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