Maura Murray

just me wrote:

To clarify, The page exposed my Ip and Helena was able to see that. I don't know how she could do the comparison, and to what she compared that info. But it sounds like what people are talking about here.
I know my email was taken and used to IM me by someone working closely on that forum, so private info can be gained when you have backround access.

That is not unusual and many sites even have a little application on the bottom of the page that will even tell you what your IP is. The point is, that is just your IP. Do you know if the person who IM'd you, actually knew your name and other information? I'm not saying they didn't, I'm asking. If they did, did they get it from your IM screen name? If your screen name was yellowButtercup they still might NOT know anything about you. If on the other hand it is sallyksmith and they know that your server IP is in Oshkosh and a sally k. smith shows up living in and internet search in East Oshkosh, they might know. Not arguing with you, just seeing if we can allay some of the worries you and others might be having.

Bill

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Very interesting. Thanks for answering. Turning the info over to LE sounds like the responsible thing to do. If I owned a site and this happened on my site, I would turn the info to LE also.
The disturbing part to me is that it was posted on Renner's blog along with second-hand information revealing citigirl's supposed real name. If Ben did not intend to implicate citigirl in this, and this information is in fact false, then I hope he has written to Renner with a correction. Although I think it is ultimately Renner's responsibility to fact-check and not publish incorrect info in the first place, I also think it's rather mean to let the incorrect information sit there and not attempt to correct it before it appears in a book. Just my opinion.

I reread the JR post. He technically doesn't say that observer is citygirl. He makes mention that citigirl is one of two other names that originate from that servers location. Now how many people are actually on this forum in the whole country, and what are the odds that three of them happen to be coming from one location?

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I reread the JR post. He technically doesn't say that observer is citygirl. He makes mention that citigirl is one of two other names that originate from that servers location. Now how many people are actually on this forum in the whole country, and what are the odds that three of them happen to be coming from one location?

Not necessarily unusual. For example, I might ask one or more local people whose opinion I valued to join in the discussion on this forum because I wanted their take on this or that, and their locations would probably indicate Phoenix but they would not be me. Given that Maura was from MA in the first place, it just wouldn't be that odd for more people in MA to have an interest. If their server is their phone company and the nearest phone company server is in Taunton or N Attleboro, that's where the IP would lead to generally even if they don't actually live in those towns/cities.(I think that's right)

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I reread the JR post. He technically doesn't say that observer is citygirl. He makes mention that citigirl is one of two other names that originate from that servers location. Now how many people are actually on this forum in the whole country, and what are the odds that three of them happen to be coming from one location?

Like I said:
"There are valid ways to get a general location of the server but, it will NOT tell you a specific individual and there is no reason to even believe that the server is necessarily located in the same town as the user. Without more information, it is not possible to get information on the specific user."

So the short answer is Renner is full of s**t if he suggests that and doesn't have lots more to back up that he knows it's a specific individual from "information" in the IP. That sever group could represent tens if not hundreds of thousands of possible people.

And again Advocator, I believe your analysis (24259) is spot on for what that is worth.

Bill

Shoot -- meant to also add that it is most likely that "Observer" used a proxy server located in Taunton. In which case, "Observer" could have lived anywhere at all.

And I'm going to add that I personally can't see any purpose for a member of Maura's family to put up that Geocities web page saying she is in Canada. If they know where Maura is, what would be the point of continuing to post here and run another forum directed at searching for her? That would be a lot of time and energy for no good reason. They could simply say "She's been found, she wants her privacy, the End."

Advocator wrote:

<quoted text>
If their server is their phone company and the nearest phone company server is in Taunton or N Attleboro, that's where the IP would lead to generally even if they don't actually live in those towns/cities.(I think that's right)

You could be right, but if there only three others from where citigirl's posting then its a 33.3% chance. So I think Renner's post of mentioning it could be her isn't wrong. If you want to debate that maybe he shouldn't have posted it that is a fair arguement to make, but you can't rule out that it isn't her. In my opinion there is a 1 in 3 chance.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
You could be right, but if there only three others from where citigirl's posting then its a 33.3% chance. So I think Renner's post of mentioning it could be her isn't wrong. If you want to debate that maybe he shouldn't have posted it that is a fair arguement to make, but you can't rule out that it isn't her. In my opinion there is a 1 in 3 chance.

I'm not particularly into statistics of this type, I tend to go with 50-50%-- i.e., either it IS or it ISN'T. But I think you can't say there is a 1 in 3 chance that "Observer" was "Citigirl", because there are likely thousands with the same IP address in the Taunton/N Attleboro area and "Observer" could have been any one of those thousands, not to mention the proxy server possibility (a strong possibility). Over the years, it has not been a rare thing for someone to come on Topix or into a forum and make one post and then never again. Further, poster "Observer" might have deliberately used a Taunton server (as a proxy, or gone to a library there) precisely to point a finger at the one known family member (Citigirl) so as to "authenticate" the Geocities webpage information.

.

Advocator wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not particularly into statistics of this type, I tend to go with 50-50%-- i.e., either it IS or it ISN'T. But I think you can't say there is a 1 in 3 chance that "Observer" was "Citigirl", because there are likely thousands with the same IP address in the Taunton/N Attleboro area and "Observer" could have been any one of those thousands, not to mention the proxy server possibility (a strong possibility). Over the years, it has not been a rare thing for someone to come on Topix or into a forum and make one post and then never again. Further, poster "Observer" might have deliberately used a Taunton server (as a proxy, or gone to a library there) precisely to point a finger at the one known family member (Citigirl) so as to "authenticate" the Geocities webpage information.
.

I've just read WTH's post and this post and you make sense to me. I apologize for the misinformation. I can't delete the previous post.

Advocator wrote:

Shoot -- meant to also add that it is most likely that "Observer" used a proxy server located in Taunton. In which case, "Observer" could have lived anywhere at all.
And I'm going to add that I personally can't see any purpose for a member of Maura's family to put up that Geocities web page saying she is in Canada. If they know where Maura is, what would be the point of continuing to post here and run another forum directed at searching for her? That would be a lot of time and energy for no good reason. They could simply say "She's been found, she wants her privacy, the End."

Why do you say that it is most likely that Observer used a Proxy? Do you have info that backs this up?

If Advocate and leone were the two people who were privy to the report on the IP address then one can presume with high certainty that one of these two individuals emailed Renner with the information. It is highly doubtful it was LE.

Granny M wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you say that it is most likely that Observer used a Proxy? Do you have info that backs this up?

No, I have no info to absolutely support whether or not "Observer" used a proxy. However, it was obvious that "Observer" didn't want to reveal who he or she was, never posted again, and chances are pretty decent that a proxy server was used. I'm not saying a proxy was absolutely used, just that the chances are good -- my opinion only.

Advocator wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I have no info to absolutely support whether or not "Observer" used a proxy. However, it was obvious that "Observer" didn't want to reveal who he or she was, never posted again, and chances are pretty decent that a proxy server was used. I'm not saying a proxy was absolutely used, just that the chances are good -- my opinion only.

Maybe Observer only posting once had something to do with Masons post after the fact that scared he/she off. You know the post I am talking about Advocate? I believe it was Mason.

Advocator wrote:

<quoted text>No, I have no info to absolutely support whether or not "Observer" used a proxy. However, it was obvious that "Observer" didn't want to reveal who he or she was, never posted again, and chances are pretty decent that a proxy server was used. I'm not saying a proxy was absolutely used, just that the chances are good -- my opinion only.

Be careful Advocator. You must talk to granny very gently. She scares very easily.

Bill

JWB wrote:

If Advocate and leone were the two people who were privy to the report on the IP address then one can presume with high certainty that one of these two individuals emailed Renner with the information. It is highly doubtful it was LE.

I don't know that I was the only person who saw the report, I don't think I asked who else might have seen it. It's possible that LE might share something like that with Renner, especially if LE didn't think it had any or much relevance, but I don't know.

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe Observer only posting once had something to do with Masons post after the fact that scared he/she off. You know the post I am talking about Advocate? I believe it was Mason.

No, don't know which Mason post you mean -- I'd have to go look.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Be careful Advocator. You must talk to granny very gently. She scares very easily.
Bill

Bill- you certainly know how to treat a lady.

Okay, just went and looked at the post by Mason, and I agree with you that might be why "Observer" only posted once.

Advocator wrote:

<quoted text>
No, don't know which Mason post you mean -- I'd have to go look.

I can repost it

Advocate, this is the post I was referring to.

"WARNING:PLEASE READ CAREFULLY."

"I disengaged from posting, but have continued to monitor postings here and the forumner site. Several recent developments have disturbed me so much that I cannot let them pass without comment. I’m speaking now in my official capacity as a lawyer and officer of the court.

Beginning on April 8th in two threads on the Amherst Topix site and continuing through the weekend on this site (with this message) and the Franconia Topix site, several messages were posted purportedly by different people stating Maura Murray is alive and well and living in Canada. I have hoped and prayed for her to be alive and one of the reasons that I stopped posting was my concern to respect her privacy, particularly her reasons for disappearing and deciding to remain disappeared. Her reasons are not my business. Of course, I want to know, but I don’t need to know. If Maura is alive, she gets to decide whether, when, how much, to whom, and under what circumstances to disclose information.

If the information about Maura being alive is true, please contact the New Hampshire State Police so they can verify it without violating her privacy and close their investigation.

If the information is false, the person or persons responsible have obstructed the New Hampshire State Police investigation of her disappearance. This is a criminal investigation. If Maura was murdered, the person who would derive the greatest benefit from the recent posts is the person who killed her. Seriously, if anyone filed a post falsely claiming Maura was alive, that person needs to immediately consult with a lawyer because a felonyoffense may have been committed. You also may have placed yourself in jeopardy to be arrested and charged with her murder.

WARNING: THIS IS A MINEFIELD. REVEALING INFORMATION ABOUT MAURA’S WHEREABOUTS WOULD VIOLATE HER PRIVACY AND, DEPENDING ON HER REASON FOR DISAPPEARING, COULD RESULT IN HER SUFFERING PHYSICAL HARM OR DEATH. IF SHE WAS MURDERED, FALSE STATEMENTS THAT SHE’S ALIVE COULD RESULT IN BEING CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND POSSIBLY MURDER.

HIDING BEHIND AN ALIAS ON THE INTERNET ISN'T GOING TO PREVENT POLICE FROM IDENTIFYING YOU.[/b]"

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
I can repost it

I found it. Also, I should add here that I misspoke when I said that Mason had nothing to do with checking out "Observer", as in going back to the old forum I see he did make some contact with Ben Franklynn about it at the time. Didn't remember that, and don't recall or know to what extent Mason might have followed up. Further reading on that forum might give an indication, I don't have time to do that just now.