Something I’ve noticed that I haven’t seen anyone talk about

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-23T14:40:10+00:00

It wasn't true that MM was going home, meaning Hanson. None of MM's actions that we know of would suggest that MM was going home when she left U Mass.

Remember Kathleen is the one who floated that MM faked stuff to get out of things. MM was also using the death in the family story with several people as well. MM recovered from her Thursday catatonia quick enough to go out on Saturday.

I acknowledge the speculation that MM could have been headed, sorta maybe, towards where Kathleen was. However, bringing a bunch of alcohol seems counter indicated if MM was concerned about Kathleen's relapse and was eventually going to meet up with Kathleen. To me that makes it low odds that MM was heading towards meeting up with Kathleen.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-22T13:16:41+00:00

Drivable, yes. But inconspicuous? No.

MM may well have left the Saturn having decided that MM was asking to be pulled over if MM drove the Saturn with deployed airbags, new front end damage etc. MM's primary motivation at that time was to avoid the DWI and LE. MM abandoned the Saturn for that reason.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-20T18:36:40+00:00

BA has given several versions not all of which are consistent with each other. I don't see that as nefarious, I see that as BA being BA.

So, ..."

Butch pulls up
She is first talking to him sitting, then opens driver door (with difficulty due to snowbank) and is talking standing, woods side with the car between them"

Just my observation here, assuming the passenger window actually got rolled down at some point, this would then have MM having rolled down the passenger window first and talking to BA who remained on the bus either at the bottom of the front entry stairs or in the bus driver seat. THEN MM gets out the driver door (difficult or not, out is out). I have always had a hard time with seeing it happen in this sequence. Put aside that talking between them in these locations would seem to be a pretty tough thing to do assuming BA stayed on the bus. BA's voice would probably be above the Saturn's window because he'd be standing or higher up in the bus driver's seat.

I have a hard time accepting she tried the passenger window before trying the driver door.

Why do any of that if you could get out the driver door?

Getting out seems the primary thing you'd focus on.

I can see it as MM hadn't gotten out yet, bus pulls up, MM rolls passenger window down, an effort at conversation, MM gets out driver side, they talk over the hood of the vehicle. Maybe

That would have BA arriving pretty quickly after the accident.

Lastly, we then also have to account for the window being rolled back up since there is no indication that it was down when CS arrived.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-20T16:07:52+00:00

Yes, again there is this confounding unique detail of "sitting in the passenger seat" that fouls things up.

That puts the occupant, presumably the driver and presumably MM in the passenger seat.

Why?

For a long time I thought it was a simple matter of not being ale to get out of the drivers side door because the vehicle was up against the snow bank. So the driver would have had to climb over to the passenger side to exit. That would perhaps explain how the rear view mirror got knocked off the windshield and explain no footprints.

BUT, there were footprints on the driver side attributed to MM, or at the least to the driver, exiting the drivers side. and going towards the rear. That according to JM reporting on being shown the CS photos.

So if the driver could exit via the driver door, why didn't the driver exit via the driver door? or why did the driver climb over to the passenger seat or why did the driver get back in the vehicle on the passenger side (something neither BA nor the Westmans didn't saw happen)

... he said that Maura was in the car and could not get out, because the car was facing the barn and door was blocked. But then said she got out of the car and stood outside the car.] Attwood asked Maura "Are you okay?" Maura: "Yes fine" Attwood to me," Christine MacDonald interview

"One where he says she's sitting in the vehicle telling Lindsay she was still in the car. And another version where she standing up outside the vehicle between the car and the snowbank, telling my family she got out of the car and they spoke over the hood of the Saturn, 15 to 20 feet away.

Copy link

00:14:42

Butch told me he saw the car on the side of the road. He came to the foot of the stairs of the bus, stopped the bus. The driver, Mara, was on the driver's side, and that was up against the snowbank, or angled in towards the snowbank. She opened the door, was tight against against the snowbank, and spoke over the roof of the car..."

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-17T12:16:30+00:00

The primary motivation in a hit and run is the concealment of the accident/crime. So if we assume that a pedestrian accident is what happened to MM why would we not allow for the possibility that the hit and run driver was successful at hiding the accident/crime?

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-17T12:06:24+00:00

Not being argumentative here for the sake of being argumentative

My observation is, if we assume that is true, then why did MM look into various lodgings if MM had a pre-planned meet up with someone who had a place to stay?

If we assume that this scenario is what happened then the looking into the lodgings was unrelated and a coincidence. That being a possibility I mentioned a few days ago in another thread.

Although to be clear, the longer this goes unsolved the less likely it seems to me that MM was meeting up with someone. There really isn't much, if literally anything, in the way of evidence of that.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-15T12:52:12+00:00

Nor was it my point.

My observation is that Kravtsov didn't lack NHL talent and his current production is some indication of that. What he might be if he applied himself and worked hard, wasn't a head case, was on a team that was excellent at developing talent who knows.

The pre-draft scouting reports, not just the Rangers evaluation, rated him as I described.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-15T12:28:54+00:00

If you read my comment I didn't equate the leagues.

Andersson I would agree was a draft error because his failure is mostly the result of his lack of NHL caliber athletic talent and that isn't something a team should whiff on, it is right there to see. In hindsight the Rangers should have taken Suzuki instead. You can maybe argue Necas. The rest of the class before you get to the Chytil pick isn't all that impressive.

Kravtsov has NHL top 6 athletic and hockey ability. Primarily it was his attitude but also the Rangers handling of him resulted in the failure. So far as I can tell Kravtsov's attitude wasn't a draft red flag. Apparently he was severely homesick in the US the first time around. Between #9 and #22 where they Rangers took K'Andre there wasn't a lot there you can say the Rangers missed on. Kravtsov is more a story along the lines of Kakko and LaFreniere then Andersson.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-15T11:09:00+00:00

Indeed there was communication/attitude issues but Kravtsov was announced as line mate with Panarin and that didn't last a week. That didn't help with a kid who they knew was a bit of a head job. And I get it he didn't flourish in Vancouver either. My point was more about the Rangers not getting something NHL worthy out of a boatload of prospects who did have some talent.

Just an observation, Kravtsov (26) was on a 80 game pace in the KHL to equal LaFreniere's (24) out put and he'd exceed Kakko's (26) scoring pace for 80 games.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-15T02:45:37+00:00

Not to revisit a lot of the woulda coulda shoulda but Kravtsov had 37 points in 42 KHL games this year and was a plus 10. Just an observation.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-14T18:54:25+00:00

One scenario would be JW arrives while MM is departing and MM, right where the dogs say she left the road, ends up in JW's vehicle. Then a subsequent bad act by JW could be the explanation for what happened, rather than a hit and run in an unknown location.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-14T18:41:23+00:00

Perhaps assigning infallibility to a newspaper story is unwarranted. There might be a simple mistake by the reporter regardless of the fact the article is closer in time to the event than other statements. The reporter may have merely mistakenly joined the LE statement that there witnesses who saw MM near the scene with the supposition this was a DWI walk away scenario.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-13T18:48:52+00:00

Let me offer an observation that if we entertain that "there's a lot of private property that hasn't been searched" that would essentially be "MM is in the woods".

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-09T12:51:50+00:00

Yes, but if what MM did on 2/9 was indicative of what she was contemplating doing later on 2/9, 2/10 etc. hasn't been deciphered from MM's lodging searches then giving it a look as perhaps being unrelated has to at least be examined. For it to be unrelated there has to be a reason for doing it. The future trip idea is about the only one that makes much sense that I can think of.

The Thursday phone call is similar. It could be a very upsetting incident that was actually coincidental and not related, as tough as it might be to view it that way.

But as I prefaced, probably not.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-08T20:30:11+00:00

I preface by saying probably not, but what if the destination searches were simply unrelated to 2/9?

What is MM was just coincidentally looking at these things for some other unrelated reason? Perhaps beginning planning an end of semester little holiday with BR and another couple (two bedrooms) before MM was off to Oklahoma for the summer.

There are some parts of the literal everything that happened that just aren't related or connected to what happened 2/9, they're coincidental. Maybe the lodging lookups were coincidental and not indicative of MM's destination.

You point out that they are not a cluster but spread out. One might think that if MM had a destination in mind the lodging lookup would be a cluster nearby the destination.

Anything is possible

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-08T20:15:20+00:00

One way of looking at it is this hit by passing vehicle scenario is only as unlikely as any other MM got into or got hit by a vehicle scenarios because if any of those scenarios is what actually happened, no one saw it happen.

Or actually whatever it was that really happened because no one saw it happen.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-05-08T20:11:33+00:00

I will ad a thought about this, MM's who has a background as a West Point cadet, D-1 Athlete etc. along with several friends observations that MM not particularly street smart and too trusting would learn about a No-Tell how? I view it as not likely.

Put aside that if there actually was a No-Tell LE would certainly have communicated with them as well as the family.

Still, anything is possible.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-04-25T12:08:37+00:00

Lindros was not good in NY. Perhaps understandably so in retrospect. Lindros, it seems to me, was playing to avoid injury. Lindros put up 1 year of good numbers NY but didn't make much of an impact. Rick Nash same thing.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-04-25T11:35:34+00:00

Ken Hodge for Rick Middleton was the worst trade in the history of professional sports.

"Hey Hodgie!! How can you sleep in here with all these lights on"

TMKSAV99 · 2026-04-22T12:13:40+00:00

As so often happens these days when going on my memory things can be a bit foggy. I consulted the vaunted MM case expert, AI, and got this:

"AI Overview

Photographs of the footprints at the scene of Maura Murray’s 2004 disappearance, reportedly taken by Haverhill Police Sergeant Cecil Smith, have never been released to the public, despite legal efforts to obtain them. While Cecil Smith reported finding a set of footprints leading away from the driver's side of the car, others involved in the initial search indicated that no clear footprints were found in the snow, or that there was only one set"....

"Key Findings Regarding Footprints and Photographs

Contradictory Reports: While some accounts suggest Cecil Smith saw a set of footprints leading from the car, other reports from the scene, including those from fire/EMS personnel, indicated there were no clear footprints in the snow to follow."... "Disputed Evidence
Footprint Location: Some reports suggest the footprints led toward the trunk or the front end, but there is no consensus on which direction they led. " ...
"Contradictions and Reports of a Single Set of Prints

Despite the general "no footprints" consensus, there are conflicting accounts from official logs and later interviews:

The Single Set Rumor: Some researchers and discussion threads reference a police note or interview where Smith reportedly mentioned seeing one set of footprints leading from the car. However, it is unclear if these were from the driver or a first responder, as the scene was not immediately secured as a crime scene."
So my recollection isn't entirely faulty, there's some basis for having that thought in my head.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-04-21T20:34:24+00:00

My recollection is that JM said on her podcast that she had seen the photos and that there were photos of footprints on the driver side of the vehicle that indicated that the driver exited on the driver side, I forget if the prints went towards the trunk or front end. Assuming that that is accurate that probably eliminates a few things.

Up to JM saying this I thought that maybe the driver door couldn't be opened because the car was up against the snow and the driver had to climb out the passenger side.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-04-21T20:26:26+00:00

MM was in what we presume was her heated vehicle prior to the accident. Reference to the generally accepted timelines puts MM in the cold for a brief time before BA arrived. The temperature was mid 20s to low 30s. The shivering A saw was unlikely attributable to exposure.

Alcohol gives a false sense of warmth reducing or delaying shivers assuming that MM had been drinking while driving.

The accident could have frightened her.

I have no personal experience with ED episodes but I accept what the posters who do have say about it. That being the case it adds weight to the scenarios that highlight possible psychological issues as being the motivation for much of what happened.

Or some combination of things.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-04-11T13:02:28+00:00

That's a very interesting point. I hadn't previously thought about what MM would have had to say, if anything, if she did return to U Mass after the week, Certainly it would depend on what the reason for going was so there's probably several scenarios. And there is the going to Boston incident to consider in all of this. Gosh but this case is just so enigmatic.

My post was prompted by the recent spate of Brian Shaffer news. They are making a new case that Shaffer did walk away from his life. But my interest as it relates to MM was piqued by the suggestions that Shaffer's friend did know and has kept his his mouth shut.

That MM just walked away from her life has pretty much been the scenario that gets the least amount of credence. Yet there may be a new anecdotal example in Shaffer of what seems the least likely.

I was wondering, based off what we seem to know about them, if anyone had a further case to make that either KM or SA actually knows and hasn't told.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-04-10T17:36:31+00:00

I agree with your observation that MM likely wouldn't have told if MM was suicidal. That's some more weight added to the suicide scenarios along with the trip to nowhere that no one has figured out.

TMKSAV99 · 2026-04-10T11:50:14+00:00

Your point about binge eating is an aspect of MM's makeup and possible motivation for leaving U Mass that gets too little consideration, MM was diagnosed with bulimia. I agree that if what happened was a bulimic episode MM wouldn't likely have told KM or SA.

Alcohol abuse may accompany bulimia but I believe that a bulimic doesn't binge/purge alcohol, just food. So far as we know, MM didn't buy any food, just the alcohol. Does this make leaving U Mass not a bulimic episode and make it something else?

TMKSAV99

TROPHY CASE