Maura Murray

Jenkins, your posts sounds like thy are written by an uneducated 15 year old. Are you really an adult? Seriously, do you know how you sound?

I really think you do not. It's just incredible.

FrmLE wrote:

Jenkins, your posts sounds like thy are written by an uneducated 15 year old. Are you really an adult? Seriously, do you know how you sound?
I really think you do not. It's just incredible.

How cruel and unkind you appear to be. Have you no social graces? Shame on you.

Shack wrote:

<quoted text>How cruel and unkind you appear to be. Have you no social graces? Shame on you.

Seriously, coming from you, that is worse than a bad joke.

Bill

Jenkins wrote:

Hey citigirl- do you have any thoughts on that post that jwb reposted from renner's blog?
What do u think, total bullshit?
And what do you think about the post after it where some computer expert(leone) supposedly tracked the IP of the user "observer", who said the story is true and well known to the family, and said that "observer" is you.
Do you deny being "observer" and making that post? Was it someone else who just coincidently was posting from your location Or somewhere close by? To be clear I'm not accusing you of being "observer"; I am truly asking you. If you don't want to answer that it's your perogative.
Personally I truly hope that the original post is true, except for the part about vasi. IMO that would be so cool if Maura actually ran away and was able to start a new life. According to reports She had expressed a desire to do that in the past and if that's what she wanted to do I really hope that is what she was able to do.
According to people that knew her she never expressed any suicidal thoughts, in general she seemed like a really happy person who was fun to be around. Yea she had her problems, just like everyone, but it seems like depression just wasn't one of them. It does not sound like she was a depressed person who was suicidal at all. That just does not jive with what people that knew her said about her. To my knowledge There isn't one person who's ever said she was depressed. I've not read one person who hasn't described her as being happy and smiling all the time. Saying she suddenly became suicidal just doesn't make any sense when you consider what people who knew her say about her. You would think that there would be at least one person saying that she was depressed sometimes, but there isn't. If anything it sounds like she would try to go start a new life before she would commit suicide.
Sadly it looks like she was abducted and killed. Looking at this truly objectively that just seems like the most likely thing, unfortunately.
I truly hope that she went off and started a new life, however unlikely that is.

Jenkins. without saying to much. Read the remarks under regarding that email (posting) and see if an anonyomous poster looks like it could be someone that posts here. The posts refer to IP addresses and thats all I'll say.

FrmLE wrote:

Jenkins, your posts sounds like thy are written by an uneducated 15 year old. Are you really an adult? Seriously, do you know how you sound?
I really think you do not. It's just incredible.

You know frmLE, I could say the same exact thing about you posts, and I'd be right.
Do you realize you have the debate skills of about a 5 year old boy?
Basically your form of argument is glorified name calling. Personal attacks, attack the messenger not the message. That's super weak and proves nothing. You can say something's stupid all you like, yet it will never make it so, no matter how hard you try. Sorry to tell u...
That is the argument of the weak-minded, the slow thinking among us, and 5-year olds. It's hilarious.

If my posts are so stupid, then it should be rather easy to show how stupid they are. Yet you don't do that, you instead call me stupid. You don't attack the merits of the argument, you attack the messenger. I hope you don't think your actually making me feel stupid or Bad in any way, because that would be really sad..
I actually think its hilarious that there's people out there that feel so weak, so inept and insecure in their life that they feel the need to try to belittle people in an online forum. It's funny, but it's also really sad too if you think about it. That somebody's life sucks so bad that they need to try to make fun of people online to make themselves feel better. Funniest thing about it is I think your actually delusional enough to think that you do actually make people feel bad about themselves, well hopefully at least you think so because other wise your REALLY wasting your time lol.

Classic frmLE, when he knows he can't argue what someone's saying based on the merits of the case, attack the messenger.
Don't have an argument? Call the poster stupid. It is so weak minded and really childish.

I theorized that due to the fact that the NHSP searched the cw's trailer after it was towed off his property we can surmise that the NHSP must at least consider the cw a poi in Maura's dissapearance, which is obviously true. They're not going to search the trailer of people who they know, or even really think, had nothing to do with it. What are they going to go waste their time searching something just for the hell of it? I don't think so.
The other thing I theorized is that due to the fact that the NHSP searched his trailer at all means They don't think she committed suicide or that she's lost in the woods. That means they think a crime most likely occurred and that the cw was potentially linked to it.
They couldn't have that much more than a good hunch because otherwise they would have been able to get a search warrant but they clearly had some sort of reason that caused them to take that action. It also means that they were paying attention to the cw enough to know when he towed his trailer down to Lyme and they could now search it..

Clearly frmLE has no legitimate argument to disprove what I'm saying here so, like a 5 year old, he calls me stupid, and hope people believe it. That's m literally the stupidest, most weak minded argument that exists If he had a real argument to disprove what im saying your damn sure he would use it; just like the other nite when he thought I was saying SAR is easy and if she was in the woods she should've been found by now. which I wasn't even really saying but the point is that he had a legitimate argument so he used it. Broke out all the articles, He even showed that sometimes things as big as airplanes even don't get found by ground searches. It was a very strong argument and he clearly proved his point.
On these posts he clearly has no argument to disprove them, and just like a 5-year old who can't admit when he's wrong, he resorts to childish name calling. Your stupid! Waa! Lol

Come on dude, that's the best you got? Lol

Shack wrote:

<quoted text>How cruel and unkind you appear to be. Have you no social graces? Shame on you.

WTH has the "Knack" http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Jwb that's interesting huh?
That's why I asked citi if she was in fact the "observer" or not
I wonder if it was her or someone else, I dont know what to think. I kind of think it wasn't her but possibly someone else from the family, who would quite possibly be posting from the same area. If not Maybe a neighbor or friend or something?

What do you think jwb? Think it's her?
Sounds like the computer expert leone was fairly convinced it was her but it sounded like he was strictly making an assumption based on the fact that citi posted way more than the other 2 posters. That's not definite.

Jwb that's hilarious, bill definitely has the "knack"

The "knack" characterized as a knowledge of all thing mechanical and complete social ineptitude

mom- "will he be able to live a normal life"
Dr- "no, he will be an engineer"
Mom- "Ohhh no!!!"

FrmLE I'd say the craziest thing about your shtick is that you obviously have no idea how truly insane you sound to other people.

What happened? Like 3 months ago you claimed to have taken the information that I posted online and figured out who I really was. So what's the deal??
We're you lying then or are you lying now when you say ask if I'm really an adult??
I suspect your lying now, but either way, you were definitely lying in one of those posts.

Jenkins wrote:

Jwb that's interesting huh?
That's why I asked citi if she was in fact the "observer" or not
I wonder if it was her or someone else, I dont know what to think. I kind of think it wasn't her but possibly someone else from the family, who would quite possibly be posting from the same area. If not Maybe a neighbor or friend or something?
What do you think jwb? Think it's her?
Sounds like the computer expert leone was fairly convinced it was her but it sounded like he was strictly making an assumption based on the fact that citi posted way more than the other 2 posters. That's not definite.

I would only be guessing Jenkins, but I will say this. If someone was getting ready to put out a book and my name was brought into it
in a false way, I would certainly want to speak with the author to clear things up.

Leone clearly took a stab at a name and may be right or maybe wrong. I guess it depends on the source he had to tie the two names together.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
I theorized that due to the fact that the NHSP searched the cw's trailer after it was towed off his property we can surmise that the NHSP must at least consider the cw a poi in Maura's dissapearance, which is obviously true. They're not going to search the trailer of people who they know, or even really think, had nothing to do with it. What are they going to go waste their time searching something just for the hell of it? I don't think so.
The other thing I theorized is that due to the fact that the NHSP searched his trailer at all means They don't think she committed suicide or that she's lost in the woods. That means they think a crime most likely occurred and that the cw was potentially linked to it.

You make to many statements as matter of fact due to LE "due diligence." Its the same thing as me saying : " obviously MM is still alive because why else would they investigate a sighting of her."
I just think LE left no stone unturned.

I would think if they checked the CW trailer than perhaps his sighting of MM 4-5 miles from the crash scene was legitimate. To get 4-5 miles in an hour or so would create a problem for her in the winter with no no shelter or fire prepared. Once she stopped running she wouldn't be able to keep warm.

Jenkins wrote:

FrmLE I'd say the craziest thing about your shtick is that you obviously have no idea how truly insane you sound to other people.
What happened? Like 3 months ago you claimed to have taken the information that I posted online and figured out who I really was. So what's the deal??
We're you lying then or are you lying now when you say ask if I'm really an adult??
I suspect your lying now, but either way, you were definitely lying in one of those posts.

Doesn't sound insane to me. Of course, I have seen some of the same things he has. Had some of the same life and world experiences that he has. I suspect that much of it has to do with experience, which, I suspect from reading your posts, you in particular, have very little, to none.

I find it interesting that we have mentioned some of our experience and education. I don't remember you mentioning all of your vast experience and how you tell us about all the things you "know" yet never relating how you know them. It certainly isn't first hand experience. People with experience and even just common sense find your guesses amusing but hardly useful.

Bill

Actually lighthouse your example is the complete opposite. If they have a working theory that she was murdered but don't have a body they would obviously check out a sighting of her.
That is completely different than searching someone's trailer. They're user no obligation to search anyone's home or previous home. The only reason to take such an action would be to look for evidence of a crime.

I really am not understanding your logic on your second post. Obviously if she got 4-5 miles from the crash site by running she would be in serious danger when she stopped. If they believe his sighting then that would mean that either she died of exposure or got picked up by someone. How could believing that sighting possibly make them want to search his trailer? Unless they think that he picked her up and killed her how could that possibly lead to his trailer being searched?

Seriously, please explain this logic: they believe his sighting, they believe that he saw her running 4-5 miles up the road and didn't pick her up, and she most likely died of exposure. So they search his trailer? How could his trailer possibly contain any evidence that she died of exposure 8 miles up the road? Unless they think that he might have picked her up how could him seeing her runjin miles away possibly lead to them searching his home? I really don't understand that logic at all. Do you really believe that or were you just saying that?

Jenkins wrote:

Jwb that's hilarious, bill definitely has the "knack"
The "knack" characterized as a knowledge of all thing mechanical and complete social ineptitude
mom- "will he be able to live a normal life"
Dr- "no, he will be an engineer"
Mom- "Ohhh no!!!"

You know I laugh at that one also. Of course, I know that I shouldn't tell you this but I am sitting on huge freaking pile of money while I'm laughing. My wife and I are hoping to retire in a few years by age 57 if things go OK.

God I love the knack. One of my sons has inherited it also, he may actually be better at it than me. They had him work here as summer intern and now that school has restarted they have already hired him to work where I am part time. Probably be full time when he graduates. I couldn't be prouder. And I should point out that the social ineptness is largely fallacy, but its belief helps others to deal with the fact they often feel somewhat inferior, kind of out of the technology loop, so to speak. Whether they are or not isn't germane, they appear to often feel that they are and the fantasy that we are somehow inept in other ways makes them feel better about themselves. I've seen it before.

Bill

Jenkins wrote:

The only reason to take such an action would be to look for evidence of a crime.

Again, you have a total lack of understanding about anything related to logic.

The other reason to check the trailer would be..........wait for it......... TO EXCLUDE IT AS HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH MAURA. As well as that can be done with current technology.

Seriously, FrmLE and I should be being payed for the things we are at least trying to teach you. Most of our real students aren't as hard to get through to as you though. Of course they come with open minds trying to actually learn, with the assumption that we know more than they do. Which, we do by the way.

Bill

Jenkins wrote:

Actually lighthouse your example is the complete opposite. If they have a working theory that she was murdered but don't have a body they would obviously check out a sighting of her.
That is completely different than searching someone's trailer. They're user no obligation to search anyone's home or previous home. The only reason to take such an action would be to look for evidence of a crime.
I really am not understanding your logic on your second post. Obviously if she got 4-5 miles from the crash site by running she would be in serious danger when she stopped. If they believe his sighting then that would mean that either she died of exposure or got picked up by someone. How could believing that sighting possibly make them want to search his trailer? Unless they think that he picked her up and killed her how could that possibly lead to his trailer being searched?
Seriously, please explain this logic: they believe his sighting, they believe that he saw her running 4-5 miles up the road and didn't pick her up, and she most likely died of exposure. So they search his trailer? How could his trailer possibly contain any evidence that she died of exposure 8 miles up the road? Unless they think that he might have picked her up how could him seeing her runjin miles away possibly lead to them searching his home? I really don't understand that logic at all. Do you really believe that or were you just saying that?

Didn't RF ex also elude to the fact that he may have been involved? I remember reading that somewhere. Not sure how much truth is behind it etc..

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
The other thing I theorized is that due to the fact that the NHSP searched his trailer at all means They don't think she committed suicide or that she's lost in the woods. That means they think a crime most likely occurred and that the cw was potentially linked to it.

Hi Jenkins. I don't think this is necessarily the case. The way I see it, since they don't have a body or know the cause of death, it is LE's job to follow up on any possible lead. Hasn't it been said that RF had joked about Maura being in his trailer cooking his dinner? Plus the search dog had lost the scent not far from his and SBD's homes. It is my understanding that SBD allowed a search of his property. I would think that LE would want to follow up and search the CW's trailer once they had the opportunity to do so. Not because they necessarily suspect these guys but because it is their job to rule these things out. The same way they would follow up on any possible lead, like a sighting or the A-frame house etc. If they don't follow up on something like this, and then later down the road they find out Maura was killed and this guy did it, then they are opening themselves up to a lawsuit from the family. Just my opinion.

Jenkins wrote:

Seriously, please explain this logic: they believe his sighting, they believe that he saw her running 4-5 miles up the road and didn't pick her up, and she most likely died of exposure. So they search his trailer? How could his trailer possibly contain any evidence that she died of exposure 8 miles up the road? Unless they think that he might have picked her up how could him seeing her runjin miles away possibly lead to them searching his home? I really don't understand that logic at all. Do you really believe that or were you just saying that?

You know Jenkins since everything you have read on this case is so "obvious" I'm surprised you haven't solved this case already.

I can't explain logic to you Jenkins your Truth table is set up with Jenkumptions (Jenkins + Assumptions) and not facts.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
The same way they would follow up on any possible lead, like a sighting or the A-frame house etc.

Amy I was under the impression that the Aframe was a FM thing only. To my knowledge LE never looked into or searched the Aframe.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Jenkins. I don't think this is necessarily the case. The way I see it, since they don't have a body or know the cause of death, it is LE's job to follow up on any possible lead. Hasn't it been said that RF had joked about Maura being in his trailer cooking his dinner? Plus the search dog had lost the scent not far from his and SBD's homes. It is my understanding that SBD allowed a search of his property. I would think that LE would want to follow up and search the CW's trailer once they had the opportunity to do so. Not because they necessarily suspect these guys but because it is their job to rule these things out. The same way they would follow up on any possible lead, like a sighting or the A-frame house etc. If they don't follow up on something like this, and then later down the road they find out Maura was killed and this guy did it, then they are opening themselves up to a lawsuit from the family. Just my opinion.

You made jenkins point by saying "Lead". they didn't search the Mayottes house or the Westmans house. They searched the CW trailor and didn't just do it on a whim.