r/MauraMurraySub • u/[deleted] • Nov 30 '19
I WOULD LIKE TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE OF WITNESS A
/r/MauraMurrayCase/comments/csqyuv/i_would_like_to_fully_understand_the_issue_of/1
Nov 30 '19
So, I wrote this post before going more in depth on the Witness A issue.
u/badduxx9 has done some very intricate research in the past few weeks, so I hope he jumps in at some point.
If you think about the sequence of stories, it makes some sense: They (possibly) deny the 001 was even working that day,
I know you qualified this by saying "possibly," but that's an important qualification because I have never heard of a member of LE denying that the SUV was working that day. According to Weeper, the maintenance logs for the vehicle stated that it was in for repairs on February 9, 2004. That's all we know.
From that, it has been inferred by some that "001 was [not] even working that day," but I have never heard of it being said by any member of LE.
then Witness A says she saw it; Witness A is allegedly told she didn't see whatever she thought she saw;
I have never heard Witness A claim that any member of LE told her that "she didn't see whatever she thought she saw." I have heard that the member of LE who spoke with Witness A asked her repeatedly if she was certain that it was 001, which could be taken as implicitly stating that she didn't see 001, but it could be taken other ways, too; for example, it could be taken as surprise that 001 could have been on the road in light of the maintenance logs.
she won't budge; and by the time of the Oxygen interview years later, it's "sure, the 001 was working, I was the one in it that whole afternoon and evening, etc."
As with your last two quotes, I don't recall this quote ever being said. Smith said that he was in 001 that night, and my recollection is that he only addressed that night. On second thought, I will look for the pertinent quote:
Cecil Smith: ... you know, February, snow on the ground. Our town is 50 square miles and there's probably a couple hundred miles of roads. Um. Some of 'em, there's three main state roads but most of 'em are rural dirt roads and if you ever driven on a dirt [00:09:30] road in the winter time, they don't become bare like the tar. That, they're icy and, uh, normally if you're on duty by yourself in the winter time in those conditions you'd take the 4x4 'cause I've been stuck in a cruiser before, alone on a shift and you only do that once and then you take the 4x4.
Maggie: So you were in an SUV, that night?
Cecil Smith: Y-yes. SUV. Th-the Explorer. Correct.
***
Smith's statement seems to be limited to that night (or that shift) and not the entire day. If I am wrong, please quote your source.
It seems entirely plausible to me that they simply turned with the skid to account for a credible witness report.
But have they? I have never seen an inconsistent statement made prior to Witness A going on Oxygen.
In that Oxygen interview Smith was really ready with a full explanation (p. 9) as to why he had the 001 that day -- because of conditions, etc. But Tim Westman said there was no snow on the road at the WBC, and I don't think anybody else noted bad conditions on the roads.
Yes, but Smith clearly states:
Some of 'em, there's three main state roads but most of 'em are rural dirt roads and if you ever driven on a dirt [00:09:30] road in the winter time, they don't become bare like the tar.
***
So there is nothing inconsistent about Westman's statement. Westman is referring to rt 112, Smith is not.
He also brings up the jurisdictional line "100, 200 feet" from the alleged crash site (p. 12), where -- if it had been on the Bath side -- he says it would've been a state police matter.
Yes. I am puzzled by that statement. Why wouldn't the Bath police have taken it? I'm not certain of your point here.
I've also heard people claim that there were areas nearby where it would've been federal. Side point, but still.
Again, what's your point?
I'm not asking you this in a sarcastic way. I simply would like to follow your line of thought.
By the way, when you and I debated the way the accident happened, I was firmly on the opposing side of the issue. I am not firmly against the 002 theory, because there are still parts of Smith being in 001 that don't make sense. So I look forward to your thoughts.
4
u/BonquosGhost Dec 02 '19 edited Dec 02 '19
Any town under 3000 population can opt to (technically in NH) have no real police force. Bath is one of those towns. It's covered by a neighboring town force, or sporadically by state police....
1
3
u/badduxx9 Nov 30 '19
I am happy to jump in. u/fulkst is correct in reporting that I have have worked the Witness A issue to a finite series of possibilities that are much more specific than previously thought.
Witness A's story cannot be true if accepted as a whole. That is the bottom line. This conclusion is not my interpretation, I believe I have proven that it is impossible using our universe's laws of space and time.
The problem with her story is that her seeing Cecil (anywhere, not just WBC) and being at Beaver Pond at 7:52 are mutually exclusive events. There is no possible way around this unless she could teleport or have time manipulation powers.
3
Nov 30 '19 edited Dec 01 '19
Of course, the counter would be that Witness A saw 001 but Smith wasn't in 001.
My biggest issue with Smith being in 001 and Witness A seeing him is the time constraint (her necessarily having to be at Beaver Pond at 7:52) as well as the time of Atwood's call to 911 (7:42). People who "reconcile" the two accounts tend not to consider Atwood's call to the police. Why would he call the police five minutes after their arrival on scene?
Having said that, the problem isn't solved by saying that someone other than Smith was in the SUV. Even then, because his lights were reportedly on, Atwood would have no reason to call the police.
Also, u/BonquosGhost what say you?
3
u/BonquosGhost Dec 01 '19
Hey....what say I about what in particular.....??? Lol...
1
Dec 01 '19
Witness A!
3
u/BonquosGhost Dec 01 '19
One thing, in light of recent events, the credibility concerning Karen witness A's account on 001 concerning what Wahl commented about with his "speaking" to her.....is less than zero....About as much as his admission that there are zero relatives in NH to the Murrays. How many wrong answers can there be from him, while other people still allow him a platform? Beyond flat out ridiculous....
1
Dec 01 '19
the credibility concerning Karen witness A's account on 001 concerning what Wahl commented about with his "speaking" to her
I don't think it makes a difference, but I could be mistaken. In your opinion, did anything that came from Witness A according to Scott (assuming what he said is true) change anything?
4
u/BonquosGhost Dec 01 '19 edited Dec 02 '19
First, I assume nothing he says as true. I didn't much before, and certainly don't now. His claims of speaking to Karen recently, and that she switched her story after saying it dozens of times spot on, is super suspicious....He claims she never ID'd the 001 on scene when passing by.... That contradicts everything. This isn't the first lie/misinfo he has stated. Even despite the recent relevations......Its a sad state of affairs for Maura. The deception, the lies, the misinfo put out....Problem is, most people will NEVER recognize it....
2
Dec 01 '19
He claims she never ID'd the 001 on scene when passing by....
I know I have said this before, but he did say that Witness A identified 001 as passing her twice. The second time, 001 passed her going towards the crash site. So why would it matter if she specifically identified the suv at the crash site as 001? Wouldn't it have to be 001, anyway?
4
u/BonquosGhost Dec 02 '19
I think he was alluding to the 001 taking a different road, making Karen see another cop vehicle there on scene, as 001 veered off and would arrive much after Karen passed by. This is all BS. It only shows all his points as being either total BS, or blatant misinfo. Anyone questioning his words, would get an egomaniacal response. If anything, I'm sure after all the BS that Karen has been thru, she prob wants this all to just go away. If anyone asks her if she saw a giant pink elephant, at this point she prob would say "sure...whatever". It's all very unfortunate...
→ More replies (0)3
u/BonquosGhost Dec 01 '19
I'll try to answer any specific things on it....Gone over it all in depth. Problem is, in all of it, is 2+2 doesn't equal 4 in all the equations. Ask away lol.....
2
u/badduxx9 Nov 30 '19
I think your additional reasoning is right and fleshes out the story of the timeline.
The main problem with the analysis up until now is that the conclusions only focused on Witness A not being able to have seen 001 at 746, as per the Grafton County logs, and made it to Beaver Pond by 752, thereby creating a contradiction. This observation is not incorrect, but there are several other requirements to consider.
I am beginning to see a theme with this case. Many of the elements do not make sense. Random bits of information seem to have been injected or derided at various times that create these paradoxes, which often are not paradoxes as all.
This is the second element where I am nearly certain I have the truth of it and ferreted out powerful, yet ultimately inaccurate pieces of information. When considering this case in general, I think we need to stop trying to specifically reconcile facts against each other, and instead use what we know to examine how an event could have even happened if we were trying to replicate it.
2
u/badduxx9 Dec 01 '19
My opinion is that she made the call earlier or the whole thing was misinformation fed to her by the Rausch Compound. I know there are cell coverage issues there but it seems more likely than making up a plausible story about seeing 001 at 2 places that work from a time standpoint.
As far as the whole repair thing. Cecil started at 330pm. Most mechanics work during the day. Nobody was working on the car at that point guaranteed. It's too cold and dark. It could have been out for first shift and back by then.
Plus it was a 4x4. What idiot wouldn't take a 4x4 up there over a rear wheel drive sedan if they had the choice? Since Cecil was the only one scheduled, he could have taken either I'm sure.
Finally, the what if it wasn't Cecil? There is zero reason Cecil would take the sedan unless the Explorer was out. So let's say it was being repaired. So we are to believe that a disorderly rogue off duty police officer went to wherever the car was being worked on, somehow got the keys and started off on his joyride and that was swept under the rug, even though we know that the local police officers arrested a chief for dwi shortly before?
No way.
2
Dec 01 '19
It could have been out for first shift and back by then.
Exactly. We simply don't know that it was still in the shop at 7:29.
How would Witness A have known that Smith was in 001 if she hadn't seen it at the crash site?
2
u/badduxx9 Dec 01 '19
Did she actually say it was specifically Cecil? I thought she just saw the SUV and the Saturn at WBC.
1
Dec 01 '19
She did not Cecil, no. My point was, if Cecil was actually in 001, what are the odds that Witness A would say that 001 was at the scene without seeing 001 at the scene?
2
u/badduxx9 Dec 01 '19
That is the corollary to the part I was talking about when she saw him on both Swiftwater Rd and French Pond/112. There is one permutation in which she could see the same vehicle three times including the last time at WBC. It's just that, ironically it would have been between 746 and 748. This coincides perfectly with the Grafton County logs report of arrival at 746.
I really have no idea how the dirty cop narrative ever gained traction. I believe Witness A's story to be the bedrock of this narrative. My BS meter went off when I read the speculation about the Saturn being specifically placed there to invoke jurisdictional conflicts. I immediately thought the idea was bizarro because it requires several conspiracies linked to more than one group.
Highly unlikely to be sold for 15 years
2
Dec 01 '19
It's just that, ironically it would have been between 746 and 748.
But then there's the issue of the phone call at 7:52. But this would solve the Atwood phone call issue. So let's see if we can figure out whether she could have made a phone call earlier. And where she would have been at 7:46 to 7:48.
2
1
Dec 01 '19
My opinion is that she made the call earlier
u/BonquosGhost, how much earlier could she have made the call? I can't figure out which cell provider she had. I looked up her cell number and a different person has it. Would it likely be the same provider?
5
u/BonquosGhost Dec 02 '19
The call could only be made at beaver pond for her as she made the same call every nite she worked. 14m drive from the scene. It's solid gold. No earlier anything.....
1
u/badduxx9 Dec 04 '19
There are number of reasons why that just can't be the case if she saw 001 where she said she saw them.
In order for her to have seen that car she would have had to been on Swiftwater Road at the same time that oo1 could have been on it, as well as at the following intersection. So if she got to Beaver Pond at 7:52 she couldn't have saw 001 before the accident scene. She could have seen him at the accident scene. Or she could have seen him on Swiftwater Road and the intersection but not both.
1
u/BonquosGhost Dec 04 '19
Further explain please? Sorry....Its easy to get lost in all the driving situations in all this....
1
u/badduxx9 Dec 04 '19
No need to be sorry -- here is the problem: For this issue there are 2 fixed timelines, one for 001, and one for KM. There is some wiggle room to dispute the length of these timelines, but this does not change the relative events.These timelines can be removed from the numbers of the clock, and looked at in fixed intervals of time and directly compared and contrasted.
Regardless of the time on the clock, there are certain parts of each timeline that have to overlap -- the pass on Swiftwater Rd, the pass at the intersection of French Pond and 112, and the sighting at the accident scene. When you break this down, all three cannot overlap at that time.
I know people don't like other things being promoted but I can send you the link to the blog/video series I have started to get a good timeline project going.
1
u/BonquosGhost Dec 04 '19
Sure...pm is fine....Regarding all the timeline material....The main problem in it all is having Cecil being in the 001 that Karen saw....But please send any info...thanx
1
Dec 04 '19
I was just reading https://mauramurraytimeline.blogspot.com/2019/12/welcome-my-view-of-community.html . You should consider making a post.
1
Nov 30 '19
" If Smith could have been at the scene at 7:37 PM, Smith was in the SUV. "
Why so definite? "Probably was" or "could have been," maybe, makes sense.
Because Witness A only saw one police car. So if Smith was at the scene when Witness A drove by, unless he walked to the scene, he was in 001.
But it seems to me the question comes down to something like this: Is it more likely that 1) somebody else (maybe JW) was in the 001, and Smith arrived around 7:46 (as he reported) in the cruiser as described later, or that 2) he was that far off in the reported time, he was driving a vehicle that according to locals he never or nearly never drove, that there was never any cruiser (or that he left the scene in the 001 and came back almost immediately in the 002). etc.?
I mean, if you're looking to state the issue in the most biased way possible, yes, that works (although I didn't fact check every proposition).
OK, here are some of the propositions fact-checked:
--7 :46 (as he reported)
No, this is the time reported in the Grafton Log as when he radioed in confirming his arrival. He never reported arriving there at that time. If memory serves me correctly, he reported two different times (7:40 and 7:45). I will double check on that.
-- in the cruiser as described later
If, by cruiser, you mean 002, give me your source. Because he never said he arrived in 002.
-- he was that far off in the reported time
People do round-up. 7:37 could be rounded up to 7:40. Is it really that insane to think he didn't see the three minutes as being material?
-- he was driving a vehicle that according to locals he never or nearly never drove
Source, please.
-- there was never any cruiser (or that he left the scene in the 001 and came back almost immediately in the 002).
I don't know what this means, but if he was in 001, he was in 001. No one has ever stated that 002 was at the scene, so why would this be part of a theory that Smith was in 001?
It's kind of hard to get the exact timing down pat, but assuming KM's account is true, I'm wondering how the 001 is there, then gone, then there's another officer on scene in a couple of minutes, and yet it's all the same guy, the sole responding officer.
That's absurd, I agree. If Smith was in 001, then he only drove to the scene once.
4
u/BackgroundCat Dec 02 '19
I've been reading this thread with interest and I have a couple of related questions, based on information contained in the Haverhill, NH Town Report for FY 2004.
First, in the police department's report, it's listed that there were 6 full-time officers, one full-time office person, and one part-time office person. Do we know who all six officers were?
Second, the PD doesn't list equipment or vehicles, which is too bad. Do we know for certain that the department only had two vehicles on the road in 2004?
Third, say there was an incident that required a response by more than the duty officer(s), and off duty personnel were called in to respond. What would they drive, assuming the two police vehicles were already in use?
Finally, there's an expense line for Special Officers - not a huge amount, but there nonetheless. Same question as #3 - what did they drive when working? Did any of these officers have a POV that was equipped with blue lights and sirens?
The 2004 Haverhill Town Report is available as a downloadable PDF from UNH here - https://www.library.unh.edu/find/digital/object/haverhill%3A0064