+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 74
Latest: Bosworth 1485
New This Month: 3
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 1078
Total Topics: 193
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 18
(December 12, 2020, 11:44:40 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 3
Total: 3

Author Topic: Evidence That A Vehicle Arrived and Left Accident Scene Before Cecil Smith Arrived - Part 1  (Read 615 times)

MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
This Post Needs to Be Updated For New Information Released After It Was Written.
In general, timeline outlines for Cecil Smith and Butch Atwood are the most important pieces of information in this post.

New Information that Needs to be incorporated:
1. Length of Butch Atwood Call to Hanover (3 minutes)
2. Start of Butch Atwood Call (7:42 PM)
3. Start of Faith Westman Call (7:27 PM) "Mrs. Westman said she called 911 right away" (Accident at 7:27)
4. Length of Faith Westman Call (1 minute 18 seconds)
5. Make Note of times in APN's Interview of the Westmans 

(7:28:45 is when call ended, per transcript.)

("The Westmans said that 4 to 5 minutes after the car crashed, they saw a school bus") 7:31-7:32 Arrival for Butch

("It seemed that the bus driver talked to her for no more than two minutes") 7:34 Butch Departure

(took "about 15 minutes for the police to arrive after the bus left. They felt sure that it could have been that long but no shorter than 10 minutes.") 7:44 - 7:49 police arrival time.

Links Need to be added to data points and discussion thereof


Another Vehicle Was At The Scene Before Cecil Smith Arrived
1 Introduction

1.1 Accepted Facts

• The Grafton County Sheriff Logs state that Cecil Smith arrived at the accident site at 19:46:20.

• Cecil Smth's accident report states that he arrived at the accident site at 19:45.

• Faith Westman ended her phone conversation with 911 when a vehicle arrived at the accident site

• Faith Westman ended her phone conversation with 911 at 19:36.

• Cecil Smith has stated he was driving an SUV on the night of Maura's accident. Most, if not all researchers assume and agree that Cecil Smith is effectively saying that he drove Haverhill's SUV vehicle #001 on the night of Maura Murray's accident.

1.2 Other Facts To Consider

• Witness A has stated she saw the 001 as she drove by the accident site.

• According to Art and Maggie, Witness A has accurately described the unusual route Cecil Smith drove that night.

• Witness A's description of her drive (and the law enforcement vehicle she saw pass her) would place her at the accident scene within a few minutes of the officer she described

• Witness A could have seen the 19:36 vehicle Faith Westman described in her interviews.

1.3 Fact Based Conclusions

1. The evidence supports the fact that Cecil Smith arrived at the accident scene at 19:46:20

2. The evidence supports the fact that the 19:36 vehicle was not driven by Cecil Smith

3. Therefore, the evidence contradicts the assertion that Cecil Smith arrived at approximately 19:36

1.4 Discussions Resulting From Fact Based Conclusions - Who Arrived at 19:36?

1.4.1 Possibility 1: That Another Individual Arrived At The Scene Of Maura Murray's Accident 10 - 15 Minutes Before Cecil Smith Arrived

Fact Based Reasons This Hypothesis Could Be True

• The Westmans stated that they believed an officer arrived at 19:36.

• The Westmans could not tell if Butch or Barbara Atwood were driving the bus or if the Saturn's driver was a man or a woman. Futhermore, the Westmans described the person that moved around the car as a "shadow."

• Therefore, the Westmans probably could not see the 19:36 vehicle clearly

• Therefore, the 19:36 vehicle could have been any type of vehicle

• Therefore, the Westmans assumed that the 19:36 vehicle was driven by Cecil Smith because he knocked on their door several minutes later.

• Cecil Smith arrived at 19:46:20

• Therefore, the 19:36 vehicle was not driven by Cecil Smith, he arrived at 19:46:20

Opinions That Contradict This Hypothesis

Opinions About Witness A's Arrival Time As It Relates To Cecil Smith's Arrival Time

• Oxygen Show hosts Art Roderick and Maggie Freleng have stated that they believe that Cecil Smith was at the accident scene when Witness A drove by.
This assertion implies that Cecil Smith arrived 10 minutes earlier than indicated in the Grafton County Sheriff's Logs and in Cecil Smith's own police report, written a week later.

• Some researchers believe that Witness A's knowledge of Cecil Smith's unique driving route (as told to Art and Maggie.
but not shown to the public on the Oxygen show) is proof that she indeed saw Cecil Smith driving to the accident scene.

• As a result, some researchers believe that this is conclusive evidence that Cecil Smith was at the accident site at 19:36, rather than 19:45 as stated on his police report.

• The proponents of this theory, have, as a result, assumed that Cecil Smith called in his arrival to the accident site 10 minutes late, or that the logs are inaccurate.
2 The Evidence

2.1 A Cross Comparison of Evidence in the Grafton County Sheriff Logs With Witness Statements

2.1.1 Critical Statements

Faith Westman Made Three Critical Statements When She Was Interviewed by Whitewash.

Note: This interview took place in January 2007. The author knows the identity of Whitewash and knows personally that Whitewash made these posts, and knows she lived proximately to have made the interviews.

Critical Statement 1: Butch Atwood Arrived At The Accident Site 1 - 2 Minutes After Faith Westman Called 911

"Atwood arrives with 1-2 min per Faith"

From: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/whitewash's-interview-write-up-part-1/

Critical Statement 2: Butch Atwood Remained At The Accident Site for 1 - 2 Minutes After He Arrived

"Atwood is there 1-2 mines tops Faith says."

from: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/whitewash's-interview-write-up-part-1/

Critical Statement 3: A Vehicle (That the Westmans Believed Was Cecil Smith) Arrived At The Accident Site When The 911 Call Was Complete

"See Smith nose to nose hangs up with 911."

from: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/whitewash's-interview-write-up-part-1/

The Westmans Made One Critical Statement When She Was Interviewed By The Murray Family

Critical Statement 1: Cecil Smith Asked The Atwoods and Westmans “Where Is the Girl?”

From: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=690

“Murray's family said Smith told them he thought the driver of the Saturn was Murray's father,
to whom the car was registered. Mysterious to them, though, is why Smith asked neighbors, the night of the crash, "Where is the girl?"

The Westmans Made One Critical Statement When They Were Interviewed By Cold N. Holefield

Critical Statement 1: Cecil Smith Asked The Atwoods and Westmans “Where Is the Girl?”

From: http://www.the107degree.com/single-post/2017/10/18/Smith-Driving-the-SUV-Witness-A-and-the-Timeline

“as soon as Cecil Smith arrived at her door, Cecil Smith asked 'where is the girl?'“

Butch Atwood made Two Critical Statements To Newspapers

Critical Statement 1: Cecil Smith Arrived At Butch Atwood's Bus 7 - 9 Minutes After His Phone Call to Hanover Dispatch Ended

Newspaper 1: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=428

“Butch Atwood, who lives just up the road from the site, offered her help. She refused. However,
he went to his house to call police and EMS. When Haverhill police arrived about seven to nine minutes later, Murray was no where to be found.”

Newspaper 2: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=422

“While he was talking on his phone on his front porch, Atwood could see the road, but not Murray's disabled car.
He saw several vehicles drive by, but couldn't tell any makes or models because it was so dark.
After about seven to nine minutes, he looked out and saw the Haverhill Police.
Atwood believed the situation was under control and went to the school bus to tend to his paperwork.
The next thing he knew, Haverhill Police Department Sgt. Cecil Smith was banging on his bus window. “

Comments:

On Newspaper 2 and other accounts - If we assume that Butch Atwood meant that Cecil Smith arrived at the Westman's home within 7-9 minutes, but not HIS BUS within 7 - 9 minutes, it would mean that Cecil Smith did not arrive at the Westmans until between 19:50 and 19:52 for the first time.
(His call ended with Hanover at 19:43 + 7 = 19:50 - 19:52).
This could not be correct - so he must have meant that Cecil Smith arrived at his bus 7 - 9 minutes later.
I have treated this account accordingly.

Critical Statement 2: Cecil Smith Asked Butch Atwood “Where Is the Girl?”

From: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=657

“Sgt. Smith then drove the 200 yards east to Butch Atwood's home, and found Atwood sitting in his bus.
Sgt. Smith knocked on the bus window.
"He asked where the girl was," Atwood recalled and told the officer he hadn't seen anyone since leaving Maura's vehicle.”

2.1.2 Critical Log Entries

Haverhill: 19:40 Narrative By Rhonda Marsh

"Narrative: 02/09/2004 1940 Marsh, Rhonda

At 1927, FAITH WESTMAN CALLED, TO ADV OF A VEH IN THE DITCH RIGHT ON SHARP TURN AFTER THE WEATHERED BARN. UNK IF PI, BUT CAN SEE A MAN IN VEH SMOKING CIGARETTE, WAS E/B RT 112, BUT ENDED UP IN W/B DITCH FACING W/B."

Haverhill: 19:48 Narrative By Rhonda Marsh

"Narrative: 02/09/2004 1948 Marsh, Rhonda

AT 1943, HANOVER DISP CALLED TO ADV GOT A 911 CALL FOR US; 911 ADVISED ALL CIRCUITS BUSY: IS FOR 10-25, CALLER AT 2 WILD AMMONOOSUC RD, BUTCH ATWOOD RES, 747-3664. THEY ADV ONE FEMALE. NO PI, BUT SHOOK UP. (CALLED THE ATWOOD RES. WOMAN ADV HER HUSBAND SAW THE CRASH AND CAME HERE TO CALL, BUT NO IDEA WHERE THE FEMALE IS."

Grafton: 19:36

“04 4753 1936

Call Taker: D11 - Marsh, Rhonda”
3 Discussion of the Evidence
3.1 Butch Atwood's Timeline

3.1.1 Butch Atwood's Accident Scene Arrival And Departure Times

When Did Butch Atwood Arrive At The Accident Scene?

According to the Grafton County Sheriff Logs, Faith Westman's call to dispatcher Rhonda Marsh started at 19:27.

According to Whitewash's Interview with the Westmans, Faith Westman said that Butch Atwood arrived at the accident scene within 1-2 minutes of the start of her call to dispatcher Rhonda Marsh. "Atwood arrives with 1-2 min per Faith,"

Therefore, Butch Atwood arrived at the accident scene between 19:28 and 19:29.

Comments:

Faith Westman has also stated in newspapers that she saw Butch Atwood arrive and leave the scene of the accident. Those reports are linked here.

The Grafton County Sheriff's Logs do not mention the fact that Faith Westman saw Butch Atwood arrive and leave.

When Did Butch Atwood Leave the Accident Scene?

Faith Westman said that, after arriving, Butch Atwood remained at the scene for an additional 1-2 minutes. "Atwood is there 1-2 mines tops Faith says."

Therefore, Butch Atwood left the scene of the accident at between 19:29 and 19:31.

Comments:

Butch Atwood has stated in newspapers that: “Based on his recollection... Atwood's conversation with Maura could only have lasted a few minutes.”

(From here: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=656)

Faith Westman has stated in newpapers that she saw Butch Atwood arrive and leave the scene of the accident. Those reports are linked here.

The Grafton County Sheriff's Logs do not mention the fact that Faith Westman saw Butch Atwood arrive and leave.

Butch Atwood's Call to Hanover Dispatcher

Why Did Butch Atwood Call the Hanover Dispatcher?

Butch Atwood was unable to call the Grafton County dispatcher because all circuits were busy.

Why Isn't Hanover's Call in the Grafton County Sheriff Logs?

Hanover has its own dispatchers and log system, and therefore, Hanover calls are not logged into Grafton County's system.

Have the Hanover Logs Been Released?

No. The Hanover logs have never been acquired under the FOIA. Fred Murray requested them, but was denied.

When Did Butch Atwood's call to the Hanover dispatcher start?

The Grafton County Sheriff's logs do not indicate when Butch Atwood called the Hanover dispatcher.

I will attempt to calculate when the call started within a proposed timeline, shown below.

This timeline will be based upon other factually supported points in time, other witness statements and reasonableness.

As of now, the best estimate of the time when Butch Atwood's conversation started with the Hanover dispatcher is between 19:36:30, 19:37 and 19:39, with 19:39 being most likely.

How Long Was Butch Atwood on the Phone With the Hanover Dispatcher?

The Grafton County Sheriff's logs do not indicate how long Butch Atwood was on the phone with them.

I hypothesize that Butch Atwood was on the phone with the Hanover dispatcher for as long as 4 minutes.

I have based my conclusion upon the hypotesized starting time (from the timeline) and the known ending time, 19:43.

When Did Butch Atwood's Call to the Hanover Dispatcher End?

The Grafton County Sheriff's logs do not indicate the exact time Butch Atwood's call ended.

The Grafton County Sheriff dispatcher Rhonda Marsh wrote, in the narrative portion of the call with the Hanover dispatcher, that they called her at 19:43.

It is reasonable to assume that the Hanover dispatcher called Grafton County dispatcher Rhonda Marsh immediately after finishing their conversation with Butch Atwood.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Butch Atwood's call with the Hanover dispatcher had ended immediately before 19:43.

When Was Rhonda Marsh Able To Inform Cecil Smith That He Was Looking For A Female?

Butch Atwood's call to Hanover dispatch before 19:43.

Hanover dispatch called Rhonda Marsh at 19:43 to report to Rhonda Marsh that Butch Atwood saw a female driver

Therefore, Rhonda Marsh informed Cecil Smith that he was looking for a female driver at around 19:44.

3.1.2 Summarized Butch Atwood Time Line

Butch Atwood's time could be calculated as follows, from his arrival time at the accident site between 19:28 and 19:29

• 1 to 2 minutes to talk to Maura Murray, that would make it between 19:29 and 19:31

• 30 seconds to 1 minute to drive his bus to his driveway, that would make it between 19:29:30, 19:30 and 19:32

• 1 minute, 30 seconds to park his bus backwards in his driveway, that would make it between 19:31, 19:31:30 and 19:33:30

• 30 seconds to walk to his front door, that would make it between 19:31:30, 19:32 and 19:34

• 2 minutes to walk into the residence, get his telephone and walk outside to his front porch, that would make it between 19:33:30, 19:34 and 19:36

• 15 seconds to call 911, that would make it between 19:33:45, 19:34:15 and 19:36:15

• 15 seconds to receive a delay for busy circuits, that would make it between 19:34, 19:34:30 and 19:36:30

• 2 minutes to find the phone number for Hanover dispatch, that would make it between 19:36, 19:36:30 and 19:38:30

• 30 Seconds to call Hanover dispatch, that would make it between 19:36:30 19:37 and 19:39

• 4 minutes to talk to Hanover dispatch and hang up phone, that would make it between 19:40, 19:41 and 19:43 (logs say 19:43, so we use 19:43)

• 7 - 9 minutes to wait for Cecil Smith to arrive, that would make it between 19:50 and 19:52

Comments:

A newspaper article in which Butch Atwood is interviewed is here: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=422

3.2 Faith Westman's Call To The Grafton County Dispatcher

3.2.1 When Did Faith Westman's Call Start?

The Grafton County Sheriff's logs show that Faith Westman's call started at 19:27.

3.2.2 When Did Faith Westman's Call End?

The Grafton County Sheriff's logs do not make a clear indication when Faith Westman's call ended.

However, Rhonda Marsh answered a call from Grafton at 19:36

Therefore, Faith Westman's call to Rhonda Marsh ended before 19:36

3.2.3 How Long Was Faith Westman on the Phone With dispatcher Rhonda Marsh?

The call started at 19:27, and the call ended before 19:36. (See above)

Therefore, the call was, at most, 9 minutes long.

3.3 Cecil Smith's Timeline

• At 19:43 - 3 minutes prior to Cecil Smith's arrival, Rhonda Marsh informed Officer Smith that he was looking for a female driver. (See above.)

Cecil Smith's time line could be calculated as follows, if he arrived at the accident site at 19:46:20, it would take:

• 30 seconds to exit his car and approach the vehicle, that would make it 19:46:50.

• 1 minute to walk up to the Saturn and perceive that the Saturn's driver was not in the vehicle, that the airbags were deployed and that the windshield had a spider crack in it, that would make it 19:47:50.
This is consistent with Cecil Smith's statement that he made a “quick check of the vehicle.”

• 50 seconds to approach the Westman's front door, that would make it 19:48:40. (Art said this would take 50 seconds.)

• 1 minute, 30 seconds to converse with the Westmans briefly
asking “where's the girl?” and having the Westmans tell him that they had seen one of the Atwoods stop to check if the driver was OK,
that they could not tell whether the driver was male or female, and that they saw the driver turn the four-ways on and was moving about the interior of the car, that would make it 19:50:10.
Cecil Smith could only ask where a girl was if he was informed a woman was in an accident.

• 50 seconds to return to his car, that would make it 19:51. (Art said this would take 50 seconds.)

• 30 seconds to 1 minute to drive to Butch Atwood's bus, he would be at the Bus talking to Butch Atwood between 19:51:30 and 19:52. This reconciles with Butch Atwood's statement that “After about seven to nine minutes, he looked out and saw the Haverhill Police” - as his call with Hanver ended at 19:43. (See above)

• 1 minute to converse with Butch Atwood, that would make it between 19:52:30 and 19:53. This is consistent with Cecil Smith's statement that “I didn't speak to him (Butch Atwood) very long I just probably less then a minute.”

• 1 minute to issue a be on the lookout to the dispatcher, that would make it between 19:53:30 and 19:54. 19:54 reconciles with the “be on the lookout” time in the Grafton County Sheriff's Logs.

• 2 minutes, 30 seconds to check for footprints on the side of the road, that would make it between 19:56 and 19:56:30

• 30 seconds to 1 minute to return to the accident site.
That would make it between 19:56:30, 19:57 and 19:57:30. This time range is after the time Dick Guy arrived (19:56:08). 19:56:30 reconciles with Dick Guy's statement: “We were dispatched to that call. We drove out.
There's a car that apparently impacted a tree and it had spun around such that it was facing the opposite direction. We drove around it and parked. There was nobody at the site of the accident. It's not terribly unusual to have a car with nobody there. If somebody is driving impaired sometimes they don't really want to interact with the police.”
« Last Edit: January 03, 2020, 11:05:45 am by MauraMurrayEvidence »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Comment 1:

It is noteworthy that Anthony Stiles, not Rhonda Marsh, logged Cecil Smith's arrival at the accident site as at 19:46:20. Rhonda Marsh was presumably preoccupied until 19:48 talking to Butch Atwood's wife [in second Atwood call], and therefore, unable to log in Cecil Smith's arrival at 19:46:20. After Hanover dispatch called dispatcher Rhonda Marsh at 19:43, Rhonda Marsh (Grafton) called the Atwood residence back. Rhonda Marsh reached Butch Atwood's wife, who was inside and able to get the phone. Butch Atwood was outside in his bus doing paperwork, and no longer had a phone available to him. Note that Butch Atwood's wife was on the phone with dispatcher Rhonda Marsh until 19:48, the time dispatcher Rhonda Marsh finished writing her narrative (about the Hanover call and the Atwood residence call back) into the dispatch system. Rhonda Marsh's call back to the Atwood Residence took place between [19:43 + time of Hanover call] and 19:48.

Comment 2:

Although Dick Guy said "there was nobody at the site of the accident" when he arrived, it should be noted that he arrived after Cecil Smith was at the area of the accident scene at 19:46:20. Therefore, it is clear that Dick Guy was saying that Cecil Smith was not at the situs of the Saturn at 19:56 when he arrived with the EMS. Instead, he must have meant that Cecil Smith was not at the situs (or immediate vicinity) of the Saturn, as Ceci Smith was 100 yards up the road talking to Butch Atwood. He could not have meant that Cecil Smith was not in the general area of at the accident scene.

Comment 3:

Anthony Stiles was busy handling multiple dispatches to a medical emergency at Littleton. Multiple Log entries took place at 19:19, 19:22, 19:23, 19:27, 19:28, 19:29 and 19:36 (almost 19:37). Single calls for Littleton took place at 19:43 and 19:46.

Stiles was generally available to handle radio calls from Cecil Smith from 19:36 forward. This contradicts the idea that Cecil Smith's arrival time was entered into the system late because the dispatchers were preoccupied with other calls. And the evidence shows that even though Stiles had made an EMS entry for Littleton at 19:46:29, he managed to enter Cecil Smith's arrival at Haverhill at 19:46:20.

Anthony Stiles dispatched fire and EMS to the Haverhill accident scene at 19:42 and logged in their arrivals at 19:45.

Clearly Anthony Stiles was preoccupied and could not dispatch Fire and EMS to Haverhill until after 19:29 and arguably not until after 19:36. Rhonda Marsh handled a call from Grafton at 19:36 that had to end before 19:43, but could have lasted up to a minute. However, Stiles did not dispatch Fire and EMS until 19:42.

So the question is why wasn't fire and EMS dispatched at 19:36? What took place between 19:37 and 19:42?

It has been suggested that the delay from 19:37 to 19:42 in calling out fire and EMS is indicative that Cecil Smith was actually at the scene as early as 19:42, Ceci Smith having authority to do so.

A source has been sited in support of this argument: John Healy, the former head of the NHLI a group that investigated Maura Murray's disappearance. It is clear, that John Healy has stated in a Crimewire interview, that Cecil Smith was the person that requested Fire and EMS.

Although the evidence seems to indicate that Cecil Smith did not request fire and EMS come to the scene, we can still suppose that Cecil Smith did. And if we do, we will still note that Fire and EMS were not called from 19:35 - 19:41.

If we give Cecil Smith 2 minutes from his arrival to determine that their was a spider crack in the window and airbags deployed and therefore, he should dispatch Fire and EMS, that would place his arrival at 19:40, at earliest. So even though this argument has been made, it does not support the theory that Cecil Smith was at the accident scene at 19:35. At best it might demonstrate some delay between actual events and how they are logged into the system. However it falls short of showing that Cecil Smith was there prior to Witness A's departure from the accident scene. Witness A could not have been at the scene any later than 19:39, and if she was there that late, she would have traveled an average of 50 miles an hour to Beaver Pond on a dark and dangerous road, at least at those speeds.

Therefore, we can only logically conclude, that if Cecil Smith arrived at the accident site early, it was not early enough for Witness A to have seen him or his vehicle.

3.4 We Have A Basis To Conclude The Proposed Timelines Are Correct - So Any Other Proposed Fact That Violates It Is Probably Incorrect

3.4.1 Cecil Smith's Time Line Reconciles With Butch Atwood and Dick Guy's Time Line

I have been able to reconstruct Cecil Smith and Butch Atwood's timeline, placing both of them at Butch Atwood's bus at about between 19:51:30 and 19:52.

Therefore, we have a basis to believe that our reconstruction of both time lines are correct enough to approximate when various events took place for both of them.

The key point in time is when Cecil Smith and Butch Atwood's time lines intersect, which is when Cecil Smith knocked on Butch Atwood's bus.

The fact that Cecil Smith Arrived at Butch Atwood's bus at/about/between 19:51:30 and 19:52 is also supported by the fact that Cecil Smith said his conversation with Butch Atwood lasted “less than a minute” and the fact that Cecil Smith issued a “be on the lookout” at 19:54.

Logically, Cecil Smith would only issue the “be on the lookout” after he became aware that the witnesses did not know where the driver was. Butch Atwood was the last witness Cecil Smith talked to.

If it took 1 minute to issue a “be on the lookout,” 2 minutes, 30 seconds to check for footprints on the side of the road and 30 seconds to 1 minute to return to the situs of the accident, the timeline reconciles with Dick Guy's statement in which he indicates that Cecil Smith was not at the situs of the Saturn when he arrived.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2020, 02:44:35 pm by MauraMurrayEvidence »

MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Comment by: BonquosGhost

THIS IS EXACTLY DEAD ON! None of this can be refuted by anyone. Logic and truth win over the obvious lies being doled out and repeated by the numerous "diversionists" on the various subs. They have multiplied since the show aired to try to hit home their narrative. But their narrative is a complete lie. Cecil tho will never have to worry about lying on the stand about this, because guaranteed, this case will never make it to the stand......

Comment by: RetroMetal
In my reading of all this "stuff" surrounding this case and this particular area of time it seems to ME that lots of people get way down "in the weeds" about quite a few things that were said, or supposedly said. Take, "where's the girl" for example. Isn't it possible, and more likely probable that Smith might have asked "where is the driver (or say... where is the person involved with this wreck?)? And when asked some time AFTER it was known that it was a female in the car the Westman's simply unconsciously replaced whatever words Smith actually said with, "where's the girl"?

This happens again with the description of "flurry of activity" near the trunk and people claiming that she was gathering items. Couldn't that have possibly been Maura being attacked or fighting off an attack? Then maybe running down the street, which could also explain the reason the dog lost her scent down the road.

Also, with all of these witnesses who are calling 911 and NOT seeing when and why Maura disappeared, isn't it probably and likely that the people who were observing this from inside homes a fair distance away were also looking out of windows at night time while it's dark outside and with room lighting on inside the rooms they are in? Have you ever done this? Internal lighting causes looking at a window when it's dark outside, to reflect the lit room, making it extremely hard to actually see outside. This would also affect Butch Atwood, IF he was inside his bus doing paperwork he would almost certainly have the dome light inside the bus on... so he's not trying to fill out paperwork in the dark... Also, IF these people who are calling 911 are A) being told by Butch Atwood that he's spoken to the driver of the car and she requested that he not call the police and she didn't look injured, and B) no real reason to believe there is anyone hurt at the scene, especially since it was simply a car spinning out, that those people on the phone, inside, and "looking at the scene"... how much real attention do you suppose those people are REALLY putting towards watching every little thing? I know personally if I were to be in that situation I probably would look out the window for a moment to see that something had actually occurred and probably turned my attention elsewhere.

Response:
This happens again with the description of "flurry of activity" near the trunk and people claiming that she was gathering items. Couldn't that have possibly been Maura being attacked or fighting off an attack?

No screams

And when asked some time AFTER it was known that it was a female in the car the Westman's simply unconsciously replaced whatever words Smith actually said with, "where's the girl"?

Atwood said the same thing.

making it extremely hard to actually see outside.

Agreed - so we need to find out who this was - and it wasn't Cecil Smith.

MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Comment by AJAYM22:
Isn't it possible, and more likely probable that Smith might have asked "where is the driver (or say... where is the person involved with this wreck?)? And when asked some time AFTER it was known that it was a female in the car the Westman's simply unconsciously replaced whatever words Smith actually said with, "where's the girl"?

I think this is a worthy consideration. The same thing has crossed my mind as well.

Response:
Yeah - but he asked Butch Atwood the same thing - and I've got it right up there - dude let me know you read this stuff - no point in doing this twice!

Source #2 - https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=657

"Sgt. Smith then drove the 200 yards east to Butch Atwood's home, and found Atwood sitting in his bus. Sgt. Smith knocked on the bus window. 'He asked where the girl was,' Atwood recalled and told the officer he hadn't seen anyone since leaving Maura's vehicle."

Comment by AJAYM22:

Ok HP, I took your advice and re-read every newspaper article pertaining to Butch. To be honest I think it is quite murky as to whether Smith actually asked Butch, "Where is the girl". I found two articles where Butch really goes into details about his interaction with Smith. One article is the one you quoted above:

"Sgt. Smith then drove the 200 yards east to Butch Atwood's home, and found Atwood sitting in his bus. Sgt. Smith knocked on the bus window. 'He asked where the girl was,' Atwood recalled and told the officer he hadn't seen anyone since leaving Maura's vehicle."

The other article I found that pertains to the topic at hand is from the Caledonian-Record. Here is the quote:

"The next thing he knew, Haverhill Police Department Sgt. Cecil Smith was banging on his bus window. Smith asked him if he had called in the accident and seen anyone at the scene. Atwood told Smith he had seen a girl about 20 with dark hair."

So we have Butch saying two different things to two different newspapers. Since we are dealing with a witness's recollection here, I believe a very important factor to consider is how long after the event each interview took place. The interview where Butch states that Smith asked him where the girl was (Whitman-Hanson Express July 12, 2007), occurred nearly 3.5 years after the crash happened. The interview where Butch states that he was the one who informed Smith that a girl was on the scene, occurred less then two weeks after the crash (The Caledonian-Record February 20, 2004).

Response:
"I took your advice and re-read every newspaper article pertaining to Butch."

This is good. But I was also suggesting you read how I've put the evidence together. Because there is a larger context to consider.

It couldn't merely be a coincidence that two neighbors (Westman and Atwood) have said to that Cecil Smith asked them both "Where's the girl?"

You've previously disregarded what Cold has said he was told. Cold had no idea what I was going to write. Now you are doubting a quote from Butch Atwood because he was asked 3.5 years later. You're also doubting Cecil Smith's police report that says he arrived at the scene at 7:45 and the Grafton County Sheriff logs that says he called in at 7:46:20. Furthermore, you are disregarding the fact that it would be a habit for Cecil Smith to call in his arrival as soon as he arrived, as Cecil Smith was not a rookie. Furthermore, Cecil Smith did not say on TV that he called in his arrival late. That is an opinion expressed by Maggie Freleng. At some point you have to realize that your argument doesn't work because you have disregarded too much evidence.

And...the conversation at the bus could have gone like this: BANG BANG
Q: "Where's the girl?"
A: I don't know
Q: Did you "call in the accident?"
A: Yes
Q: Did you see "anyone at the scene?"
A: Yes I saw a "girl about 20 with dark hair."
Q: "She look like she was hurt?"
A: "Na she looked shaken up but she didn't look hurt, but I think she been drinking because she slurred her speech and had to lean on something while I was standing there. I asked her if she wanted me to call the police nope no please don't call the police."

Which is consistent with both statements you cite.

Although it may seem that the key question to Cecil Smith's arrival time rests upon weather he asked "Where's the girl? or not - but that is only one factor among several others, all of which I have explained above - all of which are based upon the evidence.

When a driver of a car (that got in an accident) is missing - it is an officer's top priority is to find the driver as quickly as possible. This means asking the witnesses first - and quickly. Proponents of the theory that has Cecil Smith arriving 11 minutes earlier than what the logs say - have Cecil Smith taking 16 or 17 minutes to accomplish what he could have reasonably accomplished in 6 minutes.

Repeated again: Above, I figure that Butch's call to Hanover started, at earliest, 7:39 PM. However, Perhaps it could be argued that Butch's call started at 7:35PM, if I give him the earliest time to leave the scene of the accident 7:29PM and 2 minutes to: 1.) leave his bus and walk to is door, 2.) open his door 3.) Find and retrieve a cordless phone 4.) walk back out onto the porch 5.) Attempt a call with Grafton County dispatch 6.) Call Hanover's dispatch via 7 digit dial - assuming he had the number memorized.

I've given Butch 4 minutes to do (1 - 6 above) post Bus exit activities. And have him leave at 7:31 PM from the accident site, 3 minutes to drive the length to his driveway (7:34) at 1 minute to back his bus in backwards into the driveway (7:35).

Still, disregarding all the evidence above (in bold above), if Cecil Smith was supposedly there at 7:36 - you are basically saying that Maura was never out of sight of anyone. If you say he was there at 7:37-7:39, the person that picked her up would not have even made it up the street to Butch Atwood's when Cecil Smith arrived.

The Westmans, meanwhile, do give us information that places a vehicle there reasonably at 7:35, almost certainly before 7:40 and absolutely before 7:43 (reasons explained above, not in following sentence). The Fact that Cecil Smith didn't see another vehicle at the accident scene, also tells us that the vehicle must have left by 7:43. The first vehicle would have a reasonable amount of time to converse with Maura and leave, if that first vehicle arrived at 7:36 and left as late as 7:43. This vehicle would not be seen by Butch Atwood, he was in his home, or on the porch, not in clear view of the accident site until after 7:43.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2019, 03:57:29 pm by MauraMurrayEvidence »

MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Comment by AJAYM22:

"Now you are doubting a quote from butch Atwood because he was asked 3.5 years later."

I am not doubting it strictly because it is 3.5 years after the fact, I am questioning it because it is in contradiction to what a newspaper said 2 weeks after the crash.

"Cecil Smith's police report that says he was there at 7:45 and the Grafton County Sheriff logs that says he called in at 7:46:20 - and calling in would be a habit, as Cecil Smith was not a rookie."

You are right, it is a fact that his arrival time was recorded as 7:45pm; however, it is also a fact that dispatch logs had Cecil Smith at a different accident scene (in Groton) at the same time as he was at Maura's (see Erins police log analysis). Furthermore, the logs show Cecil leaving Maura's crash and arriving at his next call in 9 minutes when it was at least 20 minutes away. To quote Tim and Lance, "At the very least we are talking about incredibly sloppy dispatch book keeping". My point here is that the dispatch times that night were very sloppy and in some cases simply inaccurate. Would you agree? So it is not that I am choosing to disregard this evidence, I am questioning it. Everyone should, especially when the implications are what they are.

On that note, what about the fact that Witness A positively identified the Haverhill 001 as the far that she saw nose to nose with Maura? Also, what about the fact that Faith Westman also said she saw Smith pull nose-to-nose with Maura at the conclusion of her 911 call? That is two different Witnesses that claimed to see Cecil Smith nose-to-nose with Maura. Were both witness-A and FW mistaken about what they saw?

I don't mean for this to come across as nit-picky or annoying. I totally understand where you are coming from and the evidence you are using to base your conclusion on. I am not even prepared to say that I disagree with you. But I do see a lot of contradictions with the facts we have and I think it is beneficial to discuss them.

Response:

"Also, what about the fact that Faith Westman also said she saw Smith pull nose-to-nose with Maura at the conclusion of her 911 call?"

This is a good point - and yes, it is evidence I am disregarding - based on whats in the logs and how dark it was out there.

"My point here is that the dispatch times that night were very sloppy and in some cases simply inaccurate. Would you agree?"

On that - I don't agree. I've seen no evidence that the logs actually have any real problems. https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/archive-of-prior-analysis-and-discussion/completeness-of-grafton-county-log-nature-of-records-30/

"I don't mean for this to come across as nit-picky or annoying."

No you don't come across as nit-picky or annoying. We're here to figure out what is up.

"it is also a fact that dispatch logs had Cecil Smith at a different accident scene (in Groton)"

No. Simply put - that is an unreasonable interpretation of the logs. The Groton logs show no dispatch or arrival time for Cecil Smith there. I have edited my response here and might edit this further.

"Furthermore, the logs show Cecil leaving Maura's crash and arriving at his next call in 9 minutes when it was at least 20 minutes away."

No.

He was en route at 21:26:42 & Arrived at 21:35:22
Google maps shows this taking 11 minutes. He got there in 9, in a vehicle that can exceed the speed limit.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/275+Wild+Ammonoosuc+Road,+Woodsville,+NH/44.077283,-71.9771193/@44.0852309,-71.9488474,14z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x4cb48a4e9e7f7141:0xed8d65ef2673a436!2m2!1d-71.936429!2d44.1192149!1m0!3e0

"To quote Tim and Lance, 'At the very least we are talking about incredibly sloppy dispatch book keeping.'"

Irresponsible on their part. But not out of character.

Response:
"I am not doubting it strictly because it is 3.5 years after the fact, I am questioning it because it is in contradiction to what a newspaper said 2 weeks after the crash.

Sgt. Smith knocked on the bus window. 'He asked where the girl was,' Atwood recalled and told the officer he hadn't seen anyone since leaving Maura's vehicle.' "

&

"'The next thing he knew, Haverhill Police Department Sgt. Cecil Smith was banging on his bus window. Smith asked him if he had called in the accident and seen anyone at the scene. Atwood told Smith he had seen a girl about 20 with dark hair.'"

Its not necessarily a contradiction, but instead, a concise way of stating separate facts. Cecil Smith was looking for Maura and was ready to issue his be on the lookout, so he needed a description of her height. By the way this is another factor that refutes the idea that Cecil went to Butch Atwood's first.

The reporter simply chose not to write a whole second sentence just to be sure the reader was informed that Cecil Smith already knew that he was looking for a woman, before talking to Butch Atwood.

Instead, the reporter obviously combined the two pieces together - 1. that a woman was in the accident and (known to both Cecil and Butch) 2. her approximate height - (only known to Butch until Cecil asked.)

Good question by the way. You made me think. LOL.

"On that note, what about the fact that Witness A positively identified the Haverhill 001 as the far that she saw nose to nose with Maura? Also, what about the fact that Faith Westman also said she saw Smith pull nose-to-nose with Maura at the conclusion of her 911 call? That is two different Witnesses that claimed to see Cecil Smith nose-to-nose with Maura. Were both witness-A and FW mistaken about what they saw?"

I'm not prepared to decide if Cecil Smith or Witness A is mistaken. But one of them is.

I doubt that the Westmans concluded, by what they saw, that Cecil Smith drove up. I believed they assumed it was Cecil Smith because he later came to their door.

I say this because the Westmans said that they could not tell if either Barbara or Butch was driving the Bus.

From: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/whitewash's-interview-write-up-part-1/

'Faith makes a point she doesn't know if it's Butch or Barbara's Bus.'

Another good question by the way. So far the most legit.
Note: The crucial point here that gets lost in all of this is as follows: If Cecil Smith was in the 001 and Witness A is mistaken that she saw 001, (or if she was not mistaken and there was another jurisdiction's 001, or impersonator with an 001 like vehicle) and Witness A is correct about everything else -> then they both saw the vehicle that drove away with Maura, if a vehicle did drive away with Maura. (Nothing excludes her from hiding out on old Peters until the coast cleared.)
The dogs were a day and a half later:
https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=534
But a ground and air search wasn't conducted until a day and a half later. Murray says that was too late.'

And used unworn gloves found in the back seat of her car: From: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=723

'Fred claims that police gave their search dogs a new pair of gloves—found in the back seat of the car, but never worn'

From: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/whitewash's-interview-write-up-part-1/

'So when Sgt, Cecil Smith showed up at their door later asking about the vehicle's driver, Faith Westman was shocked. Faith remembers going to the kitchen window and checking the abandoned vehicle in disbelief for herself.'
« Last Edit: December 24, 2019, 04:02:53 pm by MauraMurrayEvidence »

MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Comment by AJAYM22:

Good stuff. This back-and-forth we have been having has been really useful in helping me fully understand the police timeline and discrepancies.

As far as the inaccuracies in the dispatch logs:

Admittedly I committed the crime of being intellectually lazy. I listened to Erin's analysis (on the MMM podcast) regarding the discrepancies, and took her, Tim, and Lance's word on the matter. Therefore, I currently have no rebuttal on that subject. Hopefully I can get around to reviewing those logs soon. Your right in that it is not out of character for Tim and Lance to run with erroneous facts, although it does surprise me that Erin would misread the logs. I suppose we all make mistakes.

"Nothing excludes her from hiding out on old Peters until the coast cleared"

Now this and the dog search, I think we are in total agreement on, but I will leave that discussion for another post!

Response:
"Good stuff. This back-and-forth we have been having has been really useful in helping me fully understand the police timeline and discrepancies."

Yes - because it is important that people understand what is known and unknown, what is fact and what is speculation. To know what you really know and know what you don't know.
Yes - because it is important that people know what questions are critical to ask - questions that will either support or debunk a theory.
Yes - because it is important that people know what facts support a hypothesis, down to the smallest detail.
Yes - because it is important that people know what facts contradict the hypothesis.
Hats off /u/AJAYM22

Comment by AJAYM22:

Sure the conversation could have went like that, but it could have also went exactly how it was written: Q: "Did you call in the accident?" A: "Yes I did" Q: "Did you see anyone at the scene?" A: "I saw a girl about 20 yo with dark hair"

Response:
"Sure the conversation could have went like that, but it could have also went exactly how it was written: Q: 'Did you call in the accident?' A: 'Yes I did' Q: 'Did you see anyone at the scene?' A: 'I saw a girl about 20 yo with dark hair'"

In only 1 of the two accounts. If you want to disregard evidence, I'm not going to be convinced.

MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Now to consider a good question raised by /u/AJAYM22

"Is it possible that Hanover dispatch informed Smith of the details contained in BA's 911 call directly (and possibly before) they informed Grafton's dispatch?"

To answer this question, 3 issues should be addressed: 1.) When did Butch Atwood's call with Hanover start? (this is the earliest moment Hanover could attempt to inform Cecil Smith) 2.) Would Hanover attempt to radio out to Cecil Smith? 3.) If Hanover radioed to Cecil Smith - would he hear the call?

The most direct answer for this question goes to point #2 above: The fact that Hanover called the Grafton County dispatcher, tells us that Hanover dispatch felt that this was the appropriate way to notify an out of jurisdiction officer of the call. In short it was the only choice for Hanover to call the Grafton County dispatcher, as Hanover does not dispatch officers from any other jurisdiction but Hanover. This means that Hanover does not dispatch officers from Haverhill, its dispatch system is for Hanover only. Hanover has its own computer system and their own dispatch log numbers. As such, Hanover is not equipped to know which officers were on duty from Haverhill that night, let alone Cecil Smith's Haverhill call sign. However, since it is the Grafton County dispatcher's job to dispatch a number of jurisdictions - including Haverhill - and they would be equipped and ready to dispatch a Haverhill officer - and to know that Cecil Smith was on duty and what his call sign was - and would be able to radio out to the appropriate Haverhill officer on a frequency Haverhill officers actively listened to - it makes sense for Hanover dispatch to inform Grafton dispatch of the call. The frequencies are shown here.

Certainly, if Hanover did attempt to call Cecil Smith over the radio, its not impossible for him to have heard it. But I have no reason to believe that Hanover would call Cecil Smith over the radio and every reason to believe that Hanover didn't.

As to point #1 above - per the Westmans and the Grafton County Sheriff's logs, Butch Atwood was at the scene between 7:28 and 7:29 PM and left the scene between 7:29 and 7:31. Another parameter we have is that Butch Atwood's call to Hanover ended at 7:43, the time that Hanover dispatch called Grafton County dispatcher Rhonda Marsh.

Above, I figure that Butch's call to Hanover started, at earliest, 7:39 PM. However, Perhaps it could be argued that Butch's call started at 7:35PM, if I give him the earliest time to leave the scene of the accident 7:29PM and 2 minutes to: 1.) leave his bus and walk to is door, 2.) open his door 3.) Find and retrieve a cordless phone 4.) walk back out onto the porch 5.) Attempt a call with Grafton County dispatch 6.) Call Hanover's dispatch via 7 digit dial - assuming he had the number memorized.

I've given Butch 4 minutes to do (1 - 6 above) post Bus exit activities. And have him leave at 7:31 PM from the accident site, 3 minutes to drive the length to his driveway at 1 minute to back his bus in backwards into the driveway. That's how I have his call starting at 7:39.

As to number 3 - we can't exclude he would hear the call, but it is not likely he would - as he was responsible for monitoring a different radio frequency from that of Hanover's.

Summary - even though it could be possible in the extreme (from a time perspective) that Hanover could have called Cecil Smith directly to inform him that a woman was in the accident, it is counter intuitive to assume so, given 1.) the way Hanover's calls are handled separately from Grafton County dispatch and 2.) the fact that it would have been redundant for Hanover dispatch to call the Grafton County dispatcher to dispatch an officer to the scene, had they already dispatched an officer and 3.) Hanover does not have the authority to dispatch officers from other jurisdictions.

Comment by AJAYM22:

Thanks for that...The radio frequencies were defiantly something that I was wondering about. I was not trying to imply that Hanover dispatched Cecil, but rather issued a general statement about an accident in the area involving a female. I would think there would be a frequency that multiple jurisdictions could all hear in order to handle situations like this, but then again I saw no such frequency listed on the link you provided. Any former police out there with insight into this? /u/ThatAssholeCop ?

Response:
"but rather issued a general statement about an accident in the area involving a female."

Most effective way for Hanover to do their due diligence - and make sure that a dispatcher can dispatch out to the scene of a possible emergency - is to call the juridiction's dispatcher.

I can't say its impossible that Hanover dispatch would change its outgoing frequency (when it needs to be at the ready at all times) and make a vague call for a Haverhill officer respond - when there is a better "man for the job" in the Grafton county dispatcher, a phone call away.

Yeah lets see what /u/ThatAssholeCop says. :)

Comment by ThatAssholeCop:
Hello there! Hopefully I'm understanding the question correctly. In my state, there is a state-wide "partyline," if you will, that all police agencies can use to communicate to each other. It is common for calls to come to our command/dispatch center reporting incidents of an emergent nature that are occurring in a neighboring or nearby jurisdiction. Cellular 9-1-1 calls are a notorious source of this. After taking the call and obtaining the information, I would press the transmit button for the partyline, and say something like, "Jerkwater PD to Dumpwater PD on partyline." They would respond by saying, "Go to Dumpwater." Then I would follow up with, "Dumpwater, we got a report of a two-car MVC with injuries and entrapment on your RT 45 near King James Place."

The transmissions on the partyline are intended to be short and concise, even more so than what is typical of radio etiquette on our own frequency. This, of course, is because so many different agencies may have to use it, we can't all be clogging up the airwaves. For a more detailed message, and perhaps when relaying information of a non-emergent situation, we would simply pick up the phone and contact whichever dispatch/command center is in charge of Dumpwater. In the case of Maura's accident, I could absolutely seeing one dispatch center using a landline to relay information to the other.

Having said all of that, I feel I must add the disclaimer that I really have no idea how different states, counties, and local agencies work. I can only say what would be typical of my agency/the agencies within my county that I typically work with. Hope this helps!

E: For further clarification, we would not use the party line from our command center to communicate with cars from a different agency. It would be used to relay the message to the other command center, who in turn would give it out to their own units directly.

Comment by: AJAYM22

Thanks Asshole!That was really helpful in helping me understand the procedures that typically govern dispatcher-officer communications.

So it seems like /u/HunterPense hunch on this question was indeed correct. If Butch's 911 call was the source of Cecil Smith's knowledge (that the driver was female), then it (most likely) came from Rhonda Marsh, as opposed to Hanover dispatch.

Comment by ThatAssholeCop:  Could be. Glad I could help clarify!
« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 08:18:40 am by MauraMurrayEvidence »

MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Comment by Devlyn99:
 
I'm confused. Why isn't it possible for Cecil Smith to have arrived at or around 7:35? That seems to be the most logical explanation to me. That he called in his arrival time later than when he actually arrived, and that he wrote it down in his report wrong as well. But why couldn't he be the officer that Mrs. Westman saw arrive? That seems to be the only way that it would work at all for witness A to have seen the SUV if he was driving it, as he says he was.

Comment by BonquosGhost:
 
There is not one logical iota that could possibly put Cecil in the 001 or earlier on scene. Not one. Hunter lays out the ENTIRE scenario here and there's not one bit of wiggle room. 100% logic. The Oxygen show CEMENTED their own errors on TV.


Comment by Devlyn99:
 
Personally after seeing how Hunter chose to respond to my question, I really don't care what he/she thinks. That's not "100% logic". If it was, there'd be no question.

Comment by BonquosGhost:
 
That is probably why there has been so much pushback on this then. Oxygen just assumed everyone would just lap up all their substance, and not even use one ounce of logic at all and use their critical brains to figure out anything. And that seems to be the case with 99% of the audience.....Remember, this didnt happen yesterday, it was almost 14 years ago. There are ones, including myself, that have gone over everything for that time. It's like if it was a court case. You can't say one thing as fact, then years later change it. That's call perjury. Except here the only ones who know these details, are the ones who have seen all this forever. When Oxygen and NHSP put Cecil in the 001, they knew hardly no one else would EVER figure out all the BS that has been put out since. I will give you 1 of many here....Cecil was asked in the beginning...why did it take you 19 minutes to get on scene from Faith's call at 7:27 to your arrival at 7:46 in the official logs. Instead, at that time, he could have said well I didnt, I arrived early as I could and put my call log as later, because i was busy looking for the driver. NO, he said I got lost on the way. His father lived nearby, so why would he say he got lost? There are many other issues that Im sure Hunter is aware of also here. It IS ILLOGICAL. Period. No rebuttals. You are assuming its the most logical explanation, because you don't have all the back info on the case. I can say it's not logical in any way, shape, or form....IMO

Comment by circe221:

Completely agree with u/BonquosGhost - I honestly can't wrap my brain about how misleading the Oxygen show turned out to be. How was that allowed to happen??? The Armchair Detective podcast stated that he spoke to Cecil himself and Cecil told him he was in 002. Why are there so many questions surrounding these vehicles?

Comment by BonquosGhost
 
Hey thanks!....Even if the Armchair D spoke with Cecil or not, the point being is, there is a logical underlying theme here that can't be mixed in with speculation. There are definitive points in the narrative, if anyone follows it over repeatedly (which it took me a few times lol), the story that has been put forth regarding the 001/002 by Oxygen and it's crew is NOT factual nor compelling. Key points when looking it ALL over will jump out at you, as per hunter says, that can not be dismissed. The horse does NOT follow the cart. Impossible. For whatever reasoning, this avenue is continually shut down, and the ones trying to shut it down, know full well that 95% of the audience will take them at their word and NEVER check it out. Imagine someone rolling into town and saying "I just shot a Bigfoot and it's hanging in my garage." Cool can all of us go check it out? "Nope. just take my word on it. Good enough. Byebye." This just doesn't fly in an INVESTIGATION! Maybe on the Housewives of Atlanta, but not in my reality.

Comment by LotharLothar:
 
Butch Atwood's account of events supports your conclusion that Smith obtained the gender of the driver from Atwood.

Pulled from the Caledonian Record, 'The next thing he knew, Haverhill Police Department Sgt. Cecil Smith was banging on his bus window. Smith asked him if he had called in the accident and seen anyone at the scene. Atwood told Smith he had seen a girl about 20 with dark hair.' The Caledonian-Record https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=422

Miss Atwood's comments, assuming they are direct quotes, are very interesting. 1) Miss Atwood reports that 'he saw the crash'. Not a linguist per se, but if someone says to me that they saw a 'crash', I don't think they saw the scene of an accident, I think they saw the accident occur. If someone says I saw an accident, as opposed to crash, while still possible they saw the actual accident occur, I am more likely to believe that they just saw the scene of an accident. 2) That she communicates that 'has no idea where the female is' strikes me as very strange. (Assuming no foul play) Wouldn't Butch have told her that he offered to give her a ride, but she declined and he had left her with her car? Did dispatch already know Maura was missing from the scene? Were they asking where Maura had disappeared to? I don't believe this to be the case. What seems more likely is dispatched posed a standard follow up question,something along the lines of 'is female, with you now' or 'where is the suspect at this time'... (and to be clear, the linked article above states that Maura's vehicle was not visible from the house, so Miss Atwood could not have been asked these questions, looked at the crash site, and then said I have no idea where she is)...again, assuming no foul play, wouldn't you simply say that she was at the crash site, or had last been seen there? ASSUMING FOUL PLAY....when asked this question Miss Atwood messed up and prematurely launched into what would become their narrative,that she had vanished. Unless they had taken her or had scene what happened to her, how could they have known she was gone?

Response:
"Butch Atwood's account of events supports your conclusion that Smith obtained the gender of the driver from Atwood."

I'll start by saying that Smith got the information directly from Rhonda Marsh, who got it from Hanover dispatch. Hanover dispatch got it from Butch Atwood. So yes, the information came from Butch Atwood to Smith. But it did not come as a result of the incident you quoted.

But Cecil Smith knew the gender of the driver at [close to after 7:43PM], which was up to 9 minutes prior to Cecil Smith asking Butch Atwood where the girl was. (7:51PM.)

Direct quote from: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=657

"Sgt. Smith then drove the 200 yards east to Butch Atwood's home, and found Atwood sitting in his bus. Sgt. Smith knocked on the bus window. "He asked where the girl was," Atwood recalled and told the officer he hadn't seen anyone since leaving Maura's vehicle."

Dispatcher Rhonda Marsh was unable to tell Cecil Smith that a woman was in the accident until after 7:43 PM. That information was provided to her, by the Hanover dispatcher. The Hanover dispatcher got the information from Butch Atwood. That call ended at 7:43PM.

Now it seems you might think that Cecil Smith went to Butch Atwood's prior to visiting the Westmans. However, that does not support the position that Witness A saw Cecil Smith. Instead, it widens the gap between her latest departure time and his earliest arrival time.

It also is counter intuitive. The Westmans were not only the original callers, but they were also closest to the accident site and closest to Cecil Smith's direction of travel.

In addition to the intuitive reasons for going to the Westmans first, the evidence tells us that had Cecil Smith gone to Butch Atwood's residence upon his arrival, it would mean that Cecil Smith arrived at the accident scene at 7:51 PM. We have been told by Maggie Freleng that "We know Cecil immediately went and knocked on neighbors doors." This would be 5 minutes after he radioed in that he arrived on scene. This is also 8 or 9 minutes after Butch Atwood's phone call with Hanover dispatch ended 7:43+8=7:51. It is also, at least 11 minutes after the Westmans were off the phone with Rhonda Marsh, which is when the Westmans said they saw a vehicle pull up nose to nose with the Saturn. (Freleng also added the opinion: "That's why he called his arrival late, 7:46...")

assuming no foul play, wouldn't you simply say that she was at the crash site, or had last been seen there?

Well, if you are asked "Where is the female now?" - and you can't see the female - and you know the female could have left the scene - in a literal sense, you really don't know where she is exactly.

I do however, see your point - that on the surface - it appears that its worthwhile to determine how busy Butch Atwood was during the critical moments to see if he could have been involved.

However - his time is pretty well accounted for - and since he lived with two other people in his home - and because of his health conditions - it is impractical to assume he was involved.

Note that the Westmans saw Butch Atwood leave the scene of the accident. After that, the Westmans saw Maura moving about her Saturn afterwards. Butch Atwood's time is tightly accounted for until Cecil Smith arrived.

Comment by LotharLothar: "His wife called in, he didn’t."

Respose: "His wife called in, he didn’t."

That's wrong too.

From: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=656

"Meanwhile Butch Atwood backed his school bus into his driveway and went inside to call the police. He had difficulty reaching the 911 operator due to busy phone circuits. Atwood eventually got through to the Hanover Regional Dispatch Center, which in turn alerted the Grafton County Sheriff's department at 7:43 p.m., 16 minutes after Faith Westman's original call."

The Grafton County dispatcher called back the Atwood residence, as noted in the log:

"(CALLED THE ATWOOD RES, WOMAN ADV HER HUSBAND SAW THE CRASH AND CAME HERE TO CALL, BUT NO IDEA WHERE THE FEMALE IS)"

Comment from MrsSassy90210:
 
"I'm new here been reading and going over thoughts. So if I may ask a question? How does the time Smith arrive have anything to do with Maura missing? Is the author of the timeline saying Smith took Maura? If so she would have been in the back of his vehicle the whole time and 001 was an SUV so she would have been seen. It was never stated 001 left and came back. Hunter said the timeline matters to show someone else was there and as a lay person I don't see that at all. Hunter said that the person must be found . Ummm, if that was done the case would be solved and the whole conversation would be moot. Other than knowing the timeline for when she went missing this whole post seems rather moot. I'm not sure why it matters if he said girl, guy, them or anything else unless you're going by when it was stated the driver was a girl. But it does not iterate that the dispatch wasn't told maybe a girl after being told guy with a cig and told that to Smith over the dispatch channel because the west mans couldn't agree. I'm under the impression that hunter thinks the timeline will solve a 13 year old case that countless ppl with vast years of experience couldn't? This is my first post sorry if I did it wrong I just scrolled to the bottom and posted. Not trying to be rude I'm just not sure the point of the post at all."

Response: "How does the time Smith arrive have anything to do with Maura missing?"

By determining when Cecil Smith arrived, we can determine how that time relates to when the Westmans believed a vehicle arrived.

If the Westmans say a vehicle was there at 7:35, but Cecil Smith says he was there at 7:46, we know that another vehicle, that has not been identified yet was there - and could have been responsible for Maura's disappearance.

"Is the author of the timeline saying Smith took Maura?"

No, I am not saying Cecil Smith took Maura. This is the third time I've said this.

"Hunter said the timeline matters to show someone else was there and as a lay person I don't see that at all."

There is nothing I can do to make the facts less complicated. The evidence has arrived in the condition that it is in. I find it unfortunate, that in spite of my best efforts, the hours I have spent on this, that some people do not understand what I am saying here.

"Other than knowing the timeline for when she went missing this whole post seems rather moot."

Far from it.

If you think a dirtbag picked Maura up on the road at the accident site - all I have done is show that there is evidence to show that the other vehicle could have been the local dirtbag. Fact is it could have been any kind of vehicle.
You believe Maura was gone when Cecil Smith arrived, correct? I'm showing that another vehicle was there before Cecil Smith was arrived.
"I'm not sure why it matters if he said girl, guy, them or anything else unless you're going by when it was stated the driver was a girl."

Yes, in relation to the Grafton County logs and the Westman's testimony.

"I'm under the impression that hunter thinks the timeline will solve a 13 year old case that countless ppl with vast years of experience couldn't?"

Never made that claim. This case is complex - and every building block towards a solution must be carefully examined and determined.

"This is my first post sorry if I did it wrong I just scrolled to the bottom and posted. ... Not trying to be rude"

Its important to get an understanding of the details before commenting or making judgments. Its important for people to know for themselves why people believe what they believe. Its not good enough to go by what anyone says, myself included. If something doesn't make sense in the discussion, bring it up. But for chrissake, read the points made above, and address them, if you can.

Just because everyone says the Earth is the center of the universe - doesn't mean its true. The devil is in the detail - and you have to examine the details to make a determination, both in this case and with the Universe.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
"Elsewhere Protestants were the first to react to news of Copernicus's theory. Melanchthon wrote:
'Some people believe that it is excellent and correct to work out a thing as absurd as did that Sarmatian [i.e., Polish] astronomer who moves the earth and stops the sun. Indeed, wise rulers should have curbed such light-mindedness.'

The above is exactly what I am dealing with here. In 2017.

"The Universe doesn't care about our common sense": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7df0s9z9R38
I don't have endless amounts of time - I don't get paid for this. I'm here doing this, just like you, so this can be solved.

Comment by Amyjane1203:
 
Thanks for putting all this information together! The next question is, who picked her up? I have my own ideas of who of course... Without any evidence or a body, it seems like every idea is a dead end for now.

edit: I feel like I'll be pondering on this post for a few days, but something just popped in my mind. Faith Westman says she saw #001, but we also know that it was pretty dark out so it's possible she is mistaken. Did she actually say to the dispatcher that it appeared to be #001? (You may have said this in your post--I'm sorry if I'm overlooking it) Is it possible she later saw Cecil Smith's car and, in her mind, Smith's car became the same car she had seen when she got off the phone?

Response:
Faith Westman says she saw #001, but we also know that it was pretty dark out so it's possible she is mistaken.

Said she saw Smith - I think she assumed it was him. We associate Smith with the 001 because he said he drove it. All subtile stuff - I just thought I should mention that.

"Did she actually say to the dispatcher that it appeared to be #001?"

I wish she could see what car it was. I also wish that she told dispatch what car it was as a result of being able to see it.

"There is no information about what vehicles the officers drove in the sheriff log or the police report, now that we know H2 is a person, not a vehicle."

Is it possible she later saw Cecil Smith's car and, in her mind, Smith's car became the same car she had seen when she got off the phone?

This is exactly what I think happened. :)

Comment by Amyjane1203:
 
IMO there is one verious obvious answer to the mystery here. But that just leads to more questions, like WHY? And what to research next, if we assume we know picked her up. How does one begin to disprove prove anyone's alibi, esp without the cooperation of locals?
« Last Edit: December 24, 2019, 04:05:35 pm by MauraMurrayEvidence »

MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Question from: /u/Try_Using_Your_Brain

Let me start by saying that I am in no way trying to start a fight or attack anyone.

I understand this inherently. My hope is that these discussions will lead to more well thought out positions.

I have a few small questions/theories that I think could make both the 001 sighting and the "where's the girl" lines converge.

Before I start, I will state that:

1. You have brought two important factors into the discussion that is important to consider, i.e. the portability of the radios and time to call in the license plate.

2. My personal opinion is that the below timeline is the most viable one made for the "Official Oxygen position" (OOP).

3. My additional personal opinion is that the most viable version of the (OOP) should be stated so that researchers understand the assumptions made for the (OOP) and its strengths and weaknesses. Researchers should be able to determine if the best formed proposed timeline for (OOP) is "good enough."

4. My additional personal opinion is that the (OOP) still falls short.

(Rearranged for flow)

Do we believe that between arriving and leaving the only exchange was the BOLO?

I presume you are referring to H2. Although not apropros to the point implied, there are 6 time association to H2 in the log: dispatch, enroute, arrival, cleared, BOLO and notes taken when H2 was cleared.

1. We have to assume that there is some major points missing from the narrative in the log: Where are the notes about H2 talking to FW and TW or BA?

I would not characterize the missing time associations as major - therefore preventing reasonable conclusions from being drawn about any of them.

It would be ideal for us to have original LE documentation that includes time associations for H2's discussions with both FW/TW and BA.

However, we have been able to make some time associations based upon statements made by both FW and BA. Although, I cannot state that we have a irrefutable time association for H2's arrival at FW/TW based upon their statements, I can say that we can arrive at some reasonable conclusions if we assume that H2 took reasonable actions throughout his time during the incident.

On the other hand, we do have a good approximation of H2's arrival at BA, and this time association assumes the same reasonable actions for H2 throughout.

I will say that your alternative proposed timeline (APT) does not violate the below fundamental time associations for FW/TW or BA. Fundamental time associations include, but are not limited to: BA's arrival time, BA's departure time, 7:35 arrival of vehicle (and lastly) H2 arrival time at BA.

However, my personal opinion is that the (APT) is inconsistent with the idea that H2 took the most efficient and appropriate actions between his arrival at the scene and his discussion with BA.

I will further state that some of the time assumptions in the (APT) are marginally inconsistent with some details stated by Art and Maggie in EP 65 & 66. They have made statements that imply that H2 wasted no time after his arrival while looking at the Saturn and then going to the Westmans.

Additionally, the (APT) leaves about 2:30-4:30 unexplained between the FW/TW interview and the BA interview.

Lastly, and most importantly, the (APT) disregards Cecil Smith's arrival time in official LE records (police report (7:45) and the Grafton County Sheriff Logs 7:46:20). Instead, the (APT) treats a theoretically derived H2 arrival time of 7:35 as more authoritative than LE records. The 7:35 arrival time is derived from a combination of Witness A's account from that evening and Cecil Smith's assertion that he was driving Haverhill's SUV 001 on that same evening.

2. I would assume the first thing that the officer arriving at the scene would call in the plates

This is supported by a statement made by Cecil Smith to the Murray family and mentioned in the The Caledonian-Record on February 9, 2009: "Murray's family said Smith told them he thought the driver of the Saturn was Murray's father, to whom the car was registered."

3. Police officers wear portable radios - that is the thing they talk into on their shoulder - so they do not need to be in their car to send or receive information.

&

(rearranged for flow)

Regardless of anyone's thoughts on CS and 001, it is completely feasible that an officer could have know about "the girl" relatively quickly after arriving at the scene even without seeing her.

&

It's also feasible that dispatch is providing updated info real-time as the get info from Hanover (even before talking to BA or his wife).

This is a perfectly reasonable assumption and would explain how, between H2's assumed plate inquiry and arrival at FW's door, H2 would know about "the girl." Of course, this assumption can only be made if we assume that H2 was notified about "the girl" after 7:43.

4. The "Narrative" section of the police log is entered manually (like a text string) so the times entered are manual not "time stamps"

Agreed and I have never assumed otherwise.

and therefore could reasonable be a minute or two off.

A minute or two. But not 10 minutes, as the (APT) states.

So could the timeline not look like (*base copied from Devlyn99):

7:26 Accident is heard by Westmans.

Not unreasonable.

7:27 Faith calls 911.

Agreeed

7:29 Atwood arrives and offers assistance.

Agreed (1-2 min per FW)

7:31 Atwood drives home to call 911.

Agreed (1-2 min per FW)

7:31-7:35 Maura leaves the scene.

7:32 - post "flurry of activity" - and if you have Smith there at 7:35, she really would have had to start walking at about 7:33

7:35 Faith hears car pull up, sees an officer, hangs up with 911.

Agreed. However, you assume its Smith, I say it could have been any vehicle.

7:35-7:37 Smith checks area of Maura's car, looks inside & see's no one.

2 minutes is a bit slow, but OK. I say 1 minute 30 seconds, so alternatively 7:36:30.

7:37-7:39 Smith radios in to check on owner of the car.

2 minutes is a bit slow, but OK. I say 30 seconds to radio, he doesn't have to sit due to portability. He has a possibly injured driver to be concerned with. So alternatively 7:37.

In my time line, I give Cecil Smith a minute and 30 seconds to do all the above. I added 30 seconds for the license inquiry.

7:39-7:42 Smith walks over to speak to Westmans

Art says 50 seconds. So alternatively 7:37:50. Of course that is before 7:43, so its impossible.

7:43 Smith can ask the Westmans "where's the girl" during his first conversation with them without having been to BA or seeing MM before hand.

&

to ask if the driver is in their house and while walking Smith is updated by dispatch about the call between BA and Hanover 911. (Dispatch could have been on the phone with Hanover and sending updates via radio to Smith while he looks around the site or even stands at the door of the Westman's)

If we accept (APT) from 7:43 - we have disregarded some wasted time. However, (APT) attempts to explain with the following:

It makes no sense that he would throw the car in park and run to the door of the Westmans; he is going to do some looking around and data collecting before running off to their house even if it's noted as "the first thing" he did.

Arguably, you are at 7:37:50 when H2 arrives at FW. In any case, he couldn't be at the Westmans until after 7:43.

(APT) has him taking 6 minutes in what could reasonably take 2:50 seconds in my opinion, especially if the driver's health is a concern and H2 is acting responsibly.

And then there is the rest of the time line to consider:

7:43:50 - H2 arrives back at his vehicle (50 seconds)

7:44:50 - H2 drives to BA's bus. (1 minute) The above is in conflict with a fundamental time: H2 arrives at BA at 7:43 + 7 to 9 minutes, which is 7:50 - 7:52. This is another fundamental problem with (OOP) & (APT), not to mention that it disregards official LE records.

Try_Using_Your_Brain
 
Response to /u/HunterPense

I appreciate all your comments. I tend to think logically and think that proof by contradiction can be very useful in keeping things straight in my mind. If I try to prove the timeline for the OOP and some things just don't fit, then I can I see why things didn't (or couldn't) have occurred in that order. I also feel that a certain acceptance of misalignment can be expected for human error but am critical of how much to allow before it's just cramming a square peg into a round hole.

I presume you are referring to H2. Although not apropros to the point implied, there are 6 time association to H2 in the log: dispatch, enroute, arrival, cleared, BOLO and notes taken when H2 was cleared.

I am not only referring to H2 but also the other 12 (I think that was the official count) individuals from GSO dispatch that were on site but, according to the narrative, never relayed any information back to dispatch. In other calls we can clearly see a volley of information back and forth between the scene and dispatch - all of which ends up in narrative entries - that are just not present in this call. (DISCLAIMER: This is not a thinly veiled conspiracy theory in disguise) I assume that there are narrative entries from this call that have been withheld from general distribution for whatever reasons that LE found appropriate. I think that they would perhaps add some more clarification. If they were not withheld and just never happened I would find that interesting. I would expect to see, at the very least some entries similar to:

H2 ADV NO OPERATOR W/ VEH WILL CONTACT CALLER TO DETERMINE OP LOC.

H2 ADV EMS AND FIRE CLEARED; NO OP LOCATED

Although these would be narrative, and therefore, subject to no official time entries, it would make more sense that there would be some entries. In cleaar contrast to this call see call 04-4761 where H2 responds and no one is there:

H2 ADV CAME ONTO LIME KILN FRO RT 25, NO ONE HERE, CONTINUING TO POWERLINES

In terms of time, the "missing narrative items" are not major. In terms of the overall "flow" of the events of the evening, I think they could be considered major but that is a bit of me assuming that there is valuable information just out of reach. Let's just say, I wouldn't bet the house on the missing information being end-all.

I will say that your alternative proposed timeline (APT) does not violate the below fundamental time associations for FW/TW or BA. Fundamental time associations include, but are not limited to: BA's arrival time, BA's departure time, 7:35 arrival of vehicle (and lastly) H2 arrival time at BA.

However, my personal opinion is that the (APT) is inconsistent with the idea that H2 took the most efficient and appropriate actions between his arrival at the scene and his discussion with BA.

I think we are on the same page here - it could of happened as outlined in the APT- but still want to know if it did happen. This was the dialog I was hoping to spur.

I will further state that some of the time assumptions in the (APT) are marginally inconsistent with some details stated by Art and Maggie in EP 65 & 66. They have made statements that imply that H2 wasted no time after his arrival while looking at the Saturn and then going to the Westmans.

This is where my logic starts to get messy. I actually spent some time in my driveway with a stop watch and 2 cars trying to "simulate" some of the activities that I think a LEO would have done at the scene, but I am not a LEO and had to use some "best guess" science. I tried to set my pace based upon how I thought LE would react to certain aspects - LE would want to make sure there was no injuries (act fast), after that, this is routine in NH (slow down) etc. I came up with such a range of time estimates that it felt like whatever I did use was just back to guessing.

Additionally, the (APT) leaves about 2:30-4:30 unexplained between the FW/TW interview and the BA interview.

I didn't really look past the FW/TW timeline, but you are correct in order to make sense it would need to fit ALL the known times.

Lastly, and most importantly, the (APT) disregards Cecil Smith's arrival time in official LE records (police report (7:45) and the Grafton County Sheriff Logs 7:46:20). Instead, the (APT) treats a theoretically derived H2 arrival time of 7:35 as more authoritative than LE records. The 7:35 arrival time is derived from a combination of Witness A's account from that evening and Cecil Smith's assertion that he was driving Haverhill's SUV 001 on that same evening.

I made a pretty big assumption here that I think makes logical sense so feel free to go after it if you see a flaw. I assume that CS used the official dispatch time (GSO) as the time that he entered (rounded nicely) in his official report. CS wrote his official report on the 15th (6 days after the accident) and I assume he filled out the time details by looking at the dispatch logs himself. I say this because otherwise we would have to assume that he took notes as the ambulance arrived in order to remember that they arrived at 1956 - the time listed in the log. I know that a certain level of detail is expected from someone that routinely fills in police reports, but I also assume they learn to mine technical details from other sources. If this is where CS retrieved the time of his arrival we no longer have two sources that put his arrival time at 7:45 but one source and a second that then sited the first. It is easier to believe that one error could have been made (a late log entry from GSO) and then carried through to other sources that used that time. The question then: Is it reasonable that a LEO could call in a late arrival AND a dispatchers could log an arrival late such that the error adds up to at least 10 minutes? This may be the point of "too much misalignment".

This is a perfectly reasonable assumption and would explain how, between H2's assumed plate inquiry and arrival at FW's door, H2 would know about "the girl." Of course, this assumption can only be made if we assume that H2 was notified about "the girl" after 7:43.

This is where I may give or take a few minutes for human error associated in the manual time entry in the narrative, but for all intents and purposes, I can not assume that dispatch was aware of "the girl" any earlier than say 7:40. If we follow the OOP, FW hung up with GSO at 7:35 when SUV001 arrived. D11 then answered a call (04-4753) for Grafton at 7:36. She spoke with the caller (est: 1:30 to get the whole story), called "Merle" from Grafton's, spoke with his wife (est: 0:45), then sent a page to "Merle" (est: 0:30). This puts us at 7:39. If this is the point that Hanover gets in touch with D11, they need to explain their call with BA so that D11 and Hanover know that they are talking about the same call [est 1:00] so we can assume that D11 could have told CS then, and then called BA and spoke to his wife and added the narrative at the end of the exchange, listing the time as 1943. However this adds even more time to the delay between the FW/TW and BA interviews. Keeps adding to the misalignment.

7:31-7:35 Maura leaves the scene. 7:32 - post "flurry of activity" - and if you have Smith there at 7:35, she really would have had to start walking at about 7:33

In my opinion, of my own opinion, this is the biggest "hole" in the timeline. I am not hung up on "the girl" for all the reasons above and allow some leeway in a number of other exchanges but I am often stuck here. 2 minutes is a long time to hold your breath but not a long time to get out of any possible line of sight on an open roadway.

7:35 Faith hears car pull up, sees an officer, hangs up with 911. Agreed. However, you assume its Smith, I say it could have been any vehicle.

I actual don't necessarily assume it was CS, but use this timeline as a way to prove/disprove if it could have been CS.

Arguably, you are at 7:37:50 when H2 arrives at FW. In any case, he couldn't be at the Westmans until after 7:43.

(APT) has him taking 6 minutes in what could reasonably take 2:50 seconds in my opinion, especially if the driver's health is a concern and H2 is acting responsibly.

I have a hard time trying to get to a "reasonable" time for these activities and therefore, I would have a hard time trying to argue that 3 minutes was not enough time.

And then there is the rest of the time line to consider:

7:43:50 - H2 arrives back at his vehicle (50 seconds) 7:44:50 - H2 drives to BA's bus. (1 minute) The above is in conflict with a fundamental time: H2 arrives at BA at 7:43 + 7 to 9 minutes, which is 7:50 - 7:52. This is another fundamental problem with (OOP) & (APT), not to mention that it disregards official LE records.

I guess I get to look at the rest now to see if I can or can't make that fit.

Initial response:

Lots of good original thought here. Where original thought is expressed, progress is made. :)
D11 then answered a call (04-4753) for Grafton at 7:36. She spoke with the caller (est: 1:30 to get the whole story), called "Merle" from Grafton's, spoke with his wife (est: 0:45), then sent a page to "Merle" (est: 0:30).

Now, I haven't thought your post over - or prepared myself for responses. In general, I will say this: An examination of detail, as you have done, is greatly encouraged here.

I guess I get to look at the rest now to see if I can or can't make that fit.

I applause and encourage your work to make the best argument for (AAP/OOP). As you know it is not my position. However, I believe it fundamentally important that the strongest, most legitimate and well thought out theoretical frameworks be expressed for positions people take within the community. This will allow researchers to honestly assess the positions that they take in both the immediate circumstance and in the wider discussion of an overall theory.

AJAYM22
 
A question in regards to Butch Atwood- Critical Statement #1

Cecil Smith Arrived At Butch Atwood's Bus 7 - 9 Minutes After His Phone Call to Hanover Dispatch Ended

After reading the two newspaper articles that are referenced in the above claim, it would seem that the 7-9 minutes the articles mention pertains to the time elapsed between Butch leaving Maura and Cecil arriving on scene, as opposed to the elapsed time between the end of Butch's 911 call and the arrival of Cecil at his bus.

The Caledonian-Record 2/20/2004:

"After about seven to nine minutes, he looked out and saw the Haverhill Police. Atwood believed the situation was under control and went to the school bus to tend to his paperwork.

The next thing he knew, Haverhill Police Department Sgt. Cecil Smith was banging on his bus window. Smith asked him if he had called in the accident and seen anyone at the scene. Atwood told Smith he had seen a girl about 20 with dark hair.

Smith said when he arrived, Murray was no longer with her car. In the seven to nine minutes between the time Atwood had left Murray to call for help and the time Smith arrived, Murray had vanished."

If that were the case, the times line up perfectly with witness A's account.

Thoughts?

MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Atwood left the scene at 19:31. +7 = 19:38, +9=19:41.

How could law enforcement be knocking on Butch Atwood's bus between 19:38 and 19:41 if he had yet to call 911, or was still on the phone with 911?

The above account has Cecil Smith knocking on Butch's bus window two to four minutes prior to the end of Butch's 911 call (7:43). He was standing out on his porch talking on the phone to 911 at the time.

Butch did make it clear that he went to his bus after his phone call with Hanover had ended (7:43). He also said that he couldn't see the accident site from his porch.

Obviously the above article isn't worded well. The full context however, hints at another possibility:

From: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=422

"Murray, according to Atwood, told him not to because she had already called AAA.

"I said, OK. I will make a call to the police department and the fire department to check you out,'" he said. "I said, Why don't you come to my house? You can get warm and wait for the police and EMS.'" Atwood said she just told him to go.

He drove to his house, about 75 yards from the scene of the accident, and backed it his driveway before running into the house to call police.

However, he couldn't get through to the Haverhill Police Department and the Grafton County Sheriff's Department.

He called 911 and the operator couldn't either. Atwood said another 911 operator was able to get through.

While he was talking on his phone on his front porch, Atwood could see the road, but not Murray's disabled car. He saw several vehicles drive by, but couldn't tell any makes or models because it was so dark.

After about seven to nine minutes, he looked out and saw the Haverhill Police. Atwood believed the situation was under control and went to the school bus to tend to his paperwork.

The next thing he knew, Haverhill Police Department Sgt. Cecil Smith was banging on his bus window. Smith asked him if he had called in the accident and seen anyone at the scene. Atwood told Smith he had seen a girl about 20 with dark hair.

Smith said when he arrived, Murray was no longer with her car. In the seven to nine minutes between the time Atwood had left Murray to call for help and the time Smith arrived, Murray had vanished."

Obviously the above article has some mistakes in it. It is inconsistent with itself. He couldn't have seen Cecil Smith arrive at the Westmans and knock on his bus in the same time period.

Here are some other articles that supply a clearer picture.

From:https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=588

"Maura, according to Atwood, told him not to because she had already called the AAA.

Atwood said he invited the woman to wait at his house nearby, but she declined. He said he then went home to call 911.

After about seven to nine minutes, he said he looked out and saw a Haverhill police cruiser by the Saturn. A short time later, Haverhill Police Department's Sgt. Cecil Smith notified Atwood that when he arrived at the crash scene, Murray was no longer with her car."

From: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=624

"Still concerned, Atwood continued up the road to his house, only about 100 yards away, and, once inside, telephoned police to report the accident. About 10 minutes later, a Haverhill police officer, and then a New Hampshire State Police trooper, arrived on the scene. Maura Murray’s car was empty and she had vanished."

When you read all three accounts, and take into account Butch's actions in sequence, the only thing that makes sense is that Cecil Smith arrived at his bus 7 - 9 minutes after his call with Hanover finished at 7:43.

One could also selectively take the below repeated quote to mean Cecil Smith didn't show up until 7:50 - 7:52. But I've declined to embrace that logic for the same reason.

He said he then went home to call 911.

After about seven to nine minutes, he said he looked out and saw a Haverhill police cruiser by the Saturn.

Comment by AJAYM22:
I don’t take the quote as meaning that Cecil knocked on Butch’s window 7-9 min after he left the crash, I interpret it as meaning Cecil showed to the crash sight 7-9 min after butch left the sight. He could still knock on Butch’s window at the time you propose, there would just be some extra time (probably spent searching).

It seems like the author clearly lays out what he meant in this quote, “Smith said when he arrived, Murray was no longer with her car. In the seven to nine minutes between the time Atwood had left Murray to call for help and the time Smith arrived, Murray had vanished.”

Are you saying this is a mistake on the authors part?

I do agree that the article contains some contradictions. For example, it says that Butch cannot see Maura's car from his porch, but then it also says that he say the police pull up to the scene.

On a separate note, I think Gary E. Lindsley (author of 3 of the articles you reference) would be a great interview.

Reposonse:

Are you saying this is a mistake on the authors part?

Yes. The quote you selectively site amounts to the impossible. I've explained it. Done talking about it.

BonquosGhost
 
When the press takes obvious "exaggerated liberties" with the narrative, it makes it harder to decipher fact from fiction.....He drove to his house, about 75 yards from the scene of the accident, and backed it in his driveway, before RUNNING into the house to call police.

BonquosGhost
 
Obviously strange here......he said he looked out and saw a Haverhill police cruiser by the Saturn. I know the news reports have had facts misconstrued but, Atwood himself says he couldn't see the scene from his house. When he says police had arrived, I will assume that he saw their lights through the trees in the dark. But, unless it was assumed, he states that he saw a Haverhill cruiser "by the Saturn". He said he could not see the scene from his house, but even weirder still, how did Atwood KNOW it was a Haverhill cruiser, when it was "out of sight"?
« Last Edit: December 24, 2019, 04:08:48 pm by MauraMurrayEvidence »

MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
OLD POST part 1
I need to revise the timeline for travel down the street from 3 minutes to 30 seconds to 1 minute, based on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsJ7cb_73n4&feature=youtu.be
Needs to be revised to show that Faith Westman's call ended at 17:36, when she took a call from Grafton.
Complicated post that shows another officer vehicle was at the scene before Cecil Smith arrived. That vehicle could have been any type of car the Westmans could have mistaken for an officer. It was dark out there Both the Westmans and Witness A saw this vehicle.
An analysis of the records tell me this was NOT Cecil Smith. The problem lies in the fact that Cecil Smith claimed to be in the 001 and Witness A says she saw the 001, but could not have been at the site as late as 7:46:20, the time the logs show his arrival.

I make no judgments here, except that either Cecil Smith or Witness A is incorrect. The important thing is to identify the other driver.

In this post, I attempt, among other things, to discover when Butch Atwood's call to the Hanover dispatcher started. I also attempt to reconcile Cecil Smith's times with Butch Atwood and Dick Guy's.

I also point out that the evidence could indicate that it is possible that that another individual arrived at the scene of the accident 10 - 15 minutes before Cecil Smith arrived, and that the Westmans mistakenly believed that this individual was Cecil Smith.

The Grafton County dispatch logs show that Butch Atwood's call to the Hanover dispatcher ended before 19:43. This is the time that the call from the Hanover dispatcher to Grafton County dispatcher Rhonda Marsh started. However, we don't know how long Butch Atwood was on the phone with the Hanover dispatcher. Hanover has its own dispatchers and log system. The Hanover logs have never been acquired under the FOIA. I hope to gain more reasonable information about the Hanover logs as a result of exploring the evidence and attempting to recalculate the times involved.

If the reader finds the times assumed to be reasonable, and provide a tie in to other witness statements, one can only conclude that Cecil Smith's arrival time was correctly recorded in the Grafton County logs - and that Cecil Smith called in his arrival to the dispatcher when he arrived at the scene.
Conversely, if one believes that Cecil Smith arrived before the time indicated in the log, one can attempt to criticize the assumptions made here. But if you do, I strongly suggest that you present a set of assumptions that show how Cecil Smith's early arrival could make sense in the context of the additional evidence, as I have done here. Otherwise, don't waste anyone's time rebutting with mere suppositions. If you cannot cohesively draw up a set of assumptions and make a case for Cecil Smith's early arrival, then there is no point in pretending that it could be true.
I think the earliest Butch Atwood's conversation with the Hanover dispatcher could have started is at about 19:39. (See below for the assumptions made to calculate when I think he was able to make the call to the Hanover dispatcher. These assumptions are based upon the approximate time we know Butch Atwood was at the accident site.)

I believe that Butch Atwood was on the phone with the Hanover dispatcher for as long as 4 minutes.

Faith Westman's call with dispatcher Rhonda March, lasted 8 minutes at most. It could have been as short as 2 minutes, 31 seconds. The length of time calculated for this call depends upon what time we assume the call ended: 19:26:31 or 19:35. For the sake of argument, I consider both times.

The unredacted version of the Haverhill call logs show Rhonda Marsh entering the phone call from Faith Westman into the system at 19:35, which is the basis for supposing it was an 8 minute phone call. A copy is here:. This document was formerly up at mauramurraymissing.com.

MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
OLD POST PART 2

However, there is evidence that the call might have ended at 19:29:31 when Rhonda Marsh dispatched Cecil Smith at 19:29:31. That is to say, if we assume that Rhonda Marsh was only able to dispatch Cecil Smith after her conversation with Faith Westman ended.

Note: Faith Westman's account puts an officer (conservatively) at the scene at 19:35 (Or before 19:40, see [1] below), if we accept 19:35 as the time the call between Faith Westman and dispatcher Rhonda Marsh ended. It could be as early as 19:29:31 if, instead, we assume that the call between Faith Westman and the dispatcher ended immediately before Cecil Smith was dispatched. In any case, it means Butch Atwood left the scene either before 19:29:31 or before 19:35, based on that evidence alone. But when we take into consideration that Faith Westman has said that Butch Atwood was at the accident scene within 1-2 minutes of her call, and that Butch Atwood remained at the scene for an additional 1-2 minutes, it is clear that he left the scene of the accident at about 19:31 (19:27+2+2=19:31).
Of course, both assumptions (that the phone call ended at 19:29:31 or 19:35) presume that Faith Westman recalled correctly that: Butch Atwood both arrived and departed the accident scene during her phone call with dispatcher Rhonda Marsh. The important statement taken from Faith Westman is linked here: "See Smith nose to nose hangs up with 911.". This statement is somewhat reinforced by Sam Ledyard's account of his interview with the Westmans here - quoted at [2] below.

These times are important because Faith Westman said, in her interview with Whitewash, that Butch Atwood arrived after Faith Westman was on the phone with dispatcher Rhonda Marsh -- and that Atwood left the scene before Faith Westman's call to dispatcher Rhonda Marsh ended. This is mentioned here.

Rhonda Marsh's dispatcher notes for Faith Westman's call doesn't mention the fact that Faith Westman saw Butch Atwood arrive and leave. However, Faith Westman has stated that she saw Butch Atwood arrive and depart from the scene here. However, the difference between linked newspaper quote and Whitewash's interview with Faith Westman, is that the newspaper does not provide any information about when Faith Westman saw Butch Atwood arrive and depart in relation to her phone call to the dispatcher Rhonda Marsh. On the other hand, these newspaper quotes support the veracity of the interview.

Based upon Faith Westman's statement to Whitewash that "Atwood arrives with 1-2 min per Faith," it is reasonable to conclude that Butch Atwood arrived at the accident site between 19:28 and 19:29. (I previously erroneously stated that I believed that Butch Atwood wasn't there until after 19:29:31.)

Based upon Faith Westman's statement to Whitewash that "Atwood is there 1-2 mines tops Faith says." it is reasonable to conclude that that Butch Atwood had left the accident scene at about 19:31.

Next, I attempt to reconcile Butch Atwood's time to that of Cecil Smith. If this can be accomplished, we will have a basis to approximate when various events took place. The key point in time is when Cecil Smith and Butch Atwood's time lines intersect, which is when Cecil Smith knocked on Butch Atwood's bus. Right now I believe this was at about 19:54, because Dick Guy implies that Cecil Smith returned to the accident site shortly after his arrival.

Cecil Smith's time could be calculated as follows:

If He arrived at 19:46:20 and he took 1 minute to see that the Saturn was abandoned and approach the Westman's front door, that would make it 19:47:20. If his conversation with the Westmans lasted 2:00, this would make it 19:49:20. If the drive to Butch Atwood's bus took 3:00, he would be at the Bus talking to Butch Atwood at 19:51:50. If the conversation with Butch Atwood took 1:00 the conversation would have ended at 19:53:50. If it took another 3:00 minutes to return to the accident site, he would have been there at 19:56:20 - which is just after the time Dick Guy Arrived (19:56:08).

MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
OLD POST PART 3

It is not unreasonable to assume that Cecil Smith, who arrived on scene at 19:46:20 would have taken 5:30 (19:46:20 + 5:30 = 19:51:50 - see above) to 1.) See that the Saturn was abandoned, 2.) approach the Westman's home. 3.) talk to the Westman's briefly (asking "where is the girl?") and then 4.) drive up the street to approach Butch Atwood on his bus.

We would know we have good time approximations for Butch Atwood and Cecil Smith, if we can place both of them at Butch Atwood's bus at 19:51:50.

Butch Atwood's time could be calculated as follows:

I think it is reasonable to believe that he could have accomplished the following in 8 minutes (between 19:31 and 19:39) - and thus establish that as a rough estimate of his call time to Hanover dispatch:

Drive his bus 200 yards

Park his bus backwards in his driveway

Walk to his front door

Open his front door

Walk into the residence

Get the phone

Walk outside with phone and call police

I think the delay for busy circuits and finding the Hanover number took, at most, 1 minute, if Butch Atwood called from outside.

It doesn't take long (15 seconds maybe) to find out the circuits are busy.

Since Butch was outside, he had to have the phone number handy or by memory.

I doubt much time was wasted on additional calls to 911 before they decided to call Hanover instead.

Butch Atwood also said that "After about seven to nine minutes, he looked out and saw the Haverhill Police." (quote source linked above) This was after his call to Hanover dispatch. (19:31 + 8:00 (Butch Atwood Travel to Home) = 19:39 + 4:00 (Butch Atwood Length of Phone Call to Hanover) = 19:43 + 9:00 (Time of Cecil Smith to Arrive at Butch Atwood's bus after his phone call ended) = 19:52 - see below).

Also it is clear that Dick Guy was saying that the Saturn's driver was not at the Saturn at 19:56 when he arrived with the EMS. Specifically, he said "there was nobody at the site of the accident" when he arrived, but that was after Cecil Smith was on scene at 19:46:20, so he didn't mean Cecil Smith was not at the scene at all. However, he might have meant that Cecil Smith was not in the immediate vicinity of the Saturn, as he was 100 yards up the road talking to Butch Atwood.

No effect on the time - but after Hanover dispatch called dispatcher Rhonda Marsh at 19:43, Rhonda Marsh (Grafton) called the Atwood residence [They reached his common law wife, he was outside] (This took place after 19:43, say 19:44, if this call lasted a minute). Butch Atwood's common law wife was on the phone until 19:48, the time dispatcher Rhonda Marsh finished writing her narrative. This idea is reinforced by the assumption that Butch Atwood's common law wife was probably on the phone until after 19:46:20 [in second Atwood call] because Anthony Stiles logged Cecil Smith's arrival at 19:46:20, not Rhonda Marsh, who was presumably preoccupied talking to Ms. Atwood.

MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
OLD POST PART 4

A newspaper article in which Butch Atwood is interviewed: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/newspaper-articles-57/?message=422

The idea that Faith Westman's call to dispatcher Rhonda Marsh ended at 19:29:31 makes some sense, because, presumably, dispatcher Rhonda Marsh could only have one conversation at a time. The implication of accepting 19:29:31 as the time that the Faith Westman-Rhonda Marsh conversation ended, is that Cecil Smith was dispatched simultaneous to the time when the call ended between Faith Westman and the dispatcher. He could not have arrived instantly at the scene. If this is true, it certainly means that the Westmans were mistaken and that the officer that arrived prior to their conversation ending, was not Cecil Smith - it was another law enforcement officer that was not dispatched to the scene, that was coincidentally in the area.
The idea that Faith Westman's call to dispatcher Rhonda Marsh ended at 19:35, places an officer at the scene at 19:35, 11 minutes before Cecil Smith arrived on scene. Again, this means that the Westmans were likely mistaken and that the officer that arrived prior to their conversation ending, was not Cecil Smith - it was another law enforcement officer that was not dispatched to the scene, that was coincidentally in the area.
Of course, if this hypothetical mystery officer told Maura Murray she was under arrest for DUI, she would not have screamed. That no screams were heard, eliminates the idea that an accident-site-dirtbag (that could not be mistaken for LE) abducted her there. See "The Law of Noisy Abductions, here."
[1] Dispatcher Rhonda Marsh finished entering the call narrative into the system at 19:40. If Cecil Smith arrived at 19:40, then Cecil Smith is not the individual Witness A saw at 19:37 PM. Additionally, if Cecil Smith arrived at 19:40 PM, there probably isn't a "mystery officer" involved, because, I cannot imagine how the "mystery officer" could have picked up Maura Murray and left in time to go unnoticed by Cecil Smith, who arrived at 19:46:20, only 6 minutes later. Dispatcher Rhonda Marsh was on the phone with Hanover dispatch at 19:43, certainly finished with the phone call to Faith Westman. In other words Witness A places another officer at the scene, not Cecil Smith.

[2] "I asked Mr. Westman why he and Mrs. Westman stopped watching the site. He stated that Mrs. Westman remained in the kitchen until the cruiser arrived..."
« Last Edit: December 24, 2019, 03:52:26 pm by MauraMurrayEvidence »

MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile

OLD POST PART 5

Additional corroborative analysis:

Quoting a question from /u/Bill_Occam

But if I recall Karen McNamara's interview correctly, she was shown a photograph of the Haverhill 001 SUV and she confirmed it was the one she saw.

Yes - I am aware of this. And I am aware of the time - and accept the 7:37PM time that has been calculated to approximate (margin of error of a minute) when she was there. But it could not have been Cecil Smith's 001 that she saw.
Witness A is placed at the scene at 7:37 PM. I am, for the sake of argument (in your favor), saying that the call between Faith Westman and dispatcher Rhonda Marsh ended at 7:35, the time Rhonda Marsh entered a notation in the computer system.
If I were to insist that the call between Faith Westman and dispatcher Rhonda Marsh ended at 7:40, the time that Rhonda Marsh entered her narrative about her phone call with Faith Westman, there is no way Witness A saw Cecil Smith. This is because Witness A would have had to have driven hazardously at an average of 54 miles an hour on a pitch black windy road the entire way to Beaver Pond. See this chart This would set the time of Cecil Smith's arrival at 7:40 PM, because, recall, that the notes from the interview with Faith Westman indicate what she had said: "Still on the phone with 911. 12. Hears a car goes back to the kitchen window. 13. See Smith nose to nose hangs up with 911." In other words, Faith Westman's conversation with dispatcher Rhonda Marsh ended once Faith Westman saw an "officer" arrive.
However, I am assuming that Cecil Smith arrived at 7:35 for the sake of argument (in your favor). With that in mind, and quoting Maggie Freleng: "We also know that Cecil immediately went and knocked on neighbors doors.[1]" Obviously "immediately" does not equate to after 7:43. Lets say he was at the Westman's door at 7:37PM, the moment Witness A drove by, seeing no one around the 001 or the Saturn.
According to Faith Westman, as reported by Cold N. Holfield here and quoted below at [2]. as soon as Cecil Smith arrived at her door, Cecil Smith asked "where is the girl?" This is verified by Whitewash's notes that say: "Smith shows up and wants to know if the driver is there. 17.There is no one at the car. Faith looks out the window and the car is dark."

 

+-Recent Topics

The index card with directions to Burlington by TheRealFinn
October 29, 2020, 08:00:57 am

Butch Atwood's Actual Statements by TheRealFinn
May 11, 2020, 02:57:32 am

Bill R bought a Saab in 2002 by TheRealFinn
March 25, 2020, 05:01:28 am

MASTER INDEX: MAURA MURRAY EVIDENCE by TheRealFinn
February 24, 2020, 06:46:45 am

Some of Maura's Handwritten Notes by MauraMurrayEvidence
February 19, 2020, 10:23:59 am

Maura's Gas Tank Measured Full (when studied in 2011) by TheRealFinn
February 09, 2020, 11:01:01 am

When Maura crashed her car, she was listening to The New Radicals - You Get What You Give by TheRealFinn
February 09, 2020, 10:56:27 am

Comprehensive Overview of search efforts in the Maura Murray Case-Part 1 by MauraMurrayEvidence
February 08, 2020, 02:22:33 pm

Transcription of Q&A With Strelzin et al From Missing Maura Murray Episode 27-Part 1 by MauraMurrayEvidence
February 08, 2020, 02:14:09 pm

License Suspension [as] "alerted by MA police"? by MauraMurrayEvidence
February 08, 2020, 01:47:21 pm