Maura Murray

Judged:

6

6

6

Ridiculous wrote:

<quoted text>
I certainly did not intend to scare anyone. was just curious if it was this Lighthouse that passed me. I guess I'm naive. I posted here a couple of wees ago with a pretty strong opinion on how this forum looks to an outsider and got some strong reactions concerning my opinions and there was talk about being "outed" then.
My first reaction concerning this comment Wowser was to write my name and address and plate number, but then, I do have children and if there is any potential threat, I don't have the right to do so. I ask this question sincerely; What is the safety issue here? Are people concerned about the potential killer or are they concerned that fellow posters would do them harm?

Judged:

6

6

6

findmaura wrote:

<quoted text>
My point was:NO ONE on earth has been cleared.Ever.By LE...unless I missed the memo..As I've said before Ted Bundy&Jeffrey Dahmer seemed like swell townies too..IMHO everyones a suspect until proven otherwise..Including people right here on this board..

Judged:

5

5

3

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
The thing is, NO ONE on earth have ever presented evidence of a crime being committed, so at this point there is nothing to clear anybody of. Murder/abduction is just another possibility, just like runaway, suicide or accidental death. I think it should be considered like any other possibility, but by no means presumed.

Judged:

1

1

1

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
The thing is, NO ONE on earth have ever presented evidence of a crime being committed, so at this point there is nothing to clear anybody of. Murder/abduction is just another possibility, just like runaway, suicide or accidental death. I think it should be considered like any other possibility, but by no means presumed.

Judged:

4

2

1

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I think moving forward everyone should make a classy agreement not to engage any poster who tries to reveal another's identity. We wont have this nonsense. Ridiculous I'm willing to give you a pass but if you or anyone else tries or hints to another persons identity or location I won't engage them in conversation. If everyone adhered to this rule then people wouldn't even waste their time posting about others locations.

Judged:

8

7

6

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I think moving forward everyone should make a classy agreement not to engage any poster who tries to reveal another's identity. We wont have this nonsense. Ridiculous I'm willing to give you a pass but if you or anyone else tries or hints to another persons identity or location I won't engage them in conversation. If everyone adhered to this rule then people wouldn't even waste their time posting about others locations.

Judged:

9

8

7

Ridiculous wrote:

On James Renner,
James is certainly controversial. What are peoples opinions of him here, now?
I've read his finding Amy's killer blog and his Lisa Pruitt blog. I think it's good that he has pushed to have the Lisa Pruitt murder reopened, however, I do question his motives. Seems that for every case he is involved in, he is writing a book. I do realize that it takes money to pursue these cases, however, it seems like the chicken and egg debate to me. His amy blog reads like a Witch hunt. He has all but crucified Dean Runkle through out and then abandoned him when new suspects show up only to put him on the cross again when those suspects don't pan out. He throws names around and like mad and there have been no convictions. There are people on his blog that just seem like sheep to me.I feel like he has become something of a politician in his pursuit. The original effort is altruistic, but leading sheep has gone to his head.
This is the opinion I have formed in my limited reading. I realize many of you have been reading his blogs for years and certainly are more knowledgeable or have formed opinions based on more research. Opinions ?

Judged:

7

7

7

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with your assessment. In my opinion, Renner is no better than posters on Topix - he throws out names and personal info (like not redacting personal info on those documents he just posted) and throws out theories with no real thought to them, just to see what might stick. He has no regard for damage he may be doing to other people. One of the most disturbing things he has done was, upon hearing of the murder of Melissa Jenkins, he immediately threw out Beagle as a possible suspect simply because he had been posting on the Barnet, VT Topix board. No matter that Beagle posts on multiple state's boards on this forum. No matter that he had provided much personal information about Beagle so that his followers could easily locate him. Renner took that info, posted a photo of Beagle and tried to connect him with the disappearance and said "Is this another strange coincidence? Or was Beagle familiar with the location where Jenkins' body was found?"
Renner very obviously has it in for Fred Murray, and I am certain that a great deal of his book will focus a lot on him.
As to the alcohol, I am always surprised that people think that those bottles mean she was meeting somebody. I am single, live alone, and when I want to make a black Russian, I have to buy Kahlua and Vodka. I buy large bottles because they are usually cheaper, and they last forever. I also buy a large bottle of Bailey's at Christmas. So I don't think in any way that having those bottles of booze indicated that she was meeting somebody. I also don't believe that she was going to lug them up a mountain in order to mix a few drinks in order to kill herself - I think that is just silly.
I really don't understand why people find it so hard to believe that she died from hypothermia, it happens all the time. It doesn't have to be freezing, people have died from hypothermia in temps from 30 to 50 degrees. If Maura wasn't properly dressed, and was really running east on the highway, she could have started to succumb to the cold quickly, especially since she would have been sweating. Confusion is one of the first signs, and she could have simply wandered off the road into a place in the woods most people wouldn't try to enter, far enough along the road that nobody searched. It is just as strong a possibility as any other theories floated out there.

Judged:

11

10

8

Stud wrote:

I'm almost positive James Renner doesn't care what a handful of cranky "haters" think about his methods. Know this: LE respects him. He has an uncanny knack for sifting through bullshit (topix). He's in 5th gear, some of you are stuck in neutral. If he focuses on Fred, then LE tipped him that way. Good grief, LE all but knows the fate of MM. They just need more evidence...and calling his posters "sheep" is an insult used by the scorned. Get a clue.

Judged:

10

10

8

Stud wrote:

I'm almost positive James Renner doesn't care what a handful of cranky "haters" think about his methods. Know this: LE respects him. He has an uncanny knack for sifting through bullshit (topix). He's in 5th gear, some of you are stuck in neutral. If he focuses on Fred, then LE tipped him that way. Good grief, LE all but knows the fate of MM. They just need more evidence...and calling his posters "sheep" is an insult used by the scorned. Get a clue.

Judged:

4

3

2

Stud wrote:

I'm almost positive James Renner doesn't care what a handful of cranky "haters" think about his methods. Know this: LE respects him. He has an uncanny knack for sifting through bullshit (topix). He's in 5th gear, some of you are stuck in neutral. If he focuses on Fred, then LE tipped him that way. Good grief, LE all but knows the fate of MM. They just need more evidence...and calling his posters "sheep" is an insult used by the scorned. Get a clue.

Judged:

7

7

6

mcsmom wrote:

What bugs me when I think about Maura's case, is why Scarinza clearly misleads Renner into publicizing that Fred failed to interact with LE for two years.
As WTH would say, that's pure BS.
See document number 18, section 31, which states on or about Feb. 24th 2005, Fred met with the respective agencies regarding his request of information from them ( his right under the FOI Act.) At which time respective agencies agreed to improve their communication with him.

Judged:

7

7

6

mcsmom wrote:

What bugs me when I think about Maura's case, is why Scarinza clearly misleads Renner into publicizing that Fred failed to interact with LE for two years.
As WTH would say, that's pure BS.
See document number 18, section 31, which states on or about Feb. 24th 2005, Fred met with the respective agencies regarding his request of information from them ( his right under the FOI Act.) At which time respective agencies agreed to improve their communication with him.

Judged:

8

7

6

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
In my non professional opinion Sitting down and "speaking" is different than sitting down and being interrogated. Yes he could have sat down with LE and talked about the search, where they looked and if anything new developed.
The fact that he brought lawyers two years later shows the readers that this time there will be questions directed at him.

Judged:

9

9

8

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
I see it differently than you do.
I'd bring a slew of lawyers with me too if I thought LE had made the switcheroo from missing person case to a criminal investigation case for the sole purpose of keeping information from me.
Fred wanted more information from the git go. He was just a "pia" to them at that point. No big deal, he even met with Ayotte.
What seems to be a turning point (to me) is the July 12, 2004 letter to UMASS police from Fred requesting data from Maura's computer hard drive.