Monday, April 22, 2013

The Red Truck

If you frequent any of the other messageboards devoted to finding Maura Murray, one of the more persistent rumors concerns a red truck that was seen turning into the Stage Shop Store parking lot around the time Maura disappeared. Welma Robinson, also known as "Robinson Ordway," claimed the driver of the truck was acting kind of weird and that the truck had Mass plates.

Not so, according to Rick Graves, the man who was by Fred Murray's side, searching the area in the weeks after Maura vanished.

Personally, I always suspected too much had been made of this small detail and doubted Ordway's ability of recall in hindsight.

Graves says a red truck was seen pulling into the Stage Shop but it wasn't from Mass. Another witness grabbed the plate number and handed it over to the family later on. It was registered to a local man named Walter Glynn. Glynn apparently lives with his brother. As far as Graves knows, the men have never been questioned.

I tried to contact them but the phones registered to them have been disconnected.

Anyone know these guys?

Keep in mind, this was probably just a guy turning around and had nothing to do with the events of that night.

30 comments:

  1. Interesting! The account I read seemed too convenient to be recalled in hindsight.

    ReplyDelete
  2. James, speaking of other forums, there is a *lot* of good information about the red truck on this thread:

    http://findmauramurray.fr.yuku.com/topic/75/Red-TruckRed-Truck-Driver?page=3#.UXWgyUosKRk

    Hope that link works. That forum is very interesting in general. A lot of good info there about the Haverhill end of the case, much of which I hadn't seen before.

    (The discussion there is no longer live, so I am pretty sure that posting the link, if you do, won't take anyone away from this site.)

    Anyway, some of the information there suggests to me that the red truck was more than just a rumor, and that in fact police were stopping red trucks on the 10th. LE even apparently asked the original red-truck witness (one of two, I believe) to stop making public comments about it, which, if true, is very suggestive. There are more details on that thread that contribute to my sense that the police themselves were taking the red truck "rumor" seriously, at least for awhile.

    I very much hope Graves is wrong that the Glynns have not been questioned.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The truck must have been suspicious enough for this other witness to take down the plate number. . Robinson Ordway racked her brains for a long time and tried hard to spot the vehicle again and one would think that another witness ( assuming this witness existed) would have talked to her about it that evening or shortly there after.

    I think this smells rather fishy if you ask me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How did the witness, not knowing what was about to unfold regarding MM, just happen to write down the tag number? That driver must have been acting more than just "kind of" weird. - gnomony

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi James.

    I'm skeptical.

    I can't verify the articles I found ever ran and people do plant information. But I think you should verify via the newspaper they are legit. If so, RO's information is more credible. Here's why:

    (1) RO made a statement to a reporter and/or police. There may also have been a dog walker who saw the red truck, strangely parked on Bradley Hill Road. By contrast, the witness Graves cites spoke to FM. The FM-centricity of Graves' information assumes a conclusion that is still an open question for you (i.e., whether FM is being forthright). A statement to a reporter published in a newspaper is more credible in that context.

    (2) Graves likes FM. He may not be skeptical. Was Graves there when FM got this info? If not, what is the difference between the truck and the rag?

    (3) Graves gave you 3rd hand info (witness-FM-Graves-you). If the RO article checks out, the chain is more direct: RO-reporter-public, with journalistic checks at hand.

    (4) This witness Graves cites is an implausible character. Why write down the number? Was the truck was acting strangely? Wouldn't that corroborate RO's statement? Why give the number to FM? Why not the police? When did this happen? Was it when FM knocked on their door? If so, that FM collected the evidence is a potential contaminating factor. Did FM check the plate # somehow or did the police? If FM, how? If the police, they told him the name of the driver? Really? Hinky, all.

    (5) Compare the logic chain of RO's account to the reporter and Graves' to you. For RO: context = walking to the store, saw something strange; premise = I should report it to police, reporter or both; conclusion = nothing. She says what she saw, admits some gaps in her memory, relates her impressions, states the truck seemed "not dangerous" but she thought the driver thought she was someone else and sped off after he got a closer look at her. She does not conclude that she knows what happened to MM. She sounds like someone trying to help. By contrast, Graves' progression is: context= FM got ahold of the plate #, checked it out or had the police do it (and they then told him the name of the owner of the truck); premise (albeit unstated) = if a local was driving, the truck matters not; conclusion = the truck does not matter because a local was driving it. Graves DID NOT say: "the police checked it out, he had an alibi, even though 2-3 people noticed him acting weird near the scene." Isn't that the direct way to put it? His info mixes premise and conclusion in a way that suggests that his lacking skepticism or an ulterior motive. Bottom line: RO concludes nothing from well articulated first hand information, while Graves concludes A LOT based on third hand information with garbled logic.

    (6) Time passing likely did not denigrate RO's recall. Our limbic systems carve more detailed memories into our neural pathways regarding unusual events (e.g., we remember details about the day the challenger blew up but not the day before). RO encountered something strange in the context of a routine activity (walking to the store.) It's credible she would remember the truck to the degree she described.

    If on the basis of Graves' info you disregard the red truck and RO's credibility, why not also disregard the rag in the tail pipe? Both are Murray-centric investigatory conclusions, at least based on what I know.

    Thus, given that RO wont talk to you, isn't it worth trying to confirm that the reprinted story ran? If it did, I think her account is more credible.
    I offer this with great respect. I expect you've got info I don't and your conclusions are solid. But just in case, it hopefully helps to hear a counter point.

    ~ John Green

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lots of good questions, everyone. This is still new info. I will check in with Rick again as to how exactly that info was given over. I would like to talk to the Glynn brothers or anyone who knows them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know what would be compelling? If the "Glynn brothers" worked at Loon Mountain.

      Too easy for this case, I think.

      ~ John Green

      Delete
  7. James, I gotta agree 100% with John Green here and I think your post on April 22 at 6:32 PM says it all. "This is still new info". If you are being intellectually, investigatively and journalistically honest, thats where you leave it.

    You gave us a teaser a few days ago saying that you had, in substance, found the owner of the truck and its no big deal. Great claims require great evidence and that's what I expected to see. I'm sorry to say, this does not live up to the hype at best and is spreading false info at worst.

    First off, you say "it was probably just somebody turning around" however RO's account does not support that at all. Even if we assume lapses in her overall memory of the event, the idea that the truck passed her and was moving in the same direction as her (towards the store and ultimately towards the crash site) is a pretty basic observation not requiring extreme recollection of details. I can't get over your "turning around" comment as an EYE WITNESS reports that the truck was only ever seen headed in 1 direction (West to East) along Rt 112. Who is this Rick Graves guy that you put sooooo much stock in everything that he says? You are going to believe what he says years later and having never been there at the time over an eye witness account and then claim in hindsight that you "never believed RO anyways"? Sounds like a very bad choice to me. If witness #2 exists, (s)he would have to if somebody getting the plate is correct, obviously said witness thought the behavior of the truck to be strange enough to note the plate. I just don't see how you can question RO's account and then take it a step further into the false info direction by saying the truck was probably turning around when BASIC FACTS of the case indicate that it never changed direction on Rt 112. Hello??? With how much you already know about the case, you should have known writing something that contradictory was not going to be believed without very hard evidence. Why this questioning of RO's account? She is one of the very few, people who saw something in the area and around the time of the accident. Furthermore, its hard to forget a truck acting in the way she described (stopping in middle of road to wait for her to get closer, taking off and then taking off again after he got a good enough look at her at the store). What, did she make it up? Imagine it? Its pretty straight forward...

    to be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  8. continued from last post ...
    The driver of that truck could have easily had a scanner and been out looking for the victim of the crash for nefarious purposes or otherwise. Could he have also been looking for the victim of the much discussed but never confirmed "other accident/incident" in the area? Could he be a volunteer firefighter looking for the scene? The last one is the benign case but this could EASILY have been something far more sinister.

    Its even more baffling, considering some of the stones you have turned over multiple times, that you are willing to write this off (using a HEADLINE on your blog no less) without even knowing who the brothers are, whether or not they were questioned, etc. This Graves character does not have any tangible bonifides that you have ever put forward that make his credibility anywhere higher than zero. He was making a big deal out of skidmarks in Franconia I mean, come on, skidmarks are everywhere in rural america, thats what us NH rednecks do: play with cars/trucks. That and its wayyy far from the crime scene in relative terms.

    Barring any further evidence of Graves being anything but a sycophant who enjoys this stuff, Id consider his credibility very low. If he had any investigative skills worth mentioning, he would not be going to mediums and he would not be working at home depot.

    In short, we have a truck acting strange. Considering there are no (or few) places to turn off between Stage Stop and accident site and the time he left SS, we can put this truck/driver in the area at same time as Maura and, in some well thought out timelines, put him in the area during the short time between Atwood leaving and the cops arriving on scene. His identity has not been confirmed publically and YOU don't know if he was ever interviewed or not. Talk about a major gaping hole that could possibly blow the case wide open and the first thing you do is basically write it off based on 3rd or 4th hand info coming from Graves who is close to Fred of all people?

    I don't claim to have any special info on this case but I know 1 of the handful of people who knows exactly whats in those files they wont give Fred, etc. I have discussed the case (only in terms of whats public info) with this person and his demeanor always changes noticeably at the mention of the red truck. He was surprised and unaware it was that well known in the online community and said his personal opinion is find (get enough evidence on is what I think he really means but wont say it) red truck driver and solve the case. Its a major link here, they know who owns it, who was driving they can not prove. Not enough evidence for warrant based on 1 or 2 witness' seeing things that might have been strange but definitely not illegal. Kind of stuck in place but there are many locals and certainly LE who have a bit of the inside scoop who will tell you in an honest moment exactly who did it and the red truck is key. Take it for what its worth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously, I agree with the well stated reasoning above, as it begins with agreeing with me. But I would like to reassert and expand on the caveat at the beginning of my post for the benefit of anyone who might have missed it.

      To wit: I can find NO primary source indicating that RO said anything, although I have concluded that she indeed exists. James has reported that she will not talk to him. The articles that I found are cut and paste jobs of earlier posts that supposedly appeared in a newspaper (I forget the name) on May 24, 2004. They quote RO extensively; like, too much for a news article. So, either it was an unusual article or someone padded it. If the latter, the question becomes did that person pad it with additional info they obtained legitimately from the reporter, or did they just pad it?

      My overall point is that RO's statements seem MUCH more credible that Graves' information - as you and I have discussed here at length - provided that she actually said them. As such, I was arguing that James ought try to confirm via contact with the newspaper that RO was actually interviewed by a reporter and/or that the cut and pasted story actually ran.

      Her statements sounds credible and Graves' sound hinky to me. So much so that if someone with an axe to grind either made up the fact of RO's statement or padded it, they would have had to have been EXTREMELY clever to be so subtle and not point more deliberately toward whatever they were trying to prove. The RO statement has a real ring to it, like a citizen trying to help. She never gets sensational or claims that she knows what happened and she even says the truck "did not strike her as dangerous." BUT, if it is not a real statement made by a real person, then it is of course irrelevant.

      Interestingly, the debunking of RO's statement would not - for me - make graves any more credible. And the persistent rumors of the red truck would still interest me and seem worthy of investigation. Still ... the critical question is whether RO said those things (I think we know she exists for various reasons.) IF THAT CAN BE VERIFIED THROUGH A PRIMARY SOURCE, there is no question in my mind on what is now available from Graves that RO's statement is much more credible for the reason both you and I have laid out above.

      ~ John Green

      Delete
    2. Your post and John Green's as well should be studied closely by those who need to be ever-so-careful not to completely trust anybody who is now or has ever been too close to the principals in this case.

      John Avellar

      Delete
  9. I'm skeptical as well. The red truck was discussed at length on the now defunct MMM forum run by Helena. It seems to me that if the Murray family knew that there was nothing to the red truck sighting they would have shut the discussion down, yet they did not. I believe even RO herself posted there, but I could be mistaken about that. As a side note... I still do not understand why the family took away that forum, even if they blocked further posting, there was a ton of relevant info there from Sharon and others close to the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dug up some discussion of RO on the forums. She is mentioned by a credible source, Fred Leatherman and by another, Francis Kelly (the weeper), whose posts from the original Maura Murray forum were somehow preserved and loaded onto a new blog. They are quite extensive and contain really interesting information. It was said that RO once posted not infrequently on the forums. In fact, it was said that at one point she had found a similar truck, was going to take a picture of it, and post it. Apparently nobody ever heard from her again. Finally, one last point. I can't remember quite what I read, but I think there was some opinion asserted by someone somewhere (and - note - I am specifically NOT attributing this to Fred or Francis) that somebody felt Helena had told her or somehow gotten her to shut up about the case.

      ~ John Green

      Delete
    2. @John Green, supposedly RO stopped posting about the truck because LE told her to stop. Very interesting if true.

      Frank Kelly (aka Weeper) and Detective Columbo seem to be PIs hired by/working with the Murray family. It is no surprise to me, therefore, that these are exactly the PIs who have chosen to post on public forums with their "findings" and suspicions--often involving bogeymen, sketchy cars, and the like. Not that I think the red truck isn't real and possibly significant; I just think we should consider the source, and the potentially skewed perspectives of Fred's own investigation team.

      (I could be wrong about Det. Columbo but I am fairly sure I am right about Weeper.)

      I don't know that Fred Leatherman is "a credible source" of any confirmed kind. He claims to be an accomplished trial lawyer, and he certainly comes off as intelligent in his posts. But I don't know that he has connections or insider information of any sort, nor have I seen him claim such. Some have even proposed he is Beagle, as Leatherman started posting right when Beagle disappeared from Topix. I'm not convinced by that, but who knows.

      Anyway, we should consider the potential sources of all posts on this and other forums. I am quite sure that at least a few posters across the various forums--probably including some frequent posters--are related to the case IRL and have ulterior motives that govern what they post. Also, not everyone necessarily has the credentials or connections to the case they may claim online. We should keep these things in mind as we read MM boards.

      Delete
  10. I am not a red truck believer personally, but I am willing to be wrong.
    I know this is probably the wrong thread for this obscure thought, but has anyone had the tail-pipe-rag sampled for DNA? In the off chance a "good samaritan" was helping MM and that was a calling card?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I put an APB out for Robinsonordways to come forward and state what she knew about the Red Truck driver after having read the her comments in the media. She did not come forward for sometime as she had a tragedy in her family and was subsequently ill shortly thereafter and for sometime thereafter. This tragedy occurred in her family shortly after Maura's disappearance. Because of the time lag involved, when Robinsonordways did come forward her memory as to the time involved was rather vague. However, it was possible to work out a time frame of the siting of this truck. Suspect also was the license plate due to the darkness of the night and the distance the truck remain between the truck and Robinsonordways. I believe that the sighting of this truck is very relevant until ruled out by Law Enforcement. No one can rule out this information, as the person had means and opportunity to give Maura a drive, willingly or unwillingly. Also, could have in affect caused the accident, or have picked up Maura later. All the information on the Red Truck posted on the Maura Murray forum has been reproduced on the yuke.com blog on Maura, except that Robinsonordways information was given in the second person from members of the Maura Murray forum, moderated by Helena and Sharon and other members of the family. This information was never given out by a psychic. A psychic did however have a similar vision of the truck at the Stage Stop Store, the only difference being the truck sited by the psychic was green and not red.

    ReplyDelete
  12. James,

    Building on the arguments above, I found reference to a specific article in The Patriot Ledgeer on March 4, 2004, written by Joe MaGee. In it a Sgt. Beausoleil discusses the tip about the red truck. A priori, this means that RO had talked to the police within 23 days of the accident Here is an excerpt:

    "Sgt. Beausoleil said another tip, from a woman who was walking on Route 112 in Bath, N.H., on Feb. 9, also could not help investigators develop a criminal case.

    "The woman reported a suspicious man in a red pickup truck with Massachusetts plates eyeing her near the Stage Stop general store in Bath at about 7 that night.

    "According to the woman, the man left when she went into the store and headed east toward the accident scene. Ten minutes later, the woman saw Haverhill police go by in the same direction, responding to the accident.

    ‘‘ 'She didn't have a license plate number, so that doesn't give us anything,' Beausoleil said. ‘'We don't feel confident it's connected.' "

    (1) This debunks the notion that a long time had passed before RO spoke about the incident, and the suggestion that her level of recall was too vivid given that long period of time.

    (2) It also tends to indicate that either Fred or Graves spun a bs story to you about the red truck. As of March 4, the police did not have the license plate number. So this "other witness" must have given Fred the number after that. In other words, this "other witness" gave Fred the plate numbers after the story about the red truck was in the presses. As I said in my earlier post, it is impossible to make sense of Graves' story at that point. There are only two possibilities: (1) Fred somehow found away to get around privacy laws and protections against revealing identities of drivers (you can't just call the DMV and say who is FTR-991), found out it was a local and concluded on his own that that local was not involved .... NO WAY THAT HAPPENED .... or (2) Fred turned the number over to the police, who investigated it and who then brought a lawsuit onto the county and departed with the most basic standard operating procedure imaginable in telling Fred the identity of the driver ... NO WAY THAT HAPPENED. In other words, what you got from Graves was BS. The red truck is just like the rag in that Fred for some reason wants suggestive and compelling events around his daughter's disappearance IGNORED.

    Granted, I have only found a reprint of this article on a blog. But here's the thing: it is reprinted there with the author's name and date of the article. The statements it contains are not wild or crazy and don't really lead to an especial conclusion. It looks authentic. But the easy thing to do is track down Joe McGee and ask him about it. For if he says "yeah, I talked Beausoleil and that is what he said" you have pretty firm evidence that either Graves was duped by Fred or is helping Fred try to dupe you.

    ~ John Green

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Red truck pulls out toward the acident scene - 10 minutes later the cops drive by.

      Whatever else it may or may not indicate, it puts the red truck at the scene at EXACTLY the moment Maura disappears.

      adam

      Delete
  13. James,

    One other fact that may point to either Fred or Graves trying to dupe you.

    I can't seem to track down again a copy of that sherriff's log from the 9th and 10th, but there was on that was linked by Fred on the Topix forums a while back. Supposedly, on page 33, near the bottom, there is note about an officer pulling over a red pick up truck with temp NH plates (which are red and white, like Mass plates), on the morning of the 10th. It represents the third red pick up stopped by police in half a day after Maura's accident.

    If you can verify this, it would mean that the tip from RO came the day of the accident or the next morning, further calling into question what it is exactly that Graves is feeding you.

    ~ John Green

    ReplyDelete
  14. fred murray had a red truck in the early to mid 90's

    ReplyDelete
  15. John, again, good points.

    I don't disagree with your reasoning re timeline of RO coming forward and Fred supposedly getting a plate # and finding the identity of owner of red truck. Based on the news article you cite, nobody had a plate # shortly after the accident. The means somebody who was willing to help would have to be just sitting on the plate number and not telling anybody (unlikely). It sounds like something made up after the fact, well after the fact for whatever reason. Add it to the list of strange "Murrayisms" if you will.

    I do want to make the (insignificant) point that its not impossible for Fred or a PI or anybody else to look up vehicle/vehicle owner info by plate #. Most states have a procedure for NON Law Enforcement to do so, usually licensed PI's, etc. If you want it done, its gonna cost you. Still more common in the real world is somebody knows somebody who knows somebody who is a cop, dispatcher, etc. If you are at all tight with a cop ANYWHERE in the USA, you can probably convince him to run a plate for you. Ditto for dispatchers and others with access to the system. Running plates is relative childs play with few, if any, consequences for the officer who runs one he is "not supposed to". Plates are run routinely all day for tons of reasons; an officer just curious as to whats up with a car he sees drive by, investigating a B&E? Run the plates on any cars in the D-way to see if they "belong there", car blocking road? Run the plate, find owner, notify. Accident? Run the plate(s). Abandoned vehicle? Run plate, this shows who else has run it recently (if any) and might give you an idea why its there. Tons of reasons plates are run, even a tiny dept like Haverhill could do it 100 times per day, no joke. What I'm saying is its a very low risk endevor for anyone w/access. Most people could be talked into it if you were any kind of friendly w/them at all.

    Criminal records are different in many states because its not as routine of a query and flags can be set that let dept brass know as well as probation officers, etc if the person happens to have a PO, etc. Plates are run several times a day for many, many reasons and those simple queries as to who owns a vehicle, where they live, etc are not well kept track of, nor do the dept brass really care unless there is a clear pattern of abuse.

    Alot of rambling, irrelevant info on this tangent but maybe interesting nonetheless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the correction re the possibility of a private citizen getting a license plate number. I appreciate the information. As you implied, even still, if he ran the plate, how would he himself have cleared Glynn without contacting the police, who still as of March 4 did not have the plate number, so that strongly suggests an after the fact Murrayism ... but not as definitively as I had made out.

      ~ John Green

      Delete
  16. Well, it seems you have been busy recalling what "I" saw that night. It's funny to read all the versions now. Yes, I had a tragedy of my own shortly thereafter Maura's disappearance. But I replay that day in my mind every year on that date. I never stated that the red truck was responsible, only furnished the info as I saw it. Considering you only asked me today what I saw, I doubt you would believe that I could recall anything useful. So be it. I know what I saw. - WS Robinson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For what is worth - if that is really you (and it reads like other statements I know you have made) - I COMPLETELY, from the first, could tell your statement was credible and once I discovered it (as you can see on this blog) argued heartily that your statement was MUCH more credible than the one that came from FM's buddy Graves. Your statement rang authentic for me specifically for the reason you state: you said what you saw, admitted where you could not recall a detail and asserted nothing conclusory in a very humble, straightforward way like a citizen trying to help. That is what convinced me at first that you were credible. Thereafter, other indications corroborated that to the point that I am now certain. So, I say thank you for being a good citizen and I am sorry for the grief so doing seems to have caused you. Again, if it is really you, that is. You have to understand some weird people like to post here and will say or imply they are someone they are not.

      ~ John Green

      Delete
    2. Also WSR, please see the later post on the blog. James has reconsidered his position, which ability I think is one of his strengths. He is after the truth, not after being right.

      ~ John Green

      Delete
    3. One last thing, WSR.

      A person named Fred L., who I think is a very reliable source, cut and pasted what he said was your statement from a newspaper into a blog.

      You can find that statement here: http://findmauramurray.fr.yuku.com/topic/75/Red-TruckRed-Truck-Driver?page=1#.UXnMwo4Zfao

      Is this in fact what you said? I understand that you may not want to be bothered with this anymore and - if so - please excuse my nagging you.

      But I know I'd be interested to hear it if this was in fact your statement.

      ~ John Green

      Delete
  17. If that is indeed the real witness speaking here and I think it is, it just shows, once again that James was wayy off the mark in writing off the red truck so easily.

    Again, claim to be a good journalist and exhaustively chase all leads but never once try to confirm RO's account either way? Then call it into question based on what somebody hired by Fred said who lives 100+ miles away and was nowhere near the accident scene and knows nothing about the area, etc. Not good and only further alienates people who might be willing to help.

    At absolute minimum the red truck driver saw something relevant and has some explaining to do re his actions that night. At minimum. It say its alot more than that myself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose I can see your point. I thought James hastily dismissed it too. Same with Vasi. Not saying that either is relevant, but until they can be excluded, you have to keep them on the radar screen.

      On the other hand, he is writing a book and has a working theory. He like most people values his own ideas over others, and being a writer that tendency might be exaggerated. So what does he do? He starts a blog and asks for others to review his evidence and reasoning. In point of fact, as soon as he posted his thing about Graves, I sent him an email similar to one of my posts in which I argued that if RO's statement could be verified (I can't find an original of the article) it is WAY more credible than graves statements and in which I pointed out a contradiction built into what Graves told him.

      After that, he posted that he was reconsidering.

      It is one thing to reach conclusions quickly and maybe prematurely dismiss something. But a better countervailing quality is being able to reconsider your position when contrary evidence is presented. I know this happened in this case because I (and perhaps others) sent an email to James laying out why the Graves thing was not adding up. His response was to push harder (apparently) to get RO to talk to him (she had refused before). From her statement, it worked and now the red truck is back on James radar screen.

      Thus, while I too see a weakness in his approach there (he can be dismissive of contrary ideas when he reaches a conclusion), I see a prudence and realism in his approach, the value of which FAR exceeds that realism, because he is willing to abandon a notion he believed when the evidence or reasoning presented to him so necessitates. I think you also have to give him due credit for that.

      ~ John Green

      Delete
    2. By the way, having been pretty closely involved in this one (going back and unearthing RO's statements and presenting them to James and arguing that he was mistaken in so quickly dismissing the red truck based on Graves' statements with its built in contradictions), I have MUCH reason to believe, from several different perspectives that that was indeed THE RO speaking in the prior posts. This includes the diction, the fact that she knew the uncommon spelling of her first name and the similarity of her final lament compared to the language of similar laments known to be from her several years ago. Moreover, the article citing the police person she spoke to is the single only place that mentions the strange detail of the police car pulling over to talk to her, something which I have not seen discussed on any of the forums. That the poster knew that strongly further implies that it is authentic. For what it's worth, when my intuition balances these considerations and I am sure it is RO.

      ~ John Green

      Delete
  18. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@44.143064,-71.969862,3a,75y,180h,80.83t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1smuXPdjxg-jGU1D3zC4jaXw!2e0

    ReplyDelete