Atwood saw was Maura...

Personally, I abide by Occam's razor. No one else has ever been identified as the person Rick Forcier saw that night and the description he gave was a good match for Maura. Further, police thought his account interesting enough to interview him multiple times, to the point where they wound up suspecting him and searched his trailer.

My point is this: if you take Forcier's story into account, then James Renner's dubious "five minute window" assertion comes into question, as well it should.

 

[BillNH]

And yet, there are people who don't even believe that the person Atwood saw was Maura...

Personally, I abide by Occam's razor. No one else has ever been identified as the person Rick Forcier saw that night and the description he gave was a good match for Maura. Further, police thought his account interesting enough to interview him multiple times, to the point where they wound up suspecting him and searched his trailer.

My point is this: if you take Forcier's story into account, then James Renner's dubious "five minute window" assertion comes into question, as well it should.

And even after all that interest and interviewing, they still never said it was Maura he saw. A good match? He couldn't even say it was a male or a female.......

Don't cut yourself on that razor if you don't know how to use it.

 

[Pettibon Junction]

And even after all that interest and interviewing, they still never said it was Maura he saw. A good match? He couldn't even say it was a male or a female.......

Don't cut yourself on that razor if you don't know how to use it.

Say what you will but Forcier, at least, is someone local to the area, out on the night of the disappearance, who saw someone who may well have been Maura running away from the accident scene outside, at night, at a time of year and in a climate where most sensible people would not be out jogging. This is far more credible to me than an anonymous email source cited on a blog. If we have to agree to disagree, that's fine, but you can't say that Forcier's sighting, if considered serious, doesn't open the door to the idea that Maura went further on foot than originally thought and that she was alone.

 

[BillNH]

Say what you will but Forcier, at least, is someone local to the area, out on the night of the disappearance, who saw someone who may well have been Maura running away from the accident scene outside, at night, at a time of year and in a climate where most sensible people would not be out jogging. This is far more credible to me than an anonymous email source cited on a blog. If we have to agree to disagree, that's fine, but you can't say that Forcier's sighting, if considered serious, doesn't open the door to the idea that Maura went further on foot than originally thought and that she was alone.

That's just it, I do not consider RF's sighting as serious. The circumstances around his coming forward months after the fact, the problems with his wife, his skewed sense of humor and the fact that the guy was a little bit kooky gives his story very little weight for me. That the police never went beyond calling the sighting credible just adds to it. I live here in the area, being outside in February jogging or walking is not that unusual especially on a relatively warm night like that was. So whatever RF saw, and I am sure he saw something, does not push me to believe it was Maura. I do, and always have, thought it was possible for her to have left the immediate area on foot. RF's sighting of "something" does not lend any credence to that idea and certainly does not compel me to believe she was alone to the point that I would disregard the idea she was not in fact alone.

 

[JamesRenner]

That's not how Occam's razor works.

 

[Pettibon Junction]

James,

Here's how Occam's razor also does not work:

You have claimed for years now that Maura Murray drove up to New Hampshire in tandem with another driver who, following the accident, picked her up and spirited her off to whatever fate awaited her. However, you have not offered any clues as to who this driver might be, nor have you cited reports of any other out-of-town vehicles on the road that night to substantiate this claim. In fact, the only suspicious vehicle that keeps popping up, the red pick-up truck with MA plates, is a recurring detail from the very first days of the investigation - one that you've gone to lengths to marginalize, if not discredit completely. And again, if Rick Forcier did see Maura Murray, then she was on foot and she was alone. While it may be problematic evidence, it is still more substantial than anything you have published to date.

When one proffers a theory but cannot offer evidence to support it, the mostly likely explanation is that the theory is flawed, if not wrong. That's how Occam's razor works.

 

[Steleheart]

That's just it, I do not consider RF's sighting as serious. The circumstances around his coming forward months after the fact, the problems with his wife, his skewed sense of humor and the fact that the guy was a little bit kooky gives his story very little weight for me. That the police never went beyond calling the sighting credible just adds to it. I live here in the area, being outside in February jogging or walking is not that unusual especially on a relatively warm night like that was. So whatever RF saw, and I am sure he saw something, does not push me to believe it was Maura. I do, and always have, thought it was possible for her to have left the immediate area on foot. RF's sighting of "something" does not lend any credence to that idea and certainly does not compel me to believe she was alone to the point that I would disregard the idea she was not in fact alone.

I wish I saved the information for the weather that evening, but you are correct. It was not a bad evening to take a run especially if it was a miler like I used to be. Good for him that he reported what he saw (if he did). Is it plausible that someone like Maura would start a sprint to get away? Sure, but it doesn't equate to evidence IMO.

When we start a shave with occam's razor Just don't add soap.

Given the weather, there's no evidence that runner was Maura. All things being equal, the simplest explanation is the correct one.


MOO

 

[JamesRenner]

It's pretty obvious who picked her up. The sighting by the woman at Butson's is far more substantiated than Forcier's. If you'd been to that area in the winter, you would know how ridiculous it is that someone could jog down that road. There were no shoulders. Five-foot tall snow drifts. You can keep saying it, but it won't make it true.

 

[Fireweed]

My opinions only, no facts here:

Just for the record, I am not stating that Maura was abducted; it is only my personal theory that she was abducted.

There are too many analogous cases to cite, but think about Michelle Knight who disappeared on August 23, 2002. Prior to her disappearance, she had dropped out of high school to have a baby. This child (a boy) was eventually taken from her and placed in foster care. On the day of her disappearance, she was due in court for a custody hearing about her son. Almost everybody concluded that Michelle, distraught about losing her son and facing many negative turns in her life, had run away or whatever. HOWEVER, she had simply been abducted by Ariel Castro and held captive for +ten years (along with two other females, abducted later). Even the FBI removed Michelle Knight’s name from their missing persons list after a year. Think about it- everything that happened up to the point of Michelle Knight’s abduction was “white noise”.

For the sake of argument, let us also pretend that Maura was the victim of a crime near-to where she slid off the road. I am aware of all the intimations about Maura, before she disappeared. The West Point failure, the pizza incident, drinking, and the wrecked car at college are interesting possible tidbits, but I will bet you that these factors in no way serve to identify the name of an abductor. Thus, IF Maura was abducted, everything before that abduction becomes “white noise”, just like Michelle Knight.

To me, this is absolutely incorrect. I do not want to go off topic since we are not on Michelle's thread, but since we are on the subject of what is and is not "white noise" it seems fair to point out that Michelle's life right up to when she was abducted led directly to her disappearance. Here was a woman who had neglectful, emotionally distant parents and who had just had her baby taken away from her. Then she encounters a man she perceives as a benevolent father figure (he was the dad of one of her friends) and he offers her a puppy (a "baby") just as she is desperate to have both those things in her life the most. She was lured into his home because her life up to that point had set her up for that moment. This was a woman who was not thinking straight and who was desperate for a "comfort" at that moment and Ariel Castro promised to provide her with one. None of this was "white noise". I am not saying that it would have ever led to finding Castro, but just because it did not prove the theory that Michelle took off on her own, does not make it white noise. Michelle fell into Castro's hands directly as the result of what had just happened to her. Her life up until that moment was absolutely relevant to her disappearance.

So back to Maura. Maybe we all wrong about our theories and something else entirely happened to her, but until we find out what it is, I refuse to discount anything that happened to her before that moment as being white noise. Even the case cited here as proving what white noise looks like, is very, very weak.

 

[Fireweed]

It's pretty obvious who picked her up. The sighting by the woman at Butson's is far more substantiated than Forcier's. If you'd been to that area in the winter, you would know how ridiculous it is that someone could jog down that road. There were no shoulders. Five-foot tall snow drifts. You can keep saying it, but it won't make it true.

The fact that the family has been defensive about LE already having this information and the fact that they do not deny it is really good evidence that this sighting is sensitive to the family.

 

[Steleheart]

It's pretty obvious who picked her up. The sighting by the woman at Butson's is far more substantiated than Forcier's. If you'd been to that area in the winter, you would know how ridiculous it is that someone could jog down that road. There were no shoulders. Five-foot tall snow drifts. You can keep saying it, but it won't make it true.

5 foot snow drifts in the road? There? That night? I've missed that reference along the way. Can you link the source here so we can research it again. That would be awesome.

I have liked the Butson's sighting more than most - it seems to have more weight, but has the red truck with Mass plates been totally debunked? Do we know that she was NOT in fact equipped with the right gear for a trek into the mountains? Snow shoes? did she own any?

It seems that people have their favorite theories based on somewhat rationalist rather than empirical evidence. There are so many views but no actual evidence so to criticize a view based on "sense" is rather as short sighted as whom one may be criticizing. Additionally, to say that "we know" something that cannot be supported would seem to be contrary to solving Maura's disappearance IMO.

MOO

 

[Fireweed]

From photos and videos from the days after the accident, it appeared that there were pretty big snow banks, as one would expect from a few months of snow plowing.

As to what Maura had with her, I am not convinced that anyone really knows for sure. I mean, the assumption all these years has been that she left most everything behind, but that could just as easily have been a ruse on her part. Look, when I was 21 and in college, my family did not really know what I owned. Maura's family acts as though if she bought a new sweater she would tell the whole family and send them a photo of it. No one really knows what Maura took with her from the accident; we only know what she left behind.

 

[Steleheart]

From photos and videos from the days after the accident, it appeared that there were pretty big snow banks, as one would expect from a few months of snow plowing.

As to what Maura had with her, I am not convinced that anyone really knows for sure. I mean, the assumption all these years has been that she left most everything behind, but that could just as easily have been a ruse on her part. Look, when I was 21 and in college, my family did not really know what I owned. Maura's family acts as though if she bought a new sweater she would tell the whole family and send them a photo of it. No one really knows what Maura took with her from the accident; we only know what she left behind.

The school bus driver, the police, the tow driver could not drive through 5 foot drifts let alone a fit young woman taking a jog. That's up to my Adam's apple. The pretty big snow banks are about 3 feet at most. I have seen as much as 6 inches wafting across the road there in that season. The pictures, sketches, the weather and witness statements indicate "to me" that she slid, jumped the bank, clipped the tree with her left fender and spun 180 deg. Not a severe crash but enough to cause neighbors to notice. There were just a few minutes when she was not seen by witnesses.
I believe she could take a jog, but IMO it would be quite a load with either all that alcohol, or alternatively, enough gear to climb a mountain and be found naked and drunk up there.
IMO she either had no gear or no alcohol, but either way she got a ride.

Again I have no actual evidence so don't shoot me!

ETA: Off the road it is about 2 feet deep at best and even a fit young woman would need many times the ordinary energy to trudge through it even for a short distance and then the toes freeze.


MOO

 

[takeitfromme412]

Hi, marking my place on the thread. Been gone for a long time. Now I'm back! Still actively wondering about Maura' case so I have some reading to do here.

 

[BillNH]

It's pretty obvious who picked her up. The sighting by the woman at Butson's is far more substantiated than Forcier's. If you'd been to that area in the winter, you would know how ridiculous it is that someone could jog down that road. There were no shoulders. Five-foot tall snow drifts. You can keep saying it, but it won't make it true.

BBM

That is true but Maura, not being familiar with the area, would probably not know how dangerous it would be to jog this road as it narrows substantially just beyond the BHR intersection. The exception being that if she was actually more familiar with the road and its winter conditions than we are aware of. I am not disputing any theory here, just pointing out the logic error of the bolded statement.

 

[armywife210]

James, I get that you are strong in your theory. However, if we consider that perhaps she walked down the road, where there are fewer houses, to get cell service then that opens up your time table a bit there. It also brings in the fact that if there is nobody around to hear her scream or fight, it doesn't matter how much she does it. If we add another possibility in that a "dirtbag" who lives nearby has a scanner and knows there is a young woman in distress out there, well that pops the box of possibilities open a bit more, doesn't it? I'll bet a lot of "dirtbags" have scanners. What if we go a step further and imagine a theory where Maura starts walking to avoid police, it goes over the police scanner that the woman is missing, that dirtbag hears it and goes to see if he can grab her?
It's obvious that you are steadfast in your theory, and I respect that, but to state as fact that Maura was not abducted is a reach. I would love to believe that she is alive and well somewhere, and maybe you're right, but unless you have a whole lot more in your hand that you're not showing I think it's quite a leap to say she definitely wasn't abducted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[armywife210]

I live in Cleveland. As a journalist, I covered the Amanda Berry/Gine DeJesus cases. I know Ariel Castro inside and out. You talk about Michelle Knight as if it's in the same ballpark as Maura Murray. It's this kind of short-sightedness that confuses details in this case. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Ariel Castro was an organized human predator. Like a lion on the steppe, he was familiar with his hunting grounds. He was comfortable with his surroundings. He knew the comings and goings of Cleveland police. And when he found his prey, he made sure they were slight of build and that they could be manipulated into coming with him first by charm, and then by force.

The site where Maura Murray disappeared is not a place a predator would attempt an abduction. It is in view of three homes. Maura Murray was not the sort who would easily be taken, either. She was smart. And more, she was a trained cadet, with skills in defense. She was also a cunning con artist in her own right. She would not have gone peacefully. And she would not have accepted a ride -- she'd already turned one down minutes earlier. The only way she could have been taken would be by force and that would have taken time and it would have been loud. And yet nobody saw it happen. Nobody heard it happen.

And she was alone on the side of that road for 5 minutes. On a night when the average number of vehicles driving by at that hour is 7. The odds that a serial killer would cross her path right then, and against all odds, take her without a sound, without beings spotted, are beyond statistics.

Maura Murray was not abducted. Her case is in no way similar to Michelle Knight.

Sorry, I forgot to quote the post that I was referring to.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Fireweed]

So what does everyone think about the two new sightings on Renner's blog?