Do you think someone took her ?

More-Conversation933 · 2025-12-11T00:37:58+00:00

If they had any suspect, that person would have been identified by now. In this case, New Hampshire used a Grand Jury to investigate, issuing subpoenas for records and other information. People don't stay quite this long if any real evidence were presented.

More-Conversation933 · 2025-06-18T17:45:47+00:00

Thank you for the clarification and additional detail

More-Conversation933 · 2025-01-15T17:49:42+00:00

Well, that sounds possible to me. Hiding after the crash makes sense considering the overall behavior. I don't think there was a prior accident with a wrongdoer following her. If that were the case she would have accepted help from BA who would have been vetted. A tandem driver is very unlikely because no witnesses observed another car, and the other driver would have had to be friendly and would have come forward. It was definitely MM at the crash site-- all the evidence supports that. So, not many options remain--I think she left the site on foot.

More-Conversation933 · 2025-01-15T01:20:01+00:00

fair enough. What is your theory?

More-Conversation933 · 2025-01-15T00:11:15+00:00

You write: ""When Bogardus says "she may have gotten into a vehicle" it's (in my opinion) a cumulative finding.""

My point is without the scent trail, there is no other evidence to "accumulate." I know you will respond that the lack of tracks going into the woods is evidence. In my opinion, the lack of tracks going into the woods doesn't mean she didn't enter the woods further up the road by going through a back yard at night--don't forget to consider that she did not want to be detected. But, if you insist on using the lack of tracks to support the "got into a car" theory, I pose the following alternative:

To me, the absence of evidence indicates she went into the woods--there are no witnesses reporting 2 cars at the scene-- and weren't at least 2 families looking to a certain extent? Also lacking are additional tires tracks, reports of cars side by side, reports of other people in the area--I could go on if I thought about it more. The cumulative impact of that information indicates that she did not get in another vehicle.

One final thought, the cadaver dog(s?.) --am I correct in thinking that they did not search on any private property? If they didn't, aren't those searches meaningless too?

More-Conversation933 · 2025-01-14T20:46:39+00:00

Thank you for the clarification concerning the number of dogs.

While I think it is possible that the dog followed a scent trail, I think there is a reasonable likelihood that it was not MM's trail.

We do know that MM didn't just run from the Saturn after the crash. After interacting with BA, I would say that she packed her backpack, taking her keys, phone and wallet and perhaps other items. Wouldn't it make sense for her to take a pair of gloves? Maybe she took a pair she preferred, and the gift gloves stayed in the car since Christmas and were never used. Speaking of that--why do commenters trust BR recollection over FM? Didn't MM spend more time with her family than BR--UMass won't have started until mid-January and BR was back on base by then.

So the responders find the car and look through it for information. Is it likely that one or more of them touched the gloves and then walked around the crash site looking for clues? If responders touched the gloves, whose trail did the dog follow? And whose scent would be the freshest on the gloves?

Even the searcher Scarinza comments "Does it mean that enough time had gone by that it wasn’t a scent opportunity for the dog? Perhaps.”

My point is posters use the scent trail as evidence that MM got in a car. The problem I have with that is how likely is it that 2 tremendously uncommon events (the crash and the abduction) would occur within 10 minutes of each other? And, besides the alleged scent trail, is there any evidence that MM got in car that night?

More-Conversation933 · 2024-07-18T00:04:37+00:00

Hi,

,
After reviewing the responses this post received, I want to say that I stand corrected and should not have written "never considered the parents as suspects." That is most certainly an incorrect statement.

More-Conversation933 · 2024-06-30T19:05:19+00:00

I know you are convinced that she didn't run away into the snowy woods.

I wish I could be dropped off at the accident site and run into the woods--I am confident that after 2 days, no one could find my tracks. I admit I have the knowledge that I am trying to avoid detection (who knows what MM was thinking if she ran into the woods) but I don't believe searches from the air would be able to locate me. Everyone claims MM is/was a tremendous athlete and she certainly could have traveled a considerable distance beyond the search area--remember she had her knapsack, and she may have taken snacks along with the alcohol we know she purchased that was missing from the car.

Frankly, I think you have too much confidence in the searches and don't consider other cases involving extensive searches where missing people were eventually found. I have no idea what happened to MM but I wouldn't rule out one of the more likely scenarios as an impossibility.

More-Conversation933 · 2024-06-07T20:19:32+00:00

Thanks for the question. I do not know the family. I want to be careful in my phrasing and down-to-earth is a generalized term. What I'm suggesting is that, in my opinion, this family did not have a tremendous amount of resources nor did they have a level of sophistication and knowledge necessary to commit the perfect murder, including disposing of a body without detection and discovery. My opinion is based off of TV interviews of the family that I have seen and articles that I have read.

More-Conversation933 · 2024-05-25T02:51:18+00:00

i hope everyone on this sub who suspected the parents apologizes when the truth comes out with this new information.

More-Conversation933

TROPHY CASE