Sunday, July 24, 2016

Oh Boy. Missing Maura Murray Goes Down the Rabbit Hole.


Firstly, I love what Lance & Tim have done with the 'Missing Maura Murray' podcast. It has helped bring so much attention to the case. Their new episode is an interview with "Witness A" - real name Karen McNamara. Karen is the key witness to the biggest conspiracy theory that John "Wolfman" "TruthSeeker" "Mellencamp" Smith has been pushing for many years, with the blessing of Fred Murray -- namely that Haverhill Police were responsible for Maura Murray's death and have been covering it up for 12 years. Karen claims she saw a police SUV "nose-to-nose" with Maura's case that night.

[sigh]

I have not written about Karen before because I do not find her report credible. And the theory that police were somehow responsible for Maura's disappearance is both ridiculous and potentially dangerous to the actual investigation. I do not believe she saw what she thinks she saw that night.

Her interview is not conducted by Lance or Tim but by two other people, John Smith (who believes that government vehicles are keeping tabs on his every move) and a man named Alex Clogston, known on forums as "Alex C."

I think it's a good thing that Lance & Tim have distanced themselves a bit from this interview. And remember, what they set out to do was not to solve the case but to document the obsessive minds who believe they could. This is the dark side of that project.

**UPDATED**
I have edited the original post to make it more fair to the participants. I take offense to the suggestion of police involvement but we should remain more civil.

125 comments:

  1. Me. mouth open. *speechless* well.... haters gonna hate, JR ~ but you are a voice of reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey MJ ... who is posting on YT under "MJ warren"?

      Delete
    2. Curious. Because there's two accounts. One for work?

      Delete
  2. nothing wrong with other takes on the case, i find their site very interesting. the truth is, nobody knows what happened to maura, nobody!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. I personally believe she was abducted by aliens. That's my take on the case. Do you find that credible or are you open to it because, as you said, nobody knows what happened to her?

      Delete
    2. all things considered.

      Delete
  3. You have to consider the most likely scenario first. Could be that the SUV was there, Williams was driving,and was intoxicated. A coincidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was surprised to hear that Lance & Tim were making a documentary about people surrounding the case. That's not at all how they began their podcast. But the longer it takes, the less likely there seems to be any kind of documentary. And the credibility of their guests is getting more suspect every podcast.

      Has anyone actually approached the police? They were interviewed on the Disappeared episode.

      Delete
  4. Were the Haverhill police even using SUVs at the time of Maura's disappearance? SUV use by law enforcement, even here in NH, is a relatively new practice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously yes. The decommissioned SUV in question, 001, is a 2nd generation Ford Explorer between 1995-2001 model years. Haverhill Police did use SUV patrol vehicles in 2004 and before.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. There is no question as to the use of SUVs in 2004 in nh. Why is Karens account unreliable? She kept her name out of circulation for so long. And her account did come up earlier than most people think.

      Delete
  5. New video here.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpC8tUt394Y

    ReplyDelete
  6. I found an interesting article from ten days after MM disappeared. They don't name him, but BA stated that Maura 'appeared intoxicated.' That's very interesting, given the general consensus has always been he said she seemed fine. I think it's time to take a look back at some of the earliest press coverage again. Maybe some of the other things that are considered 'fact' really aren't. This is a very interesting read.

    http://missing87975.yuku.com/topic/3415/NH-MISSING-STUDENT-MAURA-MURRAY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two things in that yuku thread intrigue me:

      1. I don't think I've heard prior that she had a "suitcase full of clothes" in her trunk, and
      2. I've heard conflicting statements on the footprints in the snow. We've heard that the helicopters never saw footprints, but this story says directly that Fred found footprints in the snow and 'took off after them'.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair on the podcast she doesn't sound like someone with a grudge against police.in my opinion she sounds credible

      Delete
    2. Well it does appear that only happened a few months ago. I thought she reported the suv sighting years ago?

      Delete
  8. I respectfully disagree. I did not get out of this interview that Witness A is blaming the police, rather they should look at who was driving the SUV that night if it was out of commission and in for repair. I have seen many police vehicles on the road, minus an officer,with out-of-service signs on. Even if this car did not have a sign, the question is who was driving that car from the place where it was stored, not which police officer. To me that scenario would make the most sense.

    ReplyDelete
  9. For me, this would explain why no witnesses in the houses nearby will say if they saw a vehicle drive away with her in it or will comment on how she got away from the car.

    ReplyDelete
  10. While I don't find this credible either, it is possible that the cops you've spoken to are two-faced. Or they're good at covering shit for their own.

    Ask yourself why no house witnesses have said "I saw her get into a car that drove away?"

    Wouldn't witnesses clam up if they say a cop car nearby?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I believe her! What reason does she have to lie? She acknowledged this fact very close to the date of the accident. Why are the police sitting on evidence 12 years later? Maybe they don't want to be sued for negligence or...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She has every reason to lie. Renner's suggestion she wants to be a hero in this story is plausible. There are many hangers on. Just read the comments in this blog.

      Delete
    2. Meanwhile, she's on the lam in Quebec...as some believe! I don't buy it!

      Delete
  12. As they say, the simplest solution is often the correct one. I think that's the case with MM. This Police conspiracy has always bugged me. It seems like an inevitable conclusion to come to rather than a logical one.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't want to dismiss Karen's account. However where is any other account that backs up what she says? In the Soco artical, Susan Champy stated that she ended work at Loon mt at 7:00 pm. She left late at around 7:20 pm. After about a 30 to 35 min drive she passes the accident scene at 7:50. She goes on to say that she see a couple of bystanders at the car and the car door to the Saturn is open. We know the Susan had to have seen Cecil Smith (in his car, not the SUV) when she passed. It has been stated at Cecil arrived at the scene at 7:45 or so, this is apparently also backed up by the Westman's. So there is no way that Susan can be used to back up anything Karen says. By Karen's own account she is on the other side of the mountain range stopping to make a phone call home at around 7:50 pm. By logic, Karen and Susan passed each other along 112 in between the accident scene and where Karen stopped.
    It is interesting to me that she says that she stopped at the corner across from Butch's place. I don't know what logical sense stopping the car would make on her part. After all the police where already there. What could she do that police couldn't? She says she had a feeling. No disrespect, but this sounds like Karen adding this in to the story after she hears about Maura. As far as I know, Butch never said that he saw anyone stop across from his house that night. Is it possible? Maybe, but the only time it would have been is when Butch go in to call the police. After the call, he came out to do paperwork in the bus. He does mention that he see some cars pass. Is one Karen? I would deduce that Karen would have to be one of these cars. There is simply no other time available in the timeline. There is no way Karen came to pass before Butch because he talks with Maura. The Westman's back Butch up that he stopped and that they saw someone at the car after Butch left. The only time open is between Butch leaving and when Cecil arrives. The other thing she says is that a car passed her when she stopped at the corner. Who was this other person? It can't be Susan Champy due to the distance and time she left work at Loon. If this other person is known, or ever came forward with the same account as Karen I would put more weight on her story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe Karen's account of the events, I also believe Susan's, here how it might have happened.... Karen is passed by 001, twice, 001, sees Maura's car stopped on the side of the road, he's been drinking, but still wants to stop to offer help, he pulls up, nose to nose with her, Karen passes, she stops, as her gut is telling her something is off, 001, quickly realized he shouldn't be there, maybe BECAUSE he saw Karen stop, he leaves. This could have all happened in under 30 seconds, this could have been happening in the time it took Faith to hear the noise, get up from her chair, and look out the window. I don't mean any disrespect to Faith, but she's not a teenager, it takes time to process a sound, get up, walk across the room, move the shade/ curtains out of the way, does it take minutes? No, but it sure could take 45 seconds, the above might have happened in 15-30 seconds. Then Faith calls the police, Butch drives by, Smith arrives, Susan drives by..... Karen's account of the events doesn't mean that 001, took Maura, it just means that 001 was there, and the police know more than they are saying. What they may be covering up is a drunk chief, he may be 100% innocent of anything to do with Maura, except that he stopp d to help, then left..... Think about it, it makes sense.

      Delete
    2. You know Moggie, I have thought about it. I do think Karen believes what she saw just as Rick Forcier believes what he saw. It doesn't matter what either one of them believes. To make either of their stories credible you have to have evidence.

      You didn't listen to what John Smith and Karen where saying. John is clearly pointing a finger at the chief and Karen is hesitant to do the same but in a round about way does also. Both are implying that whom ever was driving the SUV did something with or to Maura. John goes on about Susan Champy being able to back up Karen's account. Unless Susan has changed her story, I am going with what she told the reporters early on, as to her timeline. She simply can't back up what Karen says. I am not dismissing Karen, because there had to be at least one other car that passed the scene in the time gap Karen says she did. There maybe someone that can back up Karen, we simply don't know who that person is or if they exist. With that in mind, the story you wrote above couldn't have happened the way you state, Moggie. So, you are saying that a police SUV stops at the accident scene before the call to 911 is made? Why would that person have their lights flashing if they where headed home, in an area they live in? How could it be that they passed Karen twice? If you are headed home why not take the most direct route, did they get lost? I find that hard to believe. What is Maura doing while all of this is happening with the police SUV parked right in front of her car? It makes no logical sense that Maura tells Butch NOT to call the police if the SUV was parked in front of her car minutes before? The only open gap of time is between when Butch leaves and Cecil arrives. What ever happened to Maura happened in that time gap. By what Karen, Alex and John say, Karen passes the scene in that time gap not before the 911 call made by the Westman's.

      Delete
    3. I wanted to add this while we are on the subject.

      Here is the problem with Karen's account as I see it. The Westman's hear a car crash. By all accounts this is not a uncommon thing so they are well versed in what to do. They observe what is believed to be Maura. However they don't know who is in the car. They call 911 and report an accident. Cecil Smith hears the call on the radio by dispatch and responds. Here is where you have a fork in the road (if you believe Karen's account). In a way it doesn't matter who was driving the SUV because whom ever it was, if it happened, had to have heard the same radio dispatch call that Cecil heard. Logically that person would also hear that Cecil was responding to the call. How else would that person know that there was an accident and where it was if they didn't hear it? If it was the chief or anyone else simply driving home, they wouldn't have had the lights on. It also wouldn't make a lot of sense if someone that shouldn't be driving the SUV around, would also respond to a scene where they knew Cecil was also going to. If it was the chief also responding, but not calling it in, then fine, I can accept that. We just need some evidence that is what happened. However, no one knew who was in the Saturn car. It could have been a 6'8" football player or a 80 year old grand mother. The call wasn't for a young white attractive female in need of kidnapping. Bad humor, I know but you get the point. What is the motive for doing harm to Maura by this person? So the implication is that the chief, if he was driving, was drunk. Why should we believe that and what difference would that make? Because he was drunk, automatically he is going to commit a capitol crime. It is pretty ballsy to drive to accident scene, beating the responding officer there, abduct the driver, in a police SUV and leave all before anyone sees you. There is no way that a person, if it happened like that, could possibly know all of the variables before arriving. You would have to accept that it was a spur of the moment thing to abduct Maura if it happened like that. There is no way such a person that committed a crime like that would know who saw him drive her away. Lets say the Westman's, Marotte's, or Butch saw the SUV. Why wouldn't they report that to Cecil Smith when he came around looking for the driver that night? They would have no way of knowing what happened, just that they saw the SUV. Maybe the chief could strong arm the some locals, but I have a hard time believing the he could do the same to the state police or FBI.

      Delete
  14. Lance & Tim tied themselves to John Smith's star because they believed in what he said and did regarding the case. They personally told me this, and they were clearly collaborating with him with the goal of solving the case.

    Once they did this I stopped listening to the show completely. On several occasions I and others brought up that John Smith has said racist things, believes in chem trails, etc. Lance & Tim decided to defend JS' character, saying that what he believes and does "doesn't matter" -- that only what he thought about Maura's case was all that mattered. It was absurd; I got to the point of being angry about it and just let it go.

    I personally don't believe Missing Maura Murray is any sort of documentary-style profile of the menagerie of people that are interested in this case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you about Lance and Tim and it was when they defended him that I unsubscribed to their podcast. I think they drank the wolfman koolaid:(

      Delete
    2. I also agree. They are fourth rate hacks (I won't even call them journalists or podcasters) and are going to end up accessories to crimes hanging out with that wolfperson.

      Delete
    3. So if John Smith is a conspiracy theorist and has made some comments some might find as offensive, he should be outright discounted? All leads should be considered. Don't shut out someone because their theory is different from your own.

      Delete
    4. Lmao @chefsgirl. I have lost interest in the podcast because it has not yielded any "fruit", I thought I would see a year later, still nothing substantial, just finger pointing and judging. I say use satelights photographs from that time and date and location and see what it shows us.

      Delete
  15. Methinks you are being rather too soft on Lance and Tim. Perhaps documenting "obsessive minds" is a worthwhile endeavour, sociologically or psychologically. But if that is what they are doing, they should be clear about when they intend what they are presenting to be taken seriously and when they don't. From listening to the podcast, and from their Twitter feeds, I saw nothing that indicated that they didn't take this "witness" and her scenario seriously. If they are somehow now stepping back, that's good, but they should be indicating that a lot more clearly than I've seen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim and Lance didn't "distance themselves" from this interview, and will explain more on that later. They politely REQUESTED I do the interview, because I've known Karen for years, and had some well-researched (I hope, anyway) questions for her. I did not even really want to be on-air, much less conducting the interview. They asked, and I thought it might put Karen more at ease, so I agreed.

      Delete
    2. You did a great job Alex. I'm sure that what detractors would like to have heard you ask is,

      "If you had to appear before a court of law, would you say under the risk of giving false testimony, that what you saw is indisputably the truth?"

      No one knows what direction this will take or if it will matter. I hope it does. As always, it could be a nothing or a something. What is the weirdest is that his lights were on before the scene, as if he had a heads up. From whom is the question. It seems this all happened before The Westmans' call and far enough down the road east where they may not have been privy to the lights or activity. If this witness account occurred before the "bump" that leads this whole case down another bunny trail.

      Delete
  16. Karen sound very convincing and has not changed or second guessed what she saw 12 years ago. If this true where else in the time-line could this possible fit. Could have it happened right after Butch left the scene? She said she did not noticed if Butch's bus was there or not or for that matter anything about his house. I guess what I am questioning is why would a police officer would come upon an accident and park nose -to- nose and just leave without checking out the scene. Perhaps he had radio contact with Cecil Smith and decided to let him handle it? Was Maura hiding in the car and 001 did not see her and left? Radio back there no one here? Then when BA called... now Cecil Smith has to get to the scene. Is this a possibility as to why he was late getting there? Saying he got lost? Are there records to state that the car was taken off the road and who could just go the garage shop where these cars are kept and take it without anyone seeing? Interesting that not any of the witness's mentioned seeing a police SUV 001. But it also seems that no one was standing by looking the whole time. If witness's saw a car they may have not thought too much about it and did not notice two police cars had arrived. Just as a observation, between BA, 001 and 002 no wonder no one went out to help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her formal statement to police would help answer those questions. Except for that very point.

      If she's willing to go public for Lance & Tim, why refuse to make a formal statement with police 12 years ago? For me, her statement doesn't jive.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 25, 2016 at 8:19 AM

      Where is it stated that she refused to make a statement?

      Delete
  17. I believe her. Look, the official report had changed once already. That the vehicle was "out of commission" that night or day is a convenient way of keeping it off the record. Why?

    However, even this inconvenient eyewitness account does not steer the case into either direction: We still have no proof any crime was committed. We do know that police department has kept inconsistent records, that's all. Not that's not a problem.

    Further, Dick Guy and Northland Auto's statements continue to bother me. Both seem to think things at the scene were not all they cracked up to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Additionally, the "familiar" tow company was called instead of the one that was supposed to be on duty that night. That driver lost income. One hand washes the other. Can't they release the ATM tape? Didn't they say the tape was in poor condition yet they were the ones to identify MM? If the tape was poor how did they know it was her? Wouldn't her father recognize his daughter better than a stranger? Something ain't right!

      Delete
    2. The ATM tape ... that's been lost in the past couple of weeks. Thanks for the reminder.

      Where's the ATM tape? Short on promises?

      Delete
  18. It's my understanding that 1) she didn't come forward until sometime later and 2) has never gone to the police. Both of these makes her story suspect. If she's fearful of the police, then she should have hired a lawyer and then contacted appropriate authorities/the FBI.

    I discount this story, personally. It's not believable and doesn't match any accounts given by Bruce Atwood or Faith Westman. Neither reported seeing this SUV.

    And what is the supposed motive for the chief of police to kidnap this young girl, knowing first responders would be there at any moment? Where would he have taken her? It just isn't logical. He may have had an alcohol problem. That doesn't make him a kidnapper and murderer.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think Karen sounds very credible. James I don't understand how you can rule out police involvement until the truth is uncovered

    ReplyDelete
  20. The things that stuck out to me most about this interview were that it was admittedly pitch black that night and there are no street lights present, the road only being illuminated by the blue lights of a cop car and yet her eye witness testimony is gospel to those who want to believe that something shadey involving the police transpired. Secondly, what's he can't remember about that night says just as much as what she can remember. What I mean is she only remembers details that directly involve the crash, not any auxiliary details about the surroundings. I think it's quite likely that she is heavily influenced by other people trying to manipulate her recollections of that night. Don't get me wrong....I saw no deception in her when it came to relaying certain facts. Others she was ever so slightly hesitant and displayed doubt, but not deception. I believe she believes what her account is. There is excellent information available on manufactured memories and also on how shadows play a pivotal role in our visual perception of reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The memories don't even need to be manufactured---perhaps she saw something similar on a different night.

      For example, if you watched Unsolved Mysteries as a kid---so many of the witnesses turned out to be wrong. They seemed to sincerely believe what they were saying, but the missing person they allegedly spotted was already dead.

      Delete
    2. Very true. We all have a bias and it affects perception. No human is impervious to it nor are we 100% objective. To say we are is ludicrous. The question of our reliability comes when we figure out how willing we are to a) admit this integral flaw of humanity and b) consequently entertain the idea that the truth lies in another's perspective.

      Delete
  21. I'm very confused. Comments above indicate this supposed witness has had the same story for 12 years. I only ever heard about her through Smith on the podcast. Am I wrong in understanding she has never made a formal statement to police? If that's the case, where is her witness statement documented besides John Smith or Fred Murray witnessing her telling of this account?

    Seriously. If this is her first public statement, how do we know for sure its the truth and it hasn't changed?

    Smith has inserted himself into this story as much as Witness A. They clearly have agendas, which makes me not fully trust either of them.

    The police department has likely changed over the last 12 years. Why wouldn't she drive down there now and make a statement? She and her husband trusted the police to help save her son. Why wouldn't she trust them to take a witness statement?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I do not know what to believe because I heard about her statements so late in the game. Maybe if I would've heard it at the beginning of the investigation maybe I would believe it. Because truth be told in the Caylee Anthony case I had once too believed that there was a nanny. However I did not listen to this episode because I do not want to be disappointed in it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Listened to the podcast. This seems a bit odd as she almost eluded to a psychic premonition to help, yet ignored it.


    To believe witness A do you have to also believe Butch Atwood is lying entirely about stopping that night? It seems unlikely MM would ask Butch to not call police if they were already there.
    Did the Westmans see Butch stop?

    It seems like she might have seen another car spun out at that spot on another day when the cops responded to it and is now confusing the two dates.

    ReplyDelete
  24. A few things.........

    I wouldn't hitch my wagon to this theory of cops and a coverup based on this episode. Peoples' opinion of this case tends to sway with whatever new info comes out.

    Second: Lance and Tim are very, very biased in their take on this case, and seem to have hooked onto a theory asserted by Wolfman. This, coupled with their interview style has turned me off to the podcast altogether.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please know that we have not "hooked" onto any theory presented by anyone. We are very open minded about what happened to Maura, and have never given a theory because we don't have one. We're simply reporting what we think is important. Also, we feel that believing Karen's account does not mean you must believe in a police conspiracy and cover-up. Assuming Karen's account is accurate there are still many ways that night could've played out.

      Delete
    2. I agree with your first point. There's no evidence. Oddities, yes, nothing criminal.

      Evidence is what this case lacks. There is none. I wish some of the Pi's would come out and say what they've got. There's at least one podcast right there.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the reply, Lance and/or Tim. I've listened to your podcast, and I do believe you are indeed biased toward a particular theory.

      Case and point: on the previous episode featuring the investigator discussing the UMass cabin, your tone and line of questioning changed when he asserted a tandem driver was plausible. It's clearly a theory you reject, but it is viable. You are latching onto Wolfman more and more as opposed to Renner--who has more of an unbiased and logical stance on the case.

      Delete
    4. NO THEORY should be rejected until this case is solved! Isn't that how reputable police departments around this nation solve crimes? They throw it all out there...the good, the bad and the ugly!

      Delete
    5. The podcast has become the John Smith show. I don't find him terribly reliable, because he clearly is pushing his theory and that's the only one he believes in. It's short sighted and has made the podcast, to me, difficult to listen to. So I don't.

      (I get you guys don't think you are sticking with one theory, but IMO, you are. You can tell us and listeners whatever you want. But in the end, we decide how to perceive the podcast.)

      Delete
    6. @Anonymous 7:26, I don't get the same thing you do from the podcast. It is your perception of the podcast. I haven't heard one theory over another.

      Delete
  25. John Smith said that early on Cecil Smith told the Murray family that he had got lost on his way to the accident site.
    If this is true, could this be Who had passed Karen twice?
    Karen said she saw the cop car nose to nose with the Saturn but didn't recall anyone being around. Did she see a cop in the patrol car?
    Also, Butch was called back at 7:43 by the Haverhill dispatch. When Butch first called 911 all circuits were busy and he was connected to the Hanover police Dept. How long would it take for Butch to pull away from the scene, back the bus up, walk inside the house, tell Barbara Atwood about the scene, call 911 and get transferred to Hanover and then speak to Haverhill dispatch at 7:43 pm? IMO - About 5 to 10 minutes, which would put him on scene sooner than it is believed.
    Karen said she had pulled off in front of Butch 's house to debate whether to ask if any help was needed. Isn't this the same area Maura's scent was lost by the tracking dogs? In front of Butch Atwoods house..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How would a police officer not only get lost on a call within his scope if duties, but also do so in such proximity to his father's home? Somewhere he had to frequent enough to know the area. It could be true, but it doesn't make much sense.

      Delete
  26. Why aren't the police releasing any info...even after 12 years. An up-and up investigation by police wouldn't have waited this long. They can't even release the ATM video? Why not? Who does it hurt? They don't want to open a can of worms, that's why!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The police have a right to not release info when there is an ongoing investigation. If a private investigator with the appropriate credentials asked them for the videos they may release them to that person. As for the general public, some of which have blamed them for her disappearance/murder, I do not see that happening. If you choose to investigate this case, I would advise anyone to do so privately. It's not appropriate to do so on SM. This whole case has become a circus. The comments I have seen on twitter are inappropriate and outright disgusting. Remember this is a young girl who had her whole life in front of her; what happened to her, no one knows. Keep it classy people, if that's even possible. JMO

      Delete
  27. Not sold on her accounts of the night, but one thing she said did get me thinking. Karen stated that the car looked like it had just stopped on the side of the road, and not crashed into the tree/snow bank. This got me thinking, what if Maura's car did just stop on the side of the road, and she was travelling west along Rt 112, not east.

    What if her destination was Stow or Burlington as her inquiries suggested? Maybe she had driven north on Rt 93 (where her cell pinged) up to Lincoln, west on Rt 112, then onto Rt 302 and Rt 89 onto either Stow or Burlington?

    I don't believe Karen came across Maura's accident On February 9 2004, but the comment about the position of the car did make me think...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maura traveling due west absolutely is a possibility. Remember, there is a 45min gap in her estimated travel time.

      Delete
  28. I'm all for being civil.I'm even more strongly for candor and objectivity. I have no use at all for rumor mongering and paranoid conspiracism. Serious accusations demand serious evidence. Those who make or circulate serious accusations without serious evidence give up their right to regarded as serious persons.

    Perhaps there is some value at looking at the "dark side" of Maura Murray "fandom". I'm skeptical but ultimately agnostic on that point. But there is no value in pretending that this dark side has anything to do with solving the mystery. It is a study in personal and social pathology. Personally, I find no value in looking under this particular rock.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LEAVE NO ROCK UNTURNED! THIS IS ABOUT A MISSING HUMAN BEING!

      Delete
  29. My mother and I worked for Karen and her family for many years and during the time Maura went missing. We knew her husband and children and even her pets. My family loved them all. We were proud to work for such a classy, generous and loving woman. Karen is honest, kind and one of the most outstanding women we have ever known. Not only is she a role model mother, she is a strong and faithful woman. I remember Karen telling us about what she saw on the road shortly after Maura Murray went missing. Her story back then matches her story now, especially after listening to this podcast. She is very brave and never wanted any attention. As a mother herself, she wanted to help and do the right thing. My mother and I also have known Alex, who is an honest and good man. Both Karen and Alex have suffered terrible personal losses in the past year. We were horrified to hear the news about the passing of Karen's son. He was a wonderful man and father. Alex also suffered the loss of his sister. We find it ironic that both Alex's sister and Maura Murray have been served similar injustices. Maura went missing in this local area and no charges have yet to have been filed. I wouldn't question either Alex or Karen about their integrity. If I were to question any part of the missing Maura case, I'd wonder why there seems to be so much secrecy. I'd also wonder why these two innocent and honest people are being attacked and threatened. I truly can't understand why the focus isn't being placed on why everything has remained so cloaked in secrecy. If Karen says she saw a police SUV vehicle numbered 001, she saw it. This still matches what she told my mother and I years ago when it happened. She told us she called it in to LE, and it was "dismissed". Karen is not a liar and I know she has NO agenda, and she doesn't need or deserve any of these hateful and ignorant comments. We stand by her story. We would publish our names, but we don't want to be threatened as Karen and Alex have been.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate this comment, and I do know this person, but I want to clarify a couple things before people get the wrong impression.

      I no longer feel my sister was "served an injustice". I had issues with it at first, no doubt, but after the report was released I felt more at peace with the findings, and have moved onto simply missing her. I can't say it wasn't the spark to re-ignite my interest in this case though, which eventually led to me speaking with Karen about all of this.

      For the people who'll inevitably accuse ME of trying to interject myself in this case, know that I'm just a commenter like anyone else. No smarter or dumber or pretending otherwise, just presenting thoughts like everyone else. I'm NOT trying to be a journalist or "player" in this story. I simply want to help the Murray family find a resolution, and hopefully closure ultimately. Being local, and knowing Karen, I saw that I might have the only opportunity to let her know that people want to hear what she saw, from her.

      I will also say that neither of us have been threatened at all (other than being called a "skinny pussy" constantly on Twitter, but that was happening well before this interview [and what that has to do with Maura, I've yet to figure out.]). You just tend to stay a little more... alert... after having a public discussion like we did.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Alex and the anonymous poster above. Very well put. After having phone calls with her and finally meeting her, Karen seems as credible and lovely as we could've imagined. We first began speaking with her in December, and it was actually our idea to have Alex interview Karen. We asked him to do this because of their familiarity with each other and because Alex is very organized. We never got the impression either one decided to do this in order to inject themselves into the case, or because of any grudge against law enforcement. Both are in contact and care deeply about helping the Murray's find out what happened to Maura. They both were gracious and brave enough to accept our offer and to try and help put Karen's account out into the public light.

      Delete
    3. Thank you to you both for sticking up for a witness to this mess. Ms McNamara's account chips away at the official record. This is the second time we've seen evidence of that. What exactly this means is anyone's guess, which is why we're still here. Secrecy is one thing but we definitely have inconsistency, no doubt. No evidence of any criminal activity.

      As far as the trollish types, "sticks'n'stones". They never figured in this anyway.

      Delete
  30. Careful James. I might start to think you're actually from Detroit xo

    ReplyDelete
  31. I think if you are a person that does any kind of research or investigation, it's very important to be open minded. The idea or even accusation (except for lack of evidence) that police may be involved in Maura's disappearance whether directly or indirectly is not at all implausible. ANYTHING is possible to start with, as we are only given so much information with which to work.

    Also take into consideration the variety of theories that have been put out there, especially on this site. I'm sure one could easily say that Maura escaping to a hunting cabin or walking off into the wilderness to die or getting picked up from a staged accident to go on to Canada would be a ridiculous scenario, but we just don't know what really happened.

    I do know this though- I've personally known of police corruption in my time and I will submit an interesting parallel to this case.

    Some years back, in a small town in NJ, someone was reported to the police to have been drunk and staggering along the road on the way home. Days went by and this person never came home. Interestingly enough, however, the very next day, a personal friend of one of the police that was on patrol that night noticed the day after the drunk went missing that the cop's patrol car was smashed in the front. When asked about this, he paused and simply said "ehh, I hit a deer last night". Nothing was said further about it, and the cop ended up with a brand new patrol car within practically no time flat, and that damaged car was never fixed or seen again.

    Years and years went by until finally someone admitted what happened to the missing person, after the cop with the dented in patrol car was no longer on this earth. This person knew the cop personally, and said that the missing man was killed that night by that very cop by accidentally slamming into him alongside the road... (probably alongside a winding curve and it was a reckless and tragic misfortune).

    Noone, including the police are infallible. Hell, there are many, many more cases of police corruption in the world, and if you looked into it, you'd find a couple by a TWO former chief of police in New Hampshire.

    And, interpret it as you will, but early on, one LE individual said "mistakes were made that night...". Interesting looks into the camera by some of the surrounding officers, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous July 26, 2016 at 12:35 AM, you are absolutely right about the need to keep an open mind. EVERY lead needs to be looked at. Nothing should be discounted.

      You also have a good point that no one is infallible, and yes, police corruption is alive and well (doubters can see Making a Murderer if they need convincing).

      Delete
    2. Hit and run. That easily could've happened here. It makes absolute sense. An accident is treated differently than a deliberate. I'd think within some circles there's an air of empathy in such cases. Empathy for the individual responsible for the accident. I wouldn't be surprised this happens more than we think. It happened to Alex Clogston's sister.

      Dark clothes and a black backpack under no light whatsoever, Maura would've been an unwitting target for a person on the road hours at a time.

      I've not seen stats for police-related hits, but I'd think they're at least better than average as they are on the road much of the day.

      Delete
    3. what you describe is a logical fallacy. Just because police corruption exists, and may have existed on that police force at that time, does not mean Maura was a victim of an employee of the police department.

      Delete
    4. Thank for this post. In all the (excessive) time I've spent thinking about this case, I've never considered this kind of scenario; cop accidentally hit Maura and it was covered up. It seems like a possibility.

      Delete
    5. Let's look at what happened later. It takes some time to hook a car for a tow. Are there witnesses to the tow truck hooking up Maura's car and also witnesses who saw the car being towed to operator's personal garage besides Cecil Smith? A civilian who has no ties to law enforcement around Haverhill? Yes, the other tow company person was there and a neighboring LEO, ambulance, but did any of them search all of the car, including the trunk? Did Butch, his wife or the Westmans see the events right before the tow truck arrived, when it was there and when it left? It seems to me that somebody should have seen that, and that should be added into the timeline. What if Maura had gotten out of the car, then got back in to either keep warm, try to figure out what to do, then either passed out/was knocked out or worse, and she was taken in her own car (front, back seat or in the trunk) to the towing operator's garage? Who actually looked into the car and trunk besides Cecil? Did Cecil look into the trunk that night? Was it a hit and run, and her body was placed back into her car, then towed? Just proposing a look at these options.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousJuly 27, 2016 at 9:33 PM, now that is an interesting theory and one I have not heard before!

      Delete
  32. I have a lot of thoughts about this one. First of all, I thought it was a great interview!

    I absolutely don’t want to discredit honest people or witnesses, just to give my *impressions* of Witness A.

    Early on I noticed she said “it didn’t even look like an accident,” but then she said she was going to turn around and help “but it didn’t look like a very bad accident.” This came across as a bit of a contradiction to me.

    I found it less credible when she said she was surprised she didn’t remember whether siren was on or off. I do feel that anyone who saw the scene would remember this. I don’t know what to make of this.

    I found that Witness A came across more credible in the second half of the interview. Describing the point at which she began to feel very afraid; saying that the car that had passed her twice didn’t know where it was going but a police officer would know so this caught her attention; saying she wasn’t in a rush to follow a police vehicle…all rang true to me.

    It has been argued that Witness A tried to “insert herself into investigation” yet she didn’t want her name released. To me it doesn’t make sense that she was trying to insert herself because if that were the case wouldn’t she have wanted her name out there?

    I’m on the fence about Witness A’s account. I absolutely think this line of inquiry should be examined AT LENGTH. It would be a huge mistake to dismiss it prematurely. Do I think her account could be inaccurate? Yes, but I have no reason to believe this to be so.

    With regards to possible leads…

    Some interesting things were brought up in the interview such as who might have had access to the car when it was out of commission (GREAT QUESTION. WHO COULD HAVE HAD ACCESS TO THE CAR?) The SUV was in shop only weeks later…interesting…These leads must be looked into.

    It also occurs to me that, as stated before, ANYONE nearby listening to a police scanner could have responded to the crash site. Who in the vicinity has a scanner and could have responded to the accident site before 002? Another lead to consider. (Did any of the immediate neighbors have one?)

    How is it possible that an officer familiar with the area got lost/delayed getting to the scene of the accident?

    I do think there are innocent and nefarious explanations for what Witness A states she saw. Could someone else other than an officer have been driving? Was an officer trying to cover up his own drunk driving? Could another cop (driving 001) have came upon Maura’s car after she had already left the scene, but then skipped out to leave the mountains of paperwork to the driver of 002 (Cecil Smith, official first officer on the scene)?

    Nefarious explanations also come to mind…

    As someone else said, why did Witness A reveal her name now? Did something change (eg. change of staffing on the force or deaths of locals) in order to make her feel safe enough? Was her story being dismissed or discredited outright and she felt she had to come forward in order to gain credibility? Did she feel that she had to come forward in order to expose a possible cover up?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Typo: I (not Witness A) was surprised she said the didn't remember about the siren.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Smh. The whole maura murray community is unlike anything I've ever seen. We are all supossed to be working together, we all want the same thing. Yet when someone goes on the podcast or states their opinion, so many of us shit all over it. Alex went on the podcast despite all the shit talking he knew was gonna come from it. And Karen's son od'ing has nothing to do with what she saw. The poor lady lost her son and everyone's saying she has an agenda. Jesus christ.

    ReplyDelete
  35. ...what if to some extent they/we/y'all are right. AlexC always asks me to just-spit-it-out ~ okay here goes. WHAT IF the NH police/state police weren't up to NoGood that nite~ what if they were duped? a BOLO/Orders issued from another agency. And they all were chasing their tails in a frenzy looking for this Saturn??? maybe someone knew MM was skipping town & A) didn't want her to leave OR B) wanted to make sure her exit was successful? ~But in hindsight (they) LE looked incompetent. so they smooth feathers thru timetables, police reports/logs & witness statements. Before y'all tar & featherrrrr me - just think about the possibility LE wasn't privy to a bigger picture taking place that day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if y'all believe Karen McNamara, her phone records date & time(s) tell the tale ~ then remember what she said... ~it didnt even look like an accident, it looked like the car was just facing the other way (that was the gist) because it wasnt. sounds more like Smokey & the Bandit to me. No disrespect to the seriousness of the situation but... I so believe M outwitted them.

      Delete
  36. So many questions and ideas in my head about this. One keeps popping into my head: if the Saturn wasn't in the snowbank/didn't hit anything and was just simply on the side of the road, how did the airbags deploy and why didn't Maura just continue driving? What was the thud the Westmanns heard?

    Plus trying to fit what witness A saw into an already small timeframe is hurting my head. I don't discredit witness A, she sounds confident in her account, but how it all might fit together is puzzling.

    ReplyDelete
  37. James. I have always been on your same trail. Everything you say really sums up my thoughts. This is very compelling though. I find it very interesting. I mean what is this holds water.. maybe Lavoys was called so they would not put two and teo together when looking at damage. I know you have a theory.. it is mine too.. but witness A does serve a purpose.. it gets us looking at a different angle even if it differs from our own. Maybe..just maybe this is a decent rabbit hole?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Williams, according to the press in the earliest of newspaper articles when describing the events the night Maura went missing, he states "just before 7pm....." As time went on the time was changed and news articles began to quote around 7:30pm. I have the articles.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Just for the record, Renner. If this blog starts down a rabbit hole of ridiculousness in which the new 'logic' has no actual accident happening, I'm done reading the blog. I'm done listening to the podcast. What did the Westmans hear that led them to look out the window? Where did the spiderweb from inside the windshield happen? Why did she dump her booze out?

    MM never disappears without this accident. Period. End of story. F. A. C. T. We can't ignore facts to fit into personal theories of people who may not know all the facts.

    I am open to listening to theories. But I'm not willing to set aside known and actual facts to support theories that are nonsensical. How does that help us find her? Or is everyone just willing to sit on the Internet and argue for the sake of arguing? I hope we don't forget a girl is missing. I hope that she is found so that the family can be at peace. There has been no credible sighting of her since the car accident. Let's not forget that true and real fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. The Westmans heard a car "rev up", then a crash. They saw her outside the car; so did another witness. Mr. Atwood spoke to her. Booze poured out and soaked the interior of the car. Facts.

      Maura got booze, printed directions, lied to her professors, packed her dorm, and took off.

      Then she wrecked in NH and hasn't been seen since.

      There's no proof of a police cover up; only assertions by a person with what seems to be an axe to grind.

      Delete
    2. Who knows for sure if that was even Maura at the accident scene? Something could have happened to her in MA.

      Delete
    3. Everybody, including her mom and dad, are convinced it was her driving the car. That is one point Fred has never discounted or argued as a fact. So, I think it's safe to assume that it was. And if it wasn't, then wouldn't there be another missing girl fitting MM's general description who BA saw? Somebody disappeared from that scene. Somebody who happens to drink the same booze and have the same general description as MM. Unless the next theory is one of a paranormal nature . . .

      Delete
    4. I agree Anon July 28th. All the weird stuff started before the accident in MA, Butch Atwood even failed to identify her at first, so why didnt they think Fred was driving it, it was his car after all.

      Delete
  40. Witness A said that the car looked like it was just parked on the side of the road and it didn't look like a bad accident.
    Could Maura of left the car, before witness A came upon the scene, where she says patrol car 001 was nose to nose with the it. If 001 was on scene nose to nose with the Saturn, could that person of been trying to push the car out of the road with the front of there vehicle.
    BUTCH Atwood spoke with 911 @ 7:43pm. After leaving the scene,he had to park the bus,walk inside,call 911 which was busy and it rerouted him to Hanover dispatch. Then Hanover dispatch called Haverhill and then Haverhill called Butch. IMO-Butch was most likely on scene between 7:30 and 7:37. Which could of been right before witness A came upon the scene.
    Or perhaps her timing is a bit off and she actually came upon scene, right after the first known police officer had arrived.
    Witness A said she pulled off and pondered for a moment on whether to help. Ultimately she says she didn't help because a police car was there. Perhaps, 1.there was no police car there and she's mistaken or didn't want scrutiny for not stopping to help.
    2. It wasn't a police SUV but a different vehicle.
    3. She did stop and help and doesn't want it known. She said she stopped in front of Butchs driveway, debating whether to help. Mauras scent was lost in this area.
    It'd be interesting to know what her original statement to the police was.
    Not sure what to make of Witness A's account from that night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What if Maura pulled over because the car was malfunctioning (rag in tailpipe?),got out of her vehicle, and was struck by another vehicle (thud?)?

      Delete
    2. The first thing I noticed about Witness A's account was at APPROXIMATELY 6:44 she started her narrative by saying "I believe" I had a no-show for a 7 PM appointment. I thought the whole premise of her time frame was the no-show so she left work at 7:15. Just seemed odd for her to say "I believe".
      At approx. 10:48 she says she called Haverhill Police to report what she saw but she couldn't remember if they told her 001 was not in service that night. At approx. 30:00 she says she spoke to a detective but she couldn't remember his name and possibly he told her 001 was not in service.
      Also around 13:00 she was very unsure about her first contact with Helena and times of meetings with "family members"
      Also when she saw the 2 vehicles nose to nose I can understand that was able to see the markings on 001 but with blue lights flashing on a dark night how was it possible for her to know that the car was Maura's?

      Delete
    3. I like this, but then where did the fender and windshield damage come from?

      Delete
    4. Then who did Butch talk to? Other witness saw her as well, one eating an apple while she went to her trunk.

      Delete
  41. If indeed Karen went to police and they discounted her, it's possible it wasn't because police are corrupt. It's possible they just didn't find her account believable.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Good detective work requires ALL possible scenarios to be discussed, no matter now unpopular they are. From what I have heard, there were only blue lights flashing on the SUV that night, no siren.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good detective work requires looking at fact and being able to prove a case in a court of law. It has nothing to do with popularity.

      Delete
    2. Still, her father has a right to know what the cops are sitting on. Whoever heard of the last known photo of a missing person not be shown to the public...or to the victim's family? Ludicrous!

      Delete
    3. Are YOU a detective 11:53 or do you just like to snipe?

      Delete
  43. I believe the only way this case will be solved is if a local news station hounds the police to divulge some info on the case because of public interest and safety. Why aren't they appealing to the police?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe this case will be solved when people get off their computers and go out and look for her. And probably not far from the search area. It'll never be solved online.

      Delete
    2. Maybe if people were privy to all the info the police are sitting on THIS CASE WOULD GET SOLVED. IT'S BEEN FRIGGIN' 12 YEARS! Is this going to continue 12 more years? If this were my daughter I would be hounding the shit out of them!

      Delete
    3. You sound like the same miserable person who answered at 11:53! Bitter, much?

      Delete
  44. I just spoke to Cecil Smith. He advised me that he was the only one out that night driving 002 and it was a sedan. The software they use can not be doctored only person who can make changes is system administrators. I will be adding more info on my chat with Cecil on my blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you ask him about the ATM video tape and what was on it?

      Delete
  45. I do not find Karen's story credible. If the police SUV marked 001 was there already at 7:26 pm or prior with it's blue lights flashing, then what need would Faith Westman even have to call 911 at 7:27 pm seeing that help was already there? If I saw a police SUV with it's blue lights flashing nose to nose with a car that's been in an accident, I would presume that someone else must have already called 911, and the police were already on the scene. No need for Faith to call the police if she sees they are already there. And Faith stayed on that phone until about 7:46 pm, when Cecil Smith arrives on the scene. Not once did she report another police SUV arriving on the scene prior to Cecil Smith's arrival. Neither did Faith's husband report seeing a strange police SUV. And neither did Butch Atwood report seeing another police SUV. I just don't find this story believable. It does not jive. That is my honest opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! This is an excellent point. None of the neighbors would have called the police if there had been a cop car already there. It would make no sense.

      I don't know what to make of Witness A's story, but it looks like she's mistaken or confused with some other incident. Either she's wrong or the Atwoods and the Westmans are wrong. I don't see any middle ground. And since the stories of the Westmans and the Atwoods are confirmed by the police records, I'm going to go with their side of this.

      This is the kind of thinking that will move this case along. Thanks Michelle.

      Delete
  46. Has anyone else noticed an incongruous detail re Witness A's account; correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Maura Murray podcast from months ago, did she not say that she saw two people standing around near the vehicles at the scene of the incident? Or was that another witness?

    ReplyDelete
  47. And also, when Butch asked Maura if she needed him to call the police, she only said she had already called AAA and begged him not to call the police. She never once mentioned that the police already showed up and left. She never mentioned to Butch that any other person in a vehicle having already stopped to help her when he asked if she needed assistance. I think she would have mentioned that. And if that person were there for nefarious reasons, I think Maura would have more than likely accepted Butch's help than refuse it. I think if she felt threatened at all, she would have told Butch to call the police.

    The only way I can see if Karen's testimony is a least a bit credible is if she had actually passed by the accident site later than she thought, sometime after Butch had already gone back home after talking to Maura. And none of the other witnesses were paying any attention to what was going on outside. But if she is adamant about that 7:26 time, it just doesn't fit. Is it possible she is wrong about the time she left work? If she is not lying outright, she must be wrong about some crucial details because her story is not quite corroborating with the timeline and other witnesses testimonies. Perhaps she is not remembering the events correctly. Perhaps what she saw happened on another night or on another road. I think there is a very good chance she is mistaken. And to deny that a witnesses testimony could be erroneous defies all logic and reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. we will never really know the conversation between Butch and Maura. my feeling is he invited her to his house to warm up, probably said he'd help her out. thats how she vanished.

      Delete
  48. What a coincidence.. Karen admits to stopping in front of Butch Atwoods driveway and asking herself, should she help. She says she didn't help and left the scene.
    Maura's scent was lost by the tracking dogs in front of Butch Atwood's driveway.
    Perhaps, Karen did help Maura leave the scene.
    Is someone trying to put red herrings out in the public on purpose?
    Could the truth of what happened to Maura, becoming closer to being discovered?
    Could Maura of made it on foot, to where she'd get cell service?

    ReplyDelete
  49. 1 way for WitnessA to validate herself is to show/publish/post her phone records (that she said she has)for that evening. ~ just to confirm the time frame (not the phone numbers) That would put any doubt to rest, yes?

    ReplyDelete
  50. You people and your meaningless chatter is what has made this case so hard. If you don't understand logic and you don't know the details of the c saw which are on the Internet for EVERYONE to see themselves then maybe it's time to shut up and let the professionals do their jobs.

    There are two specific people I'm referring to and anyone like them: the "podcast" boys.

    I'm also referring to any and all sociopathic commenters and ALL of their clones.

    IJS

    ReplyDelete
  51. I wish Alex was doing his own podcast, he's so much better at it than Lance & Tim, in my humble opinion. I've really enjoyed listening and have learned a ton about the case, but sometimes the guys bring too much of their own thinking (or lack thereof) into the episodes. It's also felt very much like there was no plan each week other than to just see who responded to them, and week to week theories change and new people come in or out. So much about this case is difficult to grasp and hang on to - I wish the podcast felt more stable, or managed.

    Also, if there ever is a documentary, I really hope Lance and Tim hire an audio person to help them manage their levels.

    ReplyDelete
  52. James,

    Not quite understanding why you don't find her account credible. She's been interviewed by several investigators and you seem to be the only one who discredits her.

    She reported what she saw, when she saw it, to the police.

    She contacted the family early on, and there is proof of that.

    Her cell phone records prove she was in the area.

    So what leads you to dismiss her? Just the fact that you don't want to even fathom the idea that police are human beings and can mess up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to agree with you. You can not go by your personal belief, that is small minded thinking and will not find any answers.

      Delete
  53. James, there is a way to reconcile your view with Witness A's.

    When the police called Witness A back within the hour they asked her "Are you SURE it was Car001?" She claims she later heard that car was out of commission that night - hence the surprise.

    What if someone listening to the scanner stole 001 and took it out for a thrill kill ride? Think about it. This person knew where the keys were (maybe inside), knew how long the actual police would take to respond, and did it for the thrill.

    This is the type of person who could indeed have Maura locked up as a captive. It's also the type who would try it again. Any other people go missing around there (NH,VT) after being broadcast about on a scanner?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousAugust 6, 2016 at 10:52 PM

      "Any other people go missing around there (NH,VT) after being broadcast about on a scanner?" Now that is a good question!

      Delete
    2. This is just my personal opinion, but I think folks are being WAY too hard on Lance and Tim. Personally, I commend them for all of their time and attention to Maura's case. If doing a podcast was easy, everyone would do it!!! I for one enjoy their podcast and I respect and admire their work. I feel sad that everyone else doesn't feel the same way, but c'est la vie. I hope Tim and Lance persevere!

      I also hope that James Renner stays with it. It helps to shake those trees and bring attention to the case. Who knows what fruit will fall or who might come out of the woodwork with an important clue...

      BRAVO to our true crime addicts and websleuths!!!!!!!!

      Delete
  54. Listening to the podcast now. Right now my theory is that she was involved in the hit and run on the nigh she was distressed. She has no idea that the victim is going to be in a coma for two months. Her father comes to town to bail her out of the situation. She was obviously planning to leave, and the plan was going well. She stopped to get some drinks to take with her to one of her two choices of hide out. She drinks on the way, things go a wry, she crashes. The bus driver stops, she lies to him, he leaves. She panics, remember she was probably drinking, makes a run for it. She almost certainly got picked up in another vehicle. Whether she knew who it was I'm not certain. It's possible that this person either took advantage of the moment and killed her, or it was someone she knew and they transported her to a location of her choice and she's on the run since. I honestly think that for some time her father didn't know her whereabouts but then eventually she made contact, hence the change in attitude from one begging for FBI involvement to one of none cooperation with "arm chair sleuths". Or the information of non cooperation is inaccurate and he really doesn't know what went wrong that fateful night

    ReplyDelete
  55. doesn't en-eeeeee-one but me wonder why LE refused to release the Vasi information (to JR)for 12yrs until they legally were forced too, refuses to release the ATM & Liquor Store videos, refuses to explain the flubs in the GCSD dispatch/accident reports, just those alone have nothing to do w/the good ole boy network ~ this just doesn't smell like an accident on a random road folks

    ReplyDelete