It is reasonable to consider that someone drove Maura Murray's Saturn - and that she was the passenger. Maura's attitude about driving the Saturn is discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/51aw0x/mauras_supposed_change_in_behavior_towards_car/
I believe it is possible that the Saturn's driver could have got out of the car almost immediately after the accident and hid out of sight from the Westman's window, before Butch Atwood arrived.
The question is: Do witness statements after the accident contradict this idea? I don't think they do.
Firstly, the Westmans could not see well enough to see everything that happened. Even if they could see everything that happened, I don't believe the witnesses should be expected to have watched the entire time.
According to Fred Murray, its very dark at night near the accident site. They probably struggled to see much at all. See: https://youtu.be/bTtuowTdeaM?t=3m7s
Furthermore, they probably didn't watch the site from the moment the Saturn got into the accident until police arrived. To expect that they should have is way out of line, and doesn't consider normal human behavior, which is normally relaxed.
The Grafton County Sheriff's log reports that, initially, Faith Westman said that she saw a man smoking a cigarette. See page 20 here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7_atAFvowRhSXdPM1JPNDNGSTg/view
Sam Ledyard interviewed the Westmans and obtained additional clarification here: https://notwithoutperil.com/
"They looked out the side windows (the ones closest to the ribbon) and saw Maura’s car facing westward in the eastbound lane.
I asked Mr. Westman whether Maura might have impacted a snowbank in front of his house. He stated that she could not have done so; she 'definitely' impacted by the trees near her ribbon. He explained that he had heard the impact and he was certain of its location.
I asked Mr. Westman about the red dot — what did he believe that it was? He stated that, originally, he and Mrs. Westman believed that it was a cigarette. Later, 'a family member' of Maura’s 'told' him that it was not a cigarette and that, instead, it was a cellphone charger.
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, but acknowledged that she had not made it a point to watch the scene the entire time. He believes, however, that Mrs. Westman would have seen Maura traveling west had she done so."
In an interview with James Renner, the Westman's explained that they never said they saw a man in the Saturn, implying that they saw a woman:
"I heard a crash and then I went to the window. I saw the car. There was a red light in the car, which I thought might be the light from the end of a cigarette," says Westman. "But I never saw a man and the red light could have been anything. Maybe a cell phone light as she was trying to find a signal to call someone."
I will note that Tim Westman states that there was only 1 person in the car here: https://youtu.be/-Wtintcaoh0?t=21m40s
However, with the evidence discussed about Maura's behavior towards her car here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/51aw0x/mauras_supposed_change_in_behavior_towards_car/
...and the darkness on the road that night calls, to my mind, the into question Mr. Westman's conclusion that "there was only ever one person at the car." Especially when one considers what they said to Sam Ledyard. No disrespect towards the Westmans.
So the next question is, why would the Saturn's driver go hide up the road while Maura Murray gathered some belongings? Why do I think that Maura was not subject to DUI, yet still opted to flee the scene of the accident?
First, Maura Murray didn't appear to be intoxicated, according to Butch Atwood. See https://youtu.be/bTtuowTdeaM?t=5m8s and here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/4yq4rq/newspaper_articles/d7kidtm/
Maura Murray may have had the Saturn's driver's interests in mind when she fled the scene of the accident.
Since there was opened container of alcohol in the car, it is not unreasonable to consider if someone else might have driven the car and fled after getting into the accident, trying to avoid a DUI.
A drunk driver, wanting to avoid a DUI, could have left the accident site almost immediately, and therefore, not be seen by witnesses, if it was dark outside. This person could have asked Maura Murray to gather some things quickly while he hid. After that, they would leave on foot.
This would explain the Westmans witness of "flurry of activity" around the car on page 10 here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/4yq4rq/newspaper_articles/d7ki910/
Only one set of footprints would be left on the road and snowbank, if there were two people in the car.
The fact that the Police Report states that the road was normal and dry lets us know that a passenger exiting the car facing the wrong direction in the road would not leave footprints, but the driver would. The end result would be no different if there was both a driver and a passenger.
However, Butch Atwood did say he saw Maura Murray on the driver's side of the Saturn, not the passenger's side, which is a second instance of evidence weighing against this idea.
If the drunk driver was a good runner, and we know Maura Murray was, they could have easily been out of sight after Butch Atwood left, but before the authorities arrived.
The dog search results were questionable and searches inconclusive. This leaves room to speculate that she traveled on foot and up the road with a companion.
The dog searches described here: http://mauramurray.blogspot.com/2013/06/law-enforcement-source-dog-track-in.html
...were done a few days later, and might not have been very effective due to the passage of time. But even if the passage of time made no difference to the dogs, the gloves the searchers used were "brand new" according to her dad, and possibly, were never warn by Maura Murray. See: https://youtu.be/DF-Zc_yeFXk?t=3m8s
"Fish and Game Lt. Todd Bogardus, in a press conference, at the Haverhill Police Department Thursday afternoon, said that three canine teams, two of which were part of the New England K-9 Search and Rescue group, and the other from state police were unable to come up with any clues. Two of the canines were air scent dogs. 'The results today were non-conclusive' Bogardus said 'We were unable to locate anything within a 2-mile square radius.' Between the air and ground searches, he said there weren't any conclusive clues to enable a continuation of the search. 'Tracks are prevalent out there but none connected with Maura' he said. "So now our ground search is suspended."
Bogardus didn't say how he knew the prevalent tracks were not connected with Maura Murray. Although it is unfair to question his conclusion, one must admit that devil's advocacy might have produced a different result.
However, there was another take on the issue: " 'We are reasonably confident that she did not enter the woods near the crash scene.' Scarinza said."
Scarinza also discusses this with Renner here: http://mauramurray.blogspot.com/2012/01/scarinza-speaks.html
...which seems somewhat inconsistent with what Bogardus said above.
However, we must keep in mind that the search they did was no small job. It was in fact heroic and I have no doubt that they tried their best. Police are human beings just like we are and should not be unduly criticized if should they fail to succeed doing a difficult task.
If someone else drove the Saturn, surveillance videos still may or may not show her with the driver. However there are numerous additional reasons why police have not released the surveillance videos. Clearly, if someone was with Maura Murray when she went to the ATM and liquor stores, they would know if they were actually caught them on tape, depending upon if they waited in the car or went with Maura Murray to these places.
I can't tell if investigators determined conclusively that no one was waiting for her in the car while she visited the ATM machine or liquor store, based upon video footage they presumably have.
"A police review of surveillance footage" was conducted and "showed Maura was alone at both the ATM and the liquor store" in Amherst, at the beginning of the journey in the Saturn on the night of the accident in Haverhill, new Hampshire, here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/4yq4rq/newspaper_articles/d7khx6v/
Lt. Scarinza also comments on video surveilance, but it appears that he is only talking about the ATM machine here: https://youtu.be/78TfLz9KBeg?t=6m48s
However, New Hampshire authorities did respond to a question about the time Maura was at the liquor store, and based upon this answer, I assume that they were talking about the date of her disappearance here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0O1jPqDWms&feature=youtu.be&t=22m20s
In the video linked to above, Scarinza appears to only be talking about an ATM machine. However, that doesn't mean he wasn't aware of the video footage, its just that he didn't mention it. The documentary says the receipt in the car proved she went to the liquor store.
So its clear that Maura Murray visited liquor stores twice between the time she was with her dad and just before she left for New Hampshire. One visit took place with her dad Saturday night, as stated at the bottom of his statement here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d9590g6/
It says here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/4yq4rq/newspaper_articles/d7khx6v/ that "Maura then stopped off at a local liquor store and bought about $40 worth of alcohol: Bailey’s, Kahlua, vodka and a box of wine according to her sister Kathleen."
The second trip to a liquor store took place on the day she disappeared.
The following quite from the below linked article weighs against the idea that someone else drove her to New Hampshire. This means we would have to presume that the article linked below (and quoted) draws a false conclusion that she was alone. If there was someone else driving, the Saturn must not have been in sight of the surveillance video and the driver waited in the car:
"At 3:40 p.m. Monday, she withdrew $280 from an area ATM, then stopped at a liquor store. Surveillance cameras at the bank machine and in the store show that she was alone."
However, the real question is: Was the Saturn in any of this footage? If it was not, then we still have reason to consider that someone else drove the Saturn and she was the passenger.
Factor that probably disproves the theory that explains why she left campus.
James Renner interviewed Mauras fellow nursing students here:
This is the best and most detailed evidence I have. And I have to admit it debunks what I have supposed about her transportation needs to stay in the nursing program.
The key part is that the clinical groups were 6 -8 students. If that's the case, then it is highly unlikely Maura needed reliable transportation to stay in the program. What is the chance that at least one of 6 -8 students would have a car to take the others in. Its almost certain someone would have a car in this case.
Ok. So until i have better information, im going to say this line of arguement doesn't work in as much that it attempts to explain why she left campus. On the other hand, i still think there is an unanswered question: Why the change of behavior towards the car?