Maura Murray

Judged:

2

1

1

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Just me. I really need to state a couple of things for the record. First anyone can be duped. BUT, if you are duped once, twice, three, four, etc.. times, why would you keep playing along? If you are duped, tell everyone that is what happened. She never once said that was the case. And truthfully, if you are continually duped and stupid enough to keep telling people what you were told and relaying it as fact. You are no longer someone who was duped, you are now a co-conspirator and the turds you throw over the wall, are now yours.
Bill

Judged:

2

1

1

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

Just me/Paris: I don't know that I would classify it as taboo. Rather, it's the concern of passing along what we HEARD from another person - it's the rationale behind heresay being inadmissible (except here in Chicago - when you're Drew Peterson. Heh.) Sorry, off-topic. But yes, the reason behind that is simply reliability.
How can you truly vouch for the veracity of a statement you are hearing second-hand? You can't. You can stand by your friend/whomever you hear the statement from. You cannot, however, confirm of what was heard - you weren't there.
(Note: I'm not saying 'you' as in you, personally. Empirically speaking.)
Such things are disproven all the time. Look, Citigirl just disputed something you were told, a few posts up - and I don't think you meant to be deceitful. I think you were told an untruth.

Judged:

3

2

1

just me wrote:

<quoted text>Oh, there we go. Now this makes better sense to me. Thank you again citigirl.
Maybe he just dropped in at some point, made the comment and was led away so that he wouldn't catch wind of the search. I'm not sure how all those people could keep it from him, and/but I just find that highly doubtful. Just being honest and I know it doesn't seem to matter to many here what I have to say because who cares, right?
I only spent several months talking in person and over the phone with one of the former "investigaters"
I should really go take up , hmmmm, knitting?
Not directed at you citi, just a side comment and only OMPEWBOSB

Judged:

2

1

1

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>I was personally there the weekend of the 2006 spoke with PIs that weekend as well as before and after the search. Fred and family were not involved in the AFrame search. Family was in the lodge while searches were conducted and Fred was not in the area and unaware the AFrame was being searched There was a map of areas to be searched by PIs. None of us knew the AFrame was going to be searched until right before it happened.

Judged:

3

1

1

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>I was personally there the weekend of the 2006 spoke with PIs that weekend as well as before and after the search. Fred and family were not involved in the AFrame search. Family was in the lodge while searches were conducted and Fred was not in the area and unaware the AFrame was being searched There was a map of areas to be searched by PIs. None of us knew the AFrame was going to be searched until right before it happened.

Judged:

4

3

2

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
It shouldn't matter Amy.Com mon sense tells me that if it was MM's blood then the house would have been torn apart and police all over it. I believe the people that lived there would have been arrested. It didn't happen so what does that say?
Bringing up peoples real names and even addresses has been going on since the very first MM forum.
To my knowledge the aframe was never searched by LE. I would think if anything was found that pertained to a crime then it would have been roped off with police tape.
For all we know whoever lived there might have had a female dog that was in heat and dropped blood on the floor of closet. There's only been hearsay about the knife, a-frame and the people that lived in the a-frame.
Oh and it was mentioned to whiston before that it was wrong to use real names but yet he continues.

Judged:

2

2

2

just me wrote:

<quoted text>Oh hi mcsmom. I'm not sure I know what you mean, but it's good to see you none the less ;)
I'm sure you know what I mean because I've talked with you over the phone before too, but I've decided to let it go.

Judged:

2

2

2

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
It was Claude's brother that supposedly died according to Hannah.
***Does anyone know who brought the knife to MM's father claiming his brother may be involved, and how he died?
It was Claude Moulton´s brother and IIRC he died of cancer.***

Judged:

8

7

6

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Habeus corpus is the law that says you are entitled to a speedy trial, generally within a year. If they brought charges just having blood and no body they would lose. As soon as they brought those charges they would basically have a year to find her body or they're beat.

Judged:

5

5

5

just me wrote:

<quoted text>I'm on a roll, a regular human tape worm at work. In re-reading before i go, I noticed something. That "person" we are referring to made a one time comment out of sheer horror and decided to post it, in reply to something pertinant that had JUST been posted.
I have no doubt where it came from. My point is this,~ that "person" never said it again. She will not come back with an explanation, she hasn't repeated it, and thus your "arguement" is not a good one, at least to me. She must have decided to eat those words, JMO.
Like it or lump it, some people actually did have talks that may have escaped your attention and/or your attendance.
I've noticed more than a few times you are all too ready to condemn something that I and others do know. Asking a person to explain (if only they would), might be a good idea if you want to be completely accurate with your bullshit meter.

Judged:

3

3

3

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I am starting to loose who we are talking about. To many shes, and theys. I am only writing about one person. I have paid pretty close attention on these forums. I know the history pretty well. If you think things that she said simply because they were relayed to her through third or fourth parties makes a difference then you are wrong. The burden of responsibility is not on me to ask people who spread bullshit why they want to do it. I should also point out that myself and others had tried for months with her to get her to see reason. She never wanted to. After a certain point the only thing I and some others felt responsible for was to prevent the spread of her bullshit. If she had something more to say, she should say it. That is the way adults play. To this day, she has offered no explanation, no contrition, no reason why she said anything she said. Nor did she ever offer up that there was a "source" reliable or otherwise. Principled people don't act that way. Honorable people don't act that way. People with scruples don't act that way. If she had an "explanation" she would have been wise to offer it. She had no trouble throwing what were loads of crap out there, why would she be shy in offering an excuse as to why she posted it. And again, why does someone repeatedly pass along bullshit? Co-conspirator is a word that comes to my mind. If you want to be the mouthpiece for people who spread crap, have the courage to confront the source when you are told what you are saying is bullshit. Otherwise you are just as responsible.
Also alluding to the mysterious person who died that was her source. Who are we talking about? There have been several people who have died over the course of these forums. Why does it matter, if the source was full of shit? Somehow Shack was less culpable because she was just the willing conduit for the bullshit. I don't think so. Especially when she was repeatedly told over and over what damage it was doing. And we need to be more specific as to what load of crap we are talking about. There were many. Oh, and pointing the finger at me is cute. I might have been pretty vocal but I was not the only one who recognized what she was writing as high quality bullshit. Others, some of them her "friends" also tried to explain to her what damage that she was doing. I had a couple of her friends email me they tried to get her to stop. They thought what she was doing was wrong, etc. Wouldn't listen to them either.
Keep opening this can of worms more. We can talk about where this investigation might be if she didn't poison the area so completely. If people didn't think they were going to get the examination that others got online, we would have to ask, might others have come forth with information? Not only would I likely not stop in that area to help someone, if I ever did, I sure as hell wouldn't tell anyone about it. I'd have to have brain damage to tell anyone, knowing she was going to start posting about it in the manner she did. Think others are out there with information feel the same way?
Bill

Judged:

3

3

3

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
WTH wrote:***Also alluding to the mysterious person who died that was her source. Who are we talking about?***
Bill I believe she is talking about Beth (silky boxers), You know the one that came up here taking pictures and claimed the wobble head doll or some such toy she found in the woods a couple of towns away had something to do with the disappearance. She was shacks friend and visited her at her place up here.
I found some places on the internet where she had posted to some time ago and all I'll say is that IMHO she had some serious issues and was certainly not a reliable source for information.

Judged:

4

3

3

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmmm, perhaps you should go back to the 'federal agent' academy and ask for your money back. None of this is true, you clearly have no clue how a criminal investigation is conducted, you are just so clueless.
I STRONGLY SUGGEST that anyone who reads jerky jenkins long winded rants and 'fantasy theories' to take every thing he says with a huge grain of salt. He really and truly has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
As I have said before, buyer beware.

Judged:

1

1

1

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Keep opening this can of worms more. We can talk about where this investigation might be if she didn't poison the area so completely. If people didn't think they were going to get the examination that others got online, we would have to ask, might others have come forth with information? Not only would I likely not stop in that area to help someone, if I ever did, I sure as hell wouldn't tell anyone about it. I'd have to have brain damage to tell anyone, knowing she was going to start posting about it in the manner she did. Think others are out there with information feel the same way?
Bill

Judged:

2

2

1

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I have made mention to this before a couple posts back, but will do so again. After the way the Aframe was handled why would anyone want to allow searches on their property? Why would anyone risk harm to their good name when searchers or family members can make any statements online or in the newspaper?
In my opinion if MM took a ride chances are she took a ride from a stranger who could have dropped her off somewhere. I doubt anyone would come out with any information now the way everything has or is being handled. Imagine if someone remembers their parent coming home late for dinner that night because they saw someone on the road who needed a ride to Bartlett, or some neighboring town. Do you think they would be quick to offer this tip?

Judged:

5

4

4

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Maybe you could gift us with an explanation as to how that is untrue?