Addressing the Criticisms of my Report Witness A and 001: A Plausible Account

I released my findings in a report on 12/23/2019 called Witness A and 001: A Plausible Account.  As expected, I received a considerable amount of criticism, most of which ignored why the animation and report indicated times that have been deemed impossible.  I take that to mean that I failed in my presentation and did not keep the interest of the reader to the end where the real conclusion emerges.  Thus, for the sake of clarity I am going to present the conclusion unchanged from the report as a single item in reverse.

So here we go:

A plausible solution to the Witness A/001/Cecil controversy has nothing to do with the physics of the matter.  It has to do with a clerical issue in regards to the Grafton County Sheriff's Log that was really easy to overlook.  So I am not trying to "fit" anything here.  My contention is that Sgt. Cecil Smith was at the accident scene near 19:36, which allows the Witness A account to be substantiated.  I know that is a big deviation from the explanations that have been going around the internet for the past 15 years.   Here are the main things:

1.  The system they used indexes the calls by the timestamp of the first contact.  FW 911 call defines the log entry we are concerned with.  All data that comes in as the situation progresses is essentially filed under the timestamp of the initial call.

2.  It appears as if once the "incident" or "file" that is created with the timestamp of the first contact (in our case FW), as units (FD, PD, EMS) are dispatched they are added individually as entries.  In our case, Cecil Smith, Woodsville Pumper E2, and Woodsville A1) .

3.  It appears based on all the available entries that each unit can only be attached to the file once.

4.  The system allows each responding unit one set of the 4 times, Disp, En Rt, Arvd, Cleared.

The problem here is that Cecil was responding to more than one call.  So we know that his dispatch time and enrt times are for FW's Call.  But then Atwood gets through to Grafton at 19:43 as the second 911 call for the incident and requests the 10-25.

So which call is the 19:46 arrival time for, FWs or BA's?

I think it was the arrival time for BA's request for the 10-25.  And it is not because I just like it or want to push a narrative.

I think so because when I plotted out Monaghan's report as a timeline, it mentions that he heard Cecil's dispatch, Cecil signing off, then Woodsville shortly after.  Woodsville wasn't on the radio until 19:42, and then after that Cecil was on the radio saying the female wasn't with the vehicle.

Cecil's police report alludes to the same thing -- he gets there, no one is there,talked to BA,  then found out a young female was with the vehicle prior to his arrival and starts searching.

I wasn't trying to prove this theory, it just popped out to me when I was plotting data so there is no narrative.  I think it is plausible because then neither Witness A's account of 001, The Sheriff Logs, Cecil's report, nor Monaghan's report need be interpreted as anything other than what is on the paper.

I welcome hardcore criticism here, and I appreciate those who can dish it out and take it because we can figure something out here I am sure of it.

Animation Creation Process

I made this to show how to make the animations I have recently released.

Update: 10x speed Response Animation with Added Parties

Worked a little more on the animation.  Added Woodsville Fire and Rescue and Officer John Monaghan's response.  Corrected time stamps with selected captioning.

Link to Original Report

Witness A and 001: A Plausible Account, Report Reading

Sometimes when I want to better understand more technical documents I use a screen reader to follow along.  Since it is my report, I figured I would read it out.  If this helps you great, if not, there is nothing new here.

Report Release -- Witness A and 001: A Plausible Account

I finally finished up the report detailing my findings about the Witness A and 001 controversy.  Special thanks to fulkstop who made the process and findings better and faster. For your reading pleasure:

Witness A and 001: A Plausible Account, Download

Real-time Animation of Witness A/001

Witness A / 001 Timeline Reconstruction Update

I wanted to give a quick update on the progress of the timeline.  I am working on putting the finishing touches on a very detailed report, animation, and video explanation of the controversy swirling around Witness A/001.

Look for the information 12/23/19 or 12/24/19

Maura Murray Disappearance: Sub-Timeline 4, Adding Monaghan

Today I am releasing Sub-Timeline 4 which adds Monaghan's report into the matrix.  His report is available here.  The links below represent the Google Maps directions for the closest and farthest on 302 Monaghan could have been within the bounds of Lisbon.

Monaghan Far - 14 Miles 20 min @ speed limit

Monaghan Close - 9.8 miles 14 min @ speed limit

Monaghan 112/302 - SWWS - 2.5 miles, 4 min

Monaghan SWWS - wbc - .9 miles, 2 min

Direct Google Sheets Link

Maura Murray Disappearance: Understanding my Assessment

I have been discussing my efforts on Reddit and I have repeatedly run into instances where people seem to misunderstand my position and purpose at this time.  I am not here to declare any of these stories true or false at this time.  One in particular issue I have run into is my assessment of the Karen (Witness A) sightings.  With these sightings I have made statements based on what the timelines themselves could mean, not what they do.

What seems to be misunderstood here is that proponents of this story seem to miss the probability issue here.  I am not talking about the probability of Karen's story being true or false or whether I or others should believe it.  I am referring only to the fact that seeing a vehicle at three points that are taking different routes an different speeds within certain time periods shouldn't be taken as a forgone conclusion without analysis.  There are tight constraints on that possibility.

In an effort to drive that point home, here are two simple incremental representations of a timeline.  The first two rows are one scenario, the blue being one driver, the other a second.  The areas of green show where they would have overlapped.  The second two rows are the same timeline shifted a few intervals one way -- notice how different the overlaps are.  This is what I wanted to analyze -- that these overlaps were possible given the parameters that we have, independently of anybody's story.

I found that there are about three 30 second intervals during the time that this story played out that this was possible.  A few 30 second intervals that allow for these events to EVEN BE POSSIBLE in a 30 minute drive are not high probability!

I am going to review other components of my Timeline 2a conclusions next.

Maura Murray: Sub-Timeline 3 -- Inconsistencies

When I created Sub-Timeline 3 I was using the Grafton County Sheriff's Dispatch log to fill in the times for the Woodsville FD response.  I knew about the Woodsville FD log picture but I did not look at it until today.  Of interest is the reporting time of 8-9pm. Take a look:

Maura Murray Disappearance, Sub-Timeline 3

Video Explanation Below

Today I added the Grafton County Sheriff Logs Haverhill Portion to Sub-Timeline 2a.  The events added include times and locations listed on the report for Cecil Smith, Woodsville Fire 60E2 Pumper, Woodsville EMS 6A01, and Woodsville EMS 6A02.

Direct Link

Maura Murray Case: Sub-Timeline 2a: A New Standard

Video Explanation on YouTube and below timeline.

I think this week has been productive in moving forward with democratizing the timeline for the Maura Murray disappearance.  My initial goal was developing a 2 series timeline comparing/contrasting the Karen (Witness A) story with the physical realities of where and when 001 was.

As I say over and over, my goal is not to create and disseminate a narrative I like.  I have also stated that I do not wish to fit evidence to a conclusion.  In the interest of creating a decent model however, choices need to be made initially to continue (which may be corrected at a later time).  After much deliberation I feel that the timeline shown/linked farther down is the most data-based and non-inferential conclusion for how these events played out if indeed the whole event happened.

My Conclusion:

Before even attempting to evaluate Karen's recollection, we can logically show that the series of events that she reported was at least possible.  The conditions that make her testimony possible also limit the time range that these events could have occurred to a small range.  Since this could have only occurred within this small time range, which coincides with other parallel events, and was reported by someone indicates that it is very likely this happened.

Put another way, unless Karen did, or collaborated with someone to do the same analysis done here to get the times and locations correct within the range of time needed, is it likely that she made the story up?

I think that is highly unlikely, although it is possible.

I make this assertion for the following reasons:

Given:

1. Regardless of what Karen saw, the cell coverage issue is a real issue.
2. Regardless of what Karen saw, we know her approximate starting point and her approximate end point for the trip in question. 
3. Regardless of what Karen saw, her trip from work to Beaver Pond takes approximately 30 minutes.
4. Regardless of what Karen saw, her phone records indicate that she made a call at 7:52.

QED:  Regardless of what Karen saw, she made a call at 7:52. Based on cell coverage issues in the area, the first window of opportunity to make her call based on her starting destination is in the immediate area of Beaver Pond.  The trip from 26 Ralston to Beaver Pond is approximately 30 minutes which places her departure from work at about 7:22.

Given:  

1. Regardless of the actions/observations Karen/001 could have made, Maura's accident was reported at 7:27 by FW
2. Regardless of the actions/observations of Karen/001 could have made, police were dispatched to the scene at 7:29.
3. Karen was driving in the area surrounding the notification/dispatch/response.

QED:  The notification/dispatch/response to Maura's accident fit roundly into the 7:22 - 7:52 time span and area covered by Karen's trip.

Given:

1. Regardless of what Karen saw, she made a call at 7:52. Based on cell coverage issues in the area, the first window of opportunity to make her call based on her starting destination is in the immediate area of Beaver Pond.  The trip from 26 Ralston to Beaver Pond is approximately 30 minutes which places her departure from work at about 7:22
2. Regardless of the actions/observations Karen/001 could have made, the notification/dispatch/response to Maura's accident fit roundly into the 7:22 - 7:52 time span and area covered by Karen's trip. 

QED:  It is at least possible that Karen/001 could have seen each other.

Given:

1. It is possible that Karen could have seen 001 during her trip.
2. We know Karen's route and travel times.
3. 001 was on the road during the 7:22 - 7:52 timespan.

QED:  A portion of Karen's and 001's routes must have overlapped.

Given:

1. A portion of Karen's and 001's routes must have overlapped.
2. Karen claimed to have been passed by 001 on Swiftwater Rd.
3. Karen saw 001 at the intersection of French Pond Rd and 112.
4. Karen saw 001 at WBC.

QED:  Karen and 001's trips must have overlapped on Swiftwater Rd and at the intersection of French Pond Rd and 112 and at WBC.

Given:

1. Karen and 001's trips could have overlapped in both location and time.
2. Karen's route was fixed.
3. The timeline shows that only a small range of times to allow for all 3 sightings.
4. The range of times for a trip that included all 3 sightings also fits directly within the notification/dispatch/response times.
5. Karen would not have been able to make a phone call much prior to 7:52 because of cell coverage issues.
6. Karen exactly specified these sightings.
7. Karen's phone records show a call at 7:52.

QED:  The scenario is well defined and possible.

Direct Google Sheets Link

Introducing a New Timeline Tool for the Community

Video Explanation Below

If you have been reading any of this blog since its inception you will likely have detected one of my paramount themes:  Empowering internet investigators with non-biased information and tools that they themselves can use to make conclusions.  I am not pushing a narrative as I have stated many times in regards to Maura Murray's Disappearance and hope never to fall in that trap.

I am taking this on a methodical step-by-step as close to assumption free process as possible.  I chose to start with the 001/Witness A "problem" first because the discussion about this topic is so complicated and muddied with if/thens that I could not easily assess the claims even when remaining unbiased.

In the last few days I presented a minute-by-minute, side-by-side timeline of Karen's recollection vs. the physical location properties of a 001 if indeed it did make the trip.  I mentioned my findings and created a small explanation video a few days ago.  At the time I felt that it was the easiest least biased presentation of the likely scenarios.  My opinion changed somewhat after having a few discussions with other members of the community which really drove home the confusion still out there regarding average speeds, acceleration, precise and/or accurate travel times.  Basically still too much wiggle room to argue about one thing or another.

I am not suggesting that there is not truth to those concerns, and thus I set out to further refine the modeling so that we can further our discussion in mathematical facts.  Obviously we cannot use it to determine the choice or intent of the people we are modeling but we can get a very solid understanding of the physical properties of a choice.

To better our understanding of the situation I am proudly releasing my first interactive tool for community members.  I will be making a short video explanation very soon, but for those who want to get head start go here:

Timeline Tool

Sub-Timeline 2a: Conservative Deductions/Conclusions Thus Far

Video Explanation Below

As I have stated I am not interested in providing any conclusions beyond what can be deduced from fact.  This is an important distinction and is different from other approaches I have heard about thus far.  What is different is that I am not looking to prove or disprove a story -- we are only at the point in analysis where we can determine IF a story could even be possible based on the laws of the Universe we live in.

To recap, this is what we have accomplished step-by-step:

1. Determined the start and end points for both Karen's and 001's trips.
2. Broken the trips into legs that can be used to isolate the overlapping areas.
3. Used independent travel times from Google Maps to rebuild each trip from its terminus to it's origin.
4. Listed locations for Karen an 001 at one minute intervals.
5. Substituted actual clock times in for each interval.
6. Juxtaposed the both timelines, creating one.
7. Proved that it was possible for the overlaps to happen.
8. Adjusted the timelines as a whole to reflect both Karen's story and the Grafton County Sheriff Records.

I think this allows us to safely deduce and conclude that Karen's story is at least possible.  Additionally, the data shows that while 001 could have responded to the scene according to the Sheriff's log timing, Karen's sighting would not be possible under these conditions.  Finally, if Karen is correct in her recollection, based on the dispatch time noted in the Sheriff Logs, 001 would have been at the scene much sooner than the time the logs report Smith arriving to the scene.

I urge you to come at me full force with any refutations of these methods or conclusions.  I am not looking to fight, but I am only one person with one brain so it is possible I did not see something or made a logical fault.  The best way to figure this out is to argue about it until any and all criticisms are solved and the record corrected.

Maura Murray Disappearance, Sub-Timeline 2a - Sheriff Log is Right Scenario Considered

Video Explanation Below

Here is the scenario if 001 was the vehicle being dispatched at the Sheriff Logs time of 7:29.  Note: the required overlaps are not present.

Maura Murray Disappearance, Sub-Timeline 2a - Karen is Right Scenario Considered

Video Explanation Below

Here is Timeline 2a if Karen's account is 100% accurate.  This approach requires whoever was driving 001 to have been driving around with it's take down lights on at least 4 minutes before Cecil was dispatched.  Notice that all of the sightings reported by Karen are independently verified to be possible.  The light orange highlights the overlaps that allow this to happen.

UPDATE: UPDATE: Sub-Timelines 1-2

I have been informed that 26 Ralston St is nearer to the address of Karen's workplace.  I have updated the timeline to reflect these changes.

UPDATE: Sub-Timelines 1-2

I received information that Friendship House WAS NOT on 6 Church St in 2004 as it is today.  In the interest of providing information that takes into account the least possible assumptions I have updated relevant timelines to show "Unknown" for slots which 6 Church St was a factor.

I will try to find the correct address and update ASAP.

Sub-Timeline 2a: When Cecil met Karen Part 2

Video Explanation Below

Last time, we did the first juxtaposition of Sub-Timelines 1a and 1b, resulting in Sub-Timeline 2.  This post will further the analysis by adding in the actual clock/times.

According to her interview, Karen (Witness A) took a trip from her job in Haverhill to Beaver Pond on the night in question.  She did not indicate that she stopped anywhere other than at the Accident Site for a few minutes before heading to Beaver Pond. Similarly, we know about how long Cecil was on roads overlapping with Karen's trip.

Logically, this gives a reasonably specific range of time frames for how long the trip would have taken.  This range is in the 28-35 minute range for Karen's trip, and 8-12 minutes for Cecil.  These ranges were chosen as a result using Google Maps along with a margin of error for unknowns like acceleration/deceleration, did she pull off to let Cecil by, did Cecil blow through the intersections, etc.

So this left us with a timeline like this (Microsoft Excel Version, Full Google Sheet):



For our first "on the clock" example, let us have Karen leave 6 Church St at 19:17.  Note that the time on the left is now also applicable to Cecil (Microsoft Excel Version, Full Google Sheet):



Obviously, this is not a realistic time for Cecil because he was not even dispatched until 19:29 according to the Grafton County Sheriff Logs.  Let's move the timeline to reflect his arrival at the time Karen suggested, 19:36 (Microsoft Excel Version, Full Google Sheet):


I encourage you to consider what this means.  I am working on a way to adjust for margins of error.

Sub-Timeline 2: When Cecil met Karen

Now that we have an individual timelines for Cecil and Karen (Witness A) broken into common units, it is now possible to juxtapose the timelines for comparison.  In this post we will just use the generic minutes.  We can discuss the actual times in a future post.

For your convenience, I have made both Google Sheets and Microsoft Excel versions for your use.

Google Sheets - File Link



Microsoft Excel - File Link

Sub-Timeline 1b: The Tale of Witness A -- Cecil Responds

Video Explanation Below

Cecil's trip to the from the time he was dispatched until he arrived at the scene can be broken down into segments just like Witness A's if we are to believe her account of the events.

 Start                                End                           Duration(min)
 Link  W Origin Swiftwater Rd         S Origin Sawyer Hill Rd       5  
 Link  S Origin Sawyer Hill Rd        French Pond Rd/Rt 112 Int     4  
                                      via Sawyer Hill Rd
 Link  French Pond Rd/Rt 112 Int      Accident Site                 2    

We can do this by working back from Cecil's arrival to the Accident Scene (regardless of his arrival time):

Minute     Location
0          Accident Site
-1         On 112
-2         On 112
-3         Int French Pond/112
-4         Sawyer Hill Rd
-5         Sawyer Hill Rd
-6         Sawyer Hill Rd
-7         Swiftwater Rd
-8         Swiftwater Rd
-9         Swiftwater Rd
-10        Swiftwater Rd
-11        Swiftwater Rd

Now we can turn this around to a forward time progression:

Minute     Location
0          Swiftwater Rd
1          Swiftwater Rd
2          Swiftwater Rd
3          Swiftwater Rd
4          Swiftwater Rd
5          Sawyer Hill Rd
6          Sawyer Hill Rd
7          Sawyer Hill Rd
8          Int French Pond/112
9          On 112
10         On 112
11         Accident Site

We will add the actual times for Cecil in a later post due because some assumptions must be made regardless of the hypothesis chosen.

Sub-Timeline 1a: The Tale of Witness A -- An Eventful Trip Home

Video Explanation Below

We know from Witness A's interview that she was working at the Friendship House in Haverhill as a counselor.  Karen’s trip from 6 Church St to Beaver Pond can be broken up into the following segments:

      Start                          End                           Duration(min)
Link    6 Church St                    W Origin Swiftwater Rd        3
Link  W Origin Swiftwater Rd         S Origin Sawyer Hill Rd       5  
Link  S Origin Sawyer Hill Rd        French Pond Rd/Rt 112 Int     4  
                                     via Goose lane Rd
Link  French Pond Rd/Rt 112 Int      Accident Site                 2    
Link  Accident Site                  Beaver Pond                   15

Incidentally, these segments create a timeline for her travel, based not only on the start and end points, but multiple data points that will prove useful later.  Here is the approximate trip itinerary in one minute increments:

Minute                    Location
0                         Depart 6 Church St
1                         En-route to Swiftwater Rd
2                         En-route to Swiftwater Rd
3                         En-route to Swiftwater Rd
4                         Arrive on Swiftwater Rd
5                         On Swiftwater Rd
6                         On Swiftwater Rd
7                         On Swiftwater Rd
8                         On Swiftwater Rd
9                         On Swiftwater Rd
10                        Arrive S Origin Sawyer Hill Rd
11                        On Goose Lane Rd
12                        On Goose Lane Rd
13                        On Goose Lane Rd
14                        On French Pond Rd
15                        Arrive at Int of French Pond Rd / Rt 112
16                        On 112
17                        Arrive at Accident Scene
18                        Stop at Accident Scene
19                        Stop at Accident Scene
20                        On 112
21                        On 112
22                        On 112
23                        On 112
24                        On 112
25                        On 112
26                        On 112
27                        On 112
28                        On 112
29                        On 112
30                        On 112
31                        On 112
32                        On 112
33                        On 112
34                        On 112
35                        Beaver Pond

Introduction: The Format

If you are a little confused as to how this project differs that's OK.  My goal is to create a system to allow multiple simultaneous timelines to be available for reference from any data point.

Initially, this will take the form of a slide rule with many functions.  From there I hope to create a way to interact with the data from any vantage point in time/space.  It sounds crazy, but it really will make sense as it is developed

Introduction: Understanding the Problems Faced

Through one mechanism or another many different narratives are laced through the events that transpired around Maura's disappearance.  The main problem with how they have been collected and analyzed throughout the year is that one explanation or question leaves out information that is not immediately evident.  In fact, it was this realization that led me to begin this timeline pursuit in the first place.

The example we will start with is the problems with Witness A's timeline.  I spent time reading lots of information and interpretations of events.  The general sentiment in the community is that it doesn't make sense.  The problem with that conclusion is not so much that it is wrong (because there are inconsistencies), but that they do not take into all of the information needed for an explanation.  In the first case, the go to problem with Witness A's story is that if she made a call from Beaver Pond at 7:52 and she saw 001 at the accident scene, 001 must have been there earlier than the 7:46 arrival time noted in the Grafton County Logs.  I will dissect the situation for you and provide you with detailed information that you can use to draw your own conclusion.

Welcome: Decorum

I intend there to be arguing and fights here.  If there are no fights and the goal has not been achieved there is no progress.  I want you to come as hard at me as you can on the issues to make sure we get this right.  Sometimes that means being nasty.  I personally think that is a good thing sometimes.  Titans need to collide and a winner must prevail in some circumstances.  Toughen up, take the heat, and let it roll off your back.  Sometimes a fighter just needs to take one more punch to see how to take down their enemy.

That being said, I try not to show my teeth at all costs, and would hope you adhere to the same standard.  My policy also means if you or I or someone you are arguing with is wrong it is of tantamount concern that you admit it rapidly, say sorry, and march on to the final goal as a unit.  Right now I am running this unit, and I will not tolerate the gossip or grudge matches.

This is a different policy, but this case is littered with leaders who moderate so they feel good about themselves, not to advance knowledge.

Welcome: Goals

The Ultimate goal of this blog is to create a timeline tool/app to analyze the case from any aspect.  The mapping of the Witness A/001 timeline revealed to me a method to chronicle this material.  There are so many story arcs in this mystery that I believe it is necessary to create a tool to show "snapshots" at a given time or event that cross-references to other story arcs taking place simultaneously.  Essentially, I will create a tool/app that allows a user to put a time in and see everything going on or conversely, identify an event an find the times and other events going on simultaneously.

The main thing is the timeline.  The main thing I am focusing on is keeping the main thing the main thing.

Welcome: My view of the community

I believe my approach is significantly different than those of others who have been long-time pundits for this case.  I have observed that these pundits have a narrative that they wish to subscribe to.  They want to tell you "a" story, not "the story," for one reason or another.  Do not mistake this analysis for disdain:  I think that these pundits have significantly increased the awareness, discussion, and generated significant information that would not otherwise have been available.  So kudos to those who came before me.

The piece I hope to largely leave out of this project is the idea that I have a narrative.  I do not have something in mind.  Obviously we all have hunches, but here I am not interested in stating conclusions unless they have undergone rigorous development, criticism, and testing.  Stated another way, I want you, the reader not to accept my explanations or findings, but to be the ultimate skeptic.

Welcome: A Short Introduction

First off thank you for visiting.  The purpose of this Blog is to create a useful timeline for the events surrounding the disappearance of Maura Murray.  This is an attempt to untangle the knot of information that has been collected and generated over the 15+ years from as many sources and trajectories as possible.  I hope to create an accurate, meaningful, and user-friendly timeline that can serve the community at large as a standard.