Maura Murray

Ridiculous wrote:

I'm curious; Renner just posted here a few day's ago and no one tried to draw him into any type of debate concerning his blog or opinions. So many people here have made so many strong statements concerning him and his agenda.Some of you are very knowledgeable and also unafraid of confrontation, so.....why no debate?

I've gone back and forth with Renner via email several times and voiced my opinions/concerns/disagreement s with him that way under my real name. I prefer a direct conversation to forum banter whenever possible as it's usually more productive.

I appreciate your point Amy, however, I was very surprised that no one attempted to create a debate in this forum. I would have been interested to see the dynamic between multiple participants. Whether you like James or not, he certainly isn't afraid to go head to head with anyone and there are people here who have the knowledge and intelligence to create a great debate with him. I'm certainly not one of them, but, I'd be happy to moderate..... ; )

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
The correct spelling is:
Registry, not registery.
Vehicle, not vehichle.
Just saying, it is a fun game to play. Shall we continue? Is it your turn now?

yes its my turn now. Ive never claimed to be a good speller. But I did spell vehicle right twice in my posting.

Lmao.. Yall havin a spellin b now?..

Hey Shack, we have been waiting. Just in case you are going to make one of your infamous post midnight appearances. Please note the questions that have been placed in front of you. Feel free to tell everyone the answers and don't worry. If you can't get the answers tonight. I'll keep asking.

So what about it Shack? You have had almost nine years to hide, evade, misdirect, and otherwise obfuscate anything to do with this case. When do the townspeople get to hold a mirror up to you? Or doesn't this little witch hunt you started include you?

Bill

Ridiculous wrote:

I'm curious; Renner just posted here a few day's ago and no one tried to draw him into any type of debate concerning his blog or opinions. So many people here have made so many strong statements concerning him and his agenda.Some of you are very knowledgeable and also unafraid of confrontation, so.....why no debate?

Good question.

Ridiculous wrote:

I appreciate your point Amy, however, I was very surprised that no one attempted to create a debate in this forum. I would have been interested to see the dynamic between multiple participants. Whether you like James or not, he certainly isn't afraid to go head to head with anyone and there are people here who have the knowledge and intelligence to create a great debate with him. I'm certainly not one of them, but, I'd be happy to moderate..... ; )

Who would debate him and for what reason? The only people who would debate him would be the ones who follow the Pied Piper. And since those people are more concerned with spelling and proper grammar I doubt it would be much fun to watch.

Even the Pied Piper herself has become more of a one-liner than anything else.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>yes its my turn now. Ive never claimed to be a good speller. But I did spell vehicle right twice in my posting.

Still waiting on your response to Renners question about the photos. I have said it before and will suggest it again. At this point nothing good can come of you being here. More questions will be asked and you won't be able to answer and it won't look good. I strongly suggest you go into read only mode.

James W Renner wrote:

<quoted text>Good question.

Frankly, I think we understand that your site is at a stagnation point and that is why you are over here looking for something to jump start your book. Believe me, if I wanted to be over on your site to "discuss" something I would be over there. I suspect that everyone else knows the way over there also if they had interest. I find virtually nothing you have "found" to be new or useful.

And please don't consider this to be the start of a "discussion". It isn't. It's just an explanation why there is no discussion to be had.

Bill

Ridiculous wrote:

I'm curious; Renner just posted here a few day's ago and no one tried to draw him into any type of debate concerning his blog or opinions. So many people here have made so many strong statements concerning him and his agenda.Some of you are very knowledgeable and also unafraid of confrontation, so.....why no debate?

I wrote a lengthy tome directed to him, and my computer crashed. I haven't got the energy to recreate at the moment, but hopefully will later.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
Really Jenky?
Lt. Scarinza, retired NH F Troop Commander and lead investigator maura murray case.
From 2011
"I've said this all along: My sense is that Maura's original intent when she left Massachusetts was to come to the North Country to get away from something that was occurring in her life down there. I take into consideration the family's thought that she was coming up to kill herself. But what was the initial catalyst to make her want to do that? And what happened when she got here? My sense is that she is not still alive."

Orky- yes really.
You often refer to LE either keeping things hidden from the public or saying things that might not neccesarily be true in order to mislead the public.
Example: you seem to think they found some sort of suicide note, or draft of said note, on her computer. Even though they've specifically said that there was no suicide note, you say they want to keep this from the public for good reasons, I don't think any of those reasons make sense but that doesn't really matter.
But then you constantly refer to them saying there's no evidence of foul play as if that should be believed. Well if they would lie about finding a suicide note why wouldn't they lie about any evidence of foul play? It actually makes much more sense for them to lie about foul play than suicide if you really think about it. There is basically no logical reason to keep any sort of suicide note hidden, this in no way could be related to a crime and couldn't harm any potential prosecution that could be comin down the road.
On the other hand they could have damn good reasons to lie about the existence of evidence of foul play. Think about it,; if they have a suspect, or suspects, which it appears they do; or at least did at one point. During the court case they specifically mention people from the community that are well known. These people are clearly at least poi's, if not suspects; or were at one point These people's family owns a rather large business. Well LE has apparently been denied permission to search their property. LE was supposedly denied a search warrant for the property as well, apparently the NHSP wanted to run a ground penetrating radar over a concrete slab that was poured on the property in the days or weeks following Maura's dissapearance.
So LE needs more probable cause to obtain a warrant. Basically at this point they need this person/people to make a mistake that would give them probable cause. If this is the situation, and it appears that very well could be, wouldn't it make sense that LE would try to play down the foul play angle? Maybe Play it down as an attempt to let the poi become relaxed and make a mistake? If this person knows LE thinks foul play they might be extra careful to not make a mistake. It would make sense that LE wouldn't want these people to think that they're on them, hopefully they might let their guard down.
I just don't understand the logic behind thinking that they're lying about the existence of a suicide note on the computer but they're telling the truth when they say there's no evidence of foul play. IMO it would make way more sense to lie about the foul play than the suicide note. Not only could it maybe get the poi to let his guard down, it also looks better in the eyes of the public. If they came out and said that there was evidence of foul play then they would look really really bad if they never make an arrest. The NHSP would NEVER do that, they won't admit there's evidence of foul play until someone is in cuffs? Do you really think the NHSP would come out and say there's evidence of foul play, there's been a murderer on the loose for the past 8 years and we can't do anything about it? No way in hell is that gonna happen, no way. NEVER gonna happen.

Cont'd:

This also pertains to the quote by scarinza you posted above. His quote is actually misleading if you think about it. He says "the family's thought that she was coming up to kill herself". This isn't exactly true, the family never said that and it doesn't appear they thought it either. Fred may have thought suicide, Fred is apparently the only one in the family who ever said anything like that and even he says that LE was in a sense exaggerating what he said in reference to suicide. It's pretty clear that the family initially thought she ran away and then thought she got abducted when she never turned up. The family never thought she came up NH to kill herself, Fred may have initially thought that but even that is up for debate.
So what scarinza is saying there is clearly not entirely accurate, so why would he say that? Maybe once again to make the public think she may have killed herself. Remember: if the public thinks she killed herself then they won't be as critical of the NHSP for not solving the case. If the public thinks she killed herself then they're not worried about a killer on the loose among them. If they think there's a killer on the loose and the NHSP can't catch him then they are going to lose a lot of faith in the NHSP. The NHSP is not going to allow that to happen. Again, they are NEVER going to admit there's evidence of foul play until there is someone in cuffs, not gonna happen.

The NHSP has many good reasons to lie about evidence of foul play and make everyone think she may have killed herself. I'm really tryin to think about it but I can't think of one good reason or them to lie about the existence of a suicide note on her computer. They don't have to come out and say that because of the note they think she definitely killed herself, but telling the public that it exists would sure make their job a lot easier and it would seriously eliminate a lot of potential critisism.
For the life of me I can't understand how you can really think that they would lie about finding a suicide note or draft on her computer but you think they're telling the truth when they say there's no evidence of foul play. That just seems like truly backwards logic, that sounds like you are letting your theory dictate the evidence rather than the evidence dictate the theory.

Wth,

That last post from James W Renner wasn't actually the James Renner.

Ridiculous wrote:

Wth,
That last post from James W Renner wasn't actually the James Renner.

If you say so, but it really doesn't matter.

Bill

Ridiculous wrote:

Wth,
That last post from James W Renner wasn't actually the James Renner.

James posted a couple of days ago but he isn't going to come back to this forum to debate anyone he has nothing to gain. He made his point already.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
James posted a couple of days ago but he isn't going to come back to this forum to debate anyone he has nothing to gain. He made his point already.

Point? He threw out a couple of veiled accusations and asked a couple of questions? Says that detectives and the DA talked to him about an open case?

I'm really not sure what his point was regarding Maura's case. I mean someone claims to have found something in an abandoned house. Shocking. I remember all sorts of people using abandoned houses in the neighborhood I grew up in. I even remember people scavenging items found in abandoned houses. Collecting them up, putting them together to take, sometimes forgotten and left behind.

Again, what is his point? If he wants to make an accusation, he should make it. Personally, I believe he is on a fishing expedition.

You are correct, he has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, what is his point? If he wants to make an accusation, he should make it. Personally, I believe he is on a fishing expedition.
You are correct, he has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Bill

Maybe I was wrong about using the word "point". His comment he made has no solid facts right now to back them up.

What he did do was direct the post to citigirl. With citigirl being considered a family "insider" - by writing her directly and asking her a question it puts her on the spot. If she doesn't answer the question the way readers are hoping for he looks like he gained creditability.

I did ask JR if FM didn't sit down with LE because he was avoiding them, or if LE didn't ask him to sit down until after two years. A big difference.

I have written citigirl about this because she can easily be targeted again by JR on any topic she writes. He can use the same strategy.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe I was wrong about using the word "point". His comment he made has no solid facts right now to back them up.
What he did do was direct the post to citigirl. With citigirl being considered a family "insider" - by writing her directly and asking her a question it puts her on the spot. If she doesn't answer the question the way readers are hoping for he looks like he gained creditability.
I did ask JR if FM didn't sit down with LE because he was avoiding them, or if LE didn't ask him to sit down until after two years. A big difference.
I have written citigirl about this because she can easily be targeted again by JR on any topic she writes. He can use the same strategy.

Just so you know, I wasn't arguing with you and I saw what you wrote. Also I see no reason why citigirl would reply. She can if she wants but I don't know why she would. I don't think a reasonable person could expect her to reply. How could she: 1. know if what Renner is saying is true. 2. Be able to know who put the items that Renner claims to have found where they were in an abandoned house. 3. Be able to speak towards the motive of another like Renner wants her to. Based on those things, I don't see any reason or ability for citigirl to make any answer for Renner, nor would it be smart to try in my opinion. Again, it appears to be a fishing expedition to me.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Just so you know, I wasn't arguing with you and I saw what you wrote. Also I see no reason why citigirl would reply. She can if she wants but I don't know why she would. I don't think a reasonable person could expect her to reply. How could she: 1. know if what Renner is saying is true. 2. Be able to know who put the items that Renner claims to have found where they were in an abandoned house. 3. Be able to speak towards the motive of another like Renner wants her to. Based on those things, I don't see any reason or ability for citigirl to make any answer for Renner, nor would it be smart to try in my opinion. Again, it appears to be a fishing expedition to me.
Bill

I didn't think you were arguing with me.

If she does answer I will try to get Candy Crowley to moderate the debate in a fare format. She could help just incase we needed any fact checking.

I agree with your points. I think Bill could have given him a bit of a whooping though!