Maura Murray

Lol, why would I be worried that someone might've searched that idiots ip address??
Search for it all you want, by all means

Mar Shill wrote:

Alden Olsen posts those videos at the expense of a family of a girl who met with tragedy. Why shouldn't his name be posted? What an evil thing to do. His name and information are verifiable in the public record as the poster of those videos, if you look around AND there is independent confirmation that he is the jerk who posted them. What is this right in dignity and privacy to not have his name posted? His deeds are horrendous. Why shouldn't he be exposed?

I've said this before and I'll say it again: there is no evidence that the posted videos were done to taunt Maura's family.

Case in point, the "Happy Anniversary" video with the laughter. Let's say the individual was in fact referring to the anniversary of Maura's disappearance -- this is not proven, mind you, he could have been referring to some anniversary that has nothing to do with Maura and that happens to accidentally fall on the date of her disappearance. But that aside.

What does the video show? It shows a man laughing, laughing, laughing, and then abruptly stopping. To me that reads this way: "Funny, funny, funny ... NOT." And if that was a comment on the 8th anniversary of Maura's disappearance and perhaps referencing this Topix forum where several posters have said that the whole thing is just ENTERTAINMENT, then I agree with the video.

Is this forum entertainment for you? Do you think it's funny ha-ha that a number of people have spent years here trying to work out details and thoughts on what may have happened to Maura ... even if they don't get far, they aren't giving up, is that amusing to some?

Because it seems pretty darn obvious that in the video, the laughing man is making a clear statement, albeit with sarcasm: Some may think it's funny, but it isn't.

Now, if you don't agree with that, if you think Maura's disappearance still being a mystery 8 years later is funny, then I can see why his video disturbs you.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Hey wowzer how do u know 'warning' is using proxy addresses? Did you search his ip or something or was that just an educated guess?
Just wondering, I actually agree with you completely about outing someone's real name, I don't think it's right.
Renner would have more of a right to do that since he is not posting anonymously but I still don't agree, just like I don't agree with people's names being used in the media who've never been convicted of a crime

Jenkins - You have always made comments and assumptions based on LE actions. Do you think if LE really thought foul play they would be all over the man whom made the videos?

That's a good question lighthouse but honestly I can't say because I have no idea if they did anything in reaction to the videos or not, they sure aren't saying. Since we haven't heard anything from beagle concerning this I kind of assume they didn't do anything crazy, but it's also possible they did do something and were able to say something to beagle that scared him enough to not mention it.

The only time LE mentioned the videos was in the first day or two they were posted, calling it a cruel hoax.
Unless they already investigated beagle and eliminated him; and knew for a fact it was him that made the videos then I don't see how it could be possible that they could've already been so sure they were a hoax. I kind of have a feeling that they had already looked into beagle and probably eliminated him.
The video of the ski ticket would have to make them take notice would it not? That places him, or someone he knew in the area at the right time. They had to be interested in how he got that ski pass. Even if they already thought they eliminated him seeing that must have made them think twice about it.

It's almost impossible to infer anything because we have no idea if they did anything or not. The thing is that either way this would be the kind of thin they'd want to keep quiet. Either it's a cruel hoax, or it's actually the killer fucking with the family of his victim. This is not the kind of thing they would ever admit in the news, I suspect that they would've called it a cruel hoax even if they knew it wasn't. Think of the media shitstorm that would come up if it was found that a murderer was using YouTube to taunt the family of a victim. That would be huge news, The NHSP is not going to allow that to happen. That, I suspect, is why they wrote it off so quickly. They aren't going to let anyone think that it could possibly be her murderer even if it is possibly really the guy.

I'm not saying beagle killed Maura but I sure wanna know how the hell he has the Bretton woods pass from two days after. Does that mean he was in the area close to the time she went missing? The video Sure seems to imply that.

But due to the fact that we don't know what they did its almost impossible to infer whether LE thinks foul play from their reactions to these videos. Whether they actually thought it was the killer or not there's no way they would say it, the last thing they would ever say was that it could potentially be the killer using YouTube to taunt a victim's family

This thread sure did go wacky for a day or two.

Par for the course, and all that.

(opens door, peeks in)

Hello?

(no reply)

HELLO?!?

(silence)

Anybody here?

(no response ... room appears deserted ... floor littered with lemons, peanuts and discarded bong)

Oh well ...

(quietly closes door and walks away, bong in hand)

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

This thread sure did go wacky for a day or two.
Par for the course, and all that.

Simply Sarcasm - do you think FM minimizes what happened in the hotel room?

Any thoughts on why renner changed the "abducted" in his latest post to "disappeared"? Does he know something we don't? Or just sensationalism?

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Simply Sarcasm - do you think FM minimizes what happened in the hotel room?

i know you meant for someone else to reply but sorry, YES YES YES.

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>i know you meant for someone else to reply but sorry, YES YES YES.

Its okay it was an open question.

hannah_b wrote:

Any thoughts on why renner changed the "abducted" in his latest post to "disappeared"? Does he know something we don't? Or just sensationalism?

Personally, I thought we established that Renner is a horses ass. It is sensationalism in its absolutely lowest form.

I am certain that he is saving all his "evidence" of an abduction for his highly researched, bold, courageous, book.[/barf]

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Personally, I thought we established that Renner is a horses ass. It is sensationalism in its absolutely lowest form.
I am certain that he is saving all his "evidence" of an abduction for his highly researched, bold, courageous, book.[/barf]
Bill

I haven't decided whether I agree with Renner or not worth what he's doing but I just wanted to ask, didn't everyone know who Beagle was anyway. I feel that his name was already out there? Maybe I'm mistaken?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Personally, I thought we established that Renner is a horses ass. It is sensationalism in its absolutely lowest form.
I am certain that he is saving all his "evidence" of an abduction for his highly researched, bold, courageous, book.[/barf]
Bill

I agree. I believe the strikeout was deliberate, not a mistake. I didn't see the post when it first appeared, but I saw it soon after, and I don't believe the strikeout was a change, it was original and intentional. It is a "hook," a teaser, designed to get the reader interested. Obviously it worked.

In a case such as this, with a missing person and a family still in limbo, I also believe that it is cruel and selfish for Renner to have posted that. I have thought from the beginning that he is only after making a buck. He does not care who he hurts - whether it is Beagle or Fred Murray, it doesn't matter to him - all he cares about is his book, not about finding Maura Murray.

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree. I believe the strikeout was deliberate, not a mistake. I didn't see the post when it first appeared, but I saw it soon after, and I don't believe the strikeout was a change, it was original and intentional. It is a "hook," a teaser, designed to get the reader interested. Obviously it worked.
In a case such as this, with a missing person and a family still in limbo, I also believe that it is cruel and selfish for Renner to have posted that. I have thought from the beginning that he is only after making a buck. He does not care who he hurts - whether it is Beagle or Fred Murray, it doesn't matter to him - all he cares about is his book, not about finding Maura Murray.

I started reading him in the beginning. It became evident to me that he wasn't really covering any new ground, and that the book was self serving. I have heard him release nothing that hasn't been written about before. he has repeated some things heard and still not proven to my knowledge. And I also believe it is irresponsible for him to release anybodies names, just as it is irresponsible for him to "include" things related to Fred and other peoples past, that have no bearing on her case. It isn't being thorough, it's just irresponsible without context to explain why it needed to be released - BEFORE his book, not after. He is doing a great job of shredding Fred, family and friends but, the shredder is an asshole, so what does it matter. I have no feelings for Fred one way or another. I am not convinced he is NOT involved but I see no evidence he is. I do believe he is clearly not telling everything he knows, not only to the public, but likely to the police also. But, Renner is wrong in what he is doing and I have no respect for him or his product. A form of yellow journalism at it's worse. I actually wonder if we are going to see some of our work from Topix in his book, maybe not direct quotes but paraphrased. Again, top notch journalism. Can't wait to see him on the talk circuit.

Bill

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
all he cares about is his book, not about finding Maura Murray.

James Cameron's "Titanic" set world records in the box office. I didn't see him tracking down any of the decendants of the survivors to help them out on tough times. Or when news or History channel shows the twin towers and people jumping out of them do you think they called the family members and asked them for permission to do that. Imagine every year you get to see your mom, dad, uncle, aunt or cousin jumping out of a window that a plane crashed into?

Eight years people have read or watched TV and learned about MM from one perspective. JR feels that he can show another.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I started reading him in the beginning. It became evident to me that he wasn't really covering any new ground, and that the book was self serving. I have heard him release nothing that hasn't been written about before. he has repeated some things heard and still not proven to my knowledge. And I also believe it is irresponsible for him to release anybodies names, just as it is irresponsible for him to "include" things related to Fred and other peoples past, that have no bearing on her case. It isn't being thorough, it's just irresponsible without context to explain why it needed to be released - BEFORE his book, not after. He is doing a great job of shredding Fred, family and friends but, the shredder is an asshole, so what does it matter. I have no feelings for Fred one way or another. I am not convinced he is NOT involved but I see no evidence he is. I do believe he is clearly not telling everything he knows, not only to the public, but likely to the police also. But, Renner is wrong in what he is doing and I have no respect for him or his product. A form of yellow journalism at it's worse. I actually wonder if we are going to see some of our work from Topix in his book, maybe not direct quotes but paraphrased. Again, top notch journalism. Can't wait to see him on the talk circuit.
Bill

Pretty funny. Not ten minutes and Renner's three family members jumped right on my post with x's and other judgement. Must be hitting too close to home I guess.

Bill

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
James Cameron's "Titanic" set world records in the box office. I didn't see him tracking down any of the decendants of the survivors to help them out on tough times. Or when news or History channel shows the twin towers and people jumping out of them do you think they called the family members and asked them for permission to do that. Imagine every year you get to see your mom, dad, uncle, aunt or cousin jumping out of a window that a plane crashed into?
Eight years people have read or watched TV and learned about MM from one perspective. JR feels that he can show another.

Actually didn't think of it like that, might have a point.

Hey WTH who's renner three family members? Who exactly are you talking about? I don't get it

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Hey WTH who's renner three family members? Who exactly are you talking about? I don't get it

Oh Jenkins - your using your phone so you can't see the judgement icons.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Simply Sarcasm - do you think FM minimizes what happened in the hotel room?

You can't pee in the room next door in that hotel without someone hearing you.