Maura Murray

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
Emmett, I just want to point out something. It was not Lighthouse who started that whole thing, it was Jenkins. He was the one who brought your name into it, comparing your past to Maura's credit card theft.
<quoted text>
and
<quoted text>
He posted both of those before Lighthouse made any comments. If you're going to blame somebody for starting that ruckus, blame Jenkins.
And for what it's worth, this is a public forum and we can say whatever the heck we want to say. MM or her family members don't own it. I will not say bad things about MM, but stating facts about her is just fine. A person who steals another person's credit card and uses it, even just once, to purchase anything, is a thief. Using it just once could possibly be chalked up to being a silly kid, but a 21 year-old woman is not a kid. She knew fully what she was doing and she did it more than once that we know about, six times according to the police report, over a period of time, and she was in the process of another theft when she was arrested. She was arrestedfor , prosecuted for, and admitted to, THEFT. To call Maura Murray a thief is a true statement, known as a fact. Maura Murray was a thief, and to say that is not being mean, it is the truth. That fact may or may not have bearing on her disappearance, and should be discussed. Emmett was simply stating the truth here, and for Jenkins to call him out on it and then compare Emmett's past to Maura's was uncalled for and mean.

That is quite a reach if I have ever seen one. But nice try. Jenkins brought up his past to make a point and it was not mean spirited in the least. He in essence said that ED should not be considered a criminal for what appears to be an honest mistake. How can you interpret that as antagonistic? Do you actually read the material that you are quoting?

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Citi is definitely a family member and she's actually willing to come on forums and share much if what she knows, obviously not all but a lot of it.

Here we go again. Now Bob KNOWS that citigirl is a relative. I suspect she is a relative but he KNOWS. DEFINITELY! Excellent. he must have checked her credentials. His repeatedly keen insight leaves me feeling much better about this. I've yet to see him incorrect about anything. Oh wait, there have been a few things. Anyway.

And the family, as always, shares only what they want. Yep, it is their right. But, along with all the pointless windmilling, one has to wonder. How much is known to the family? How much is just them just using the participants to keep going 'round and 'round with this site. Creating a continuous buzz, if you will.

So when I am absent from some of these windmill sessions, and you are windmilling to beat the band, I am here. I am reading, sometimes laughing hysterically. Ooooooh look. They are going over the phone call "evidence" again. Ooooooh look, they are now discussing the "person" spotted running down the road again. Is it Maura, isn't it Maura? I forget, what was the consensus?

What is the next great rabbit that they are going to pull out of their hats.... maybe the trailer hitch redo, or the car not going into the trees for the ninetieth time??? I expect great things here.

And of course I see some people trying to keep the facts straight. That is good. I certainly am getting tired of doing it. I see more reading and less participation in my future. As long as dumb posts are kept in check. I really don't care who does it. At this point, I actually wonder if keeping the remarkably stupid posts in check is useful. I mean maybe just letting Bob go nuts with the "truth" would certainly be more entertaining. I don't think even he could screw up the real investigation. I think he has been checked out and the police see him for what he is.

This last week has been exceptional. Coverage of things covered twenty times before, no new input from the family, nothing new from police, not knowing if the family knows more than we do or not. Oh wait, that has been true the last, going on, nine years. If they do know. Then what is the point of the mindless regurgitation of the same limited information, especially if they know the correct answer? Of course other than entertainment I mean, in particular if they actually know the answer. Anyway, carry on. The breeze from here is spectacular.

Bill

I look forward to Bob again, not being able to figure out how this post is relevant. ie. "What the hell are you talking about" Not surprising he isn't smart enough to understand the question, let alone provide an answer.

elphalba wrote:

<quoted text>
That is quite a reach if I have ever seen one. But nice try. Jenkins brought up his past to make a point and it was not mean spirited in the least. He in essence said that ED should not be considered a criminal for what appears to be an honest mistake. How can you interpret that as antagonistic? Do you actually read the material that you are quoting?

elphalba wrote:***He in essence said that ED should not be considered a criminal for what appears to be an honest mistake.***
And I totally agree. If I'm carrying my handgun and I forget I've got it with me and happen to drive over a short bridge into VT to get milk at the Jiffy Mart I could be arrested for carrying the gun out of state.And yes I would consider that an honest mistake on my part.
On the other hand if I went to visit a friend and took her credit card when she wasn't looking and bought groceries on the way home then I would consider myself a THIEF.
Jenkins was trying to compare someone that made an honest mistake to someone that knew exactly what they were doing and was smart enough to know it was against the law but did it anyway.You can't compare apples to oranges and to bring Emmetts past into it was unnecessary IMHO.

Bill,

Isn't it amazing? People were jumping out of the woodwork! I told you it would go to hell if you bailed! Lighthouse and Wowzer and a few others tried to keep things in check but it just got out of hand.
I'm still pretty new here and even I have been through the whole cycle two or three times already. Even Emmett is getting a little testy!

Lol.. Not testy, just my name keeps getting brought up & compared.. This forums not about me.. It was my opinion on a subject & I think it got a lil out of hand..

I dont post nothing or anyway like I did back in feb.. I took the cursing out & generally try to be nice.. Either way, besides my name, I thought lighthouse & I had a decent lil debate & have no hard feelings to her at all..

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
elphalba wrote:***He in essence said that ED should not be considered a criminal for what appears to be an honest mistake.***
And I totally agree. If I'm carrying my handgun and I forget I've got it with me and happen to drive over a short bridge into VT to get milk at the Jiffy Mart I could be arrested for carrying the gun out of state.And yes I would consider that an honest mistake on my part.
On the other hand if I went to visit a friend and took her credit card when she wasn't looking and bought groceries on the way home then I would consider myself a THIEF.
Jenkins was trying to compare someone that made an honest mistake to someone that knew exactly what they were doing and was smart enough to know it was against the law but did it anyway.You can't compare apples to oranges and to bring Emmetts past into it was unnecessary IMHO.

Don't get me started. There are over 22,500 laws governing firearms in this country. I have permits for NH and CT and yet, I need to have my handgun locked in a lock box to go through MA. Even doing the best one can do it is easy, too easy to make a mistake that can screw you over while carrying a handgun. It shouldn't be that way and it is easy for an honest law abiding citizen to get in trouble because of a jurisdictional change that they might not be aware of. It sucks when it makes a law abiding citizen, like Emmett a criminal. And using someone else's credit card, is against the law in all 50 states and the territories of the US as far as I know. So it is apples and oranges, a simple mistake made by an honest citizen unaware of the laws in another state, and someone knowingly and willingly breaking the law, with the fraudulent use of a credit card. Can't compare the two.

So yes, it makes her a thief. She is young and there is speculation about what happened at WP. Was this a pattern, or was it a serious, one time lapse in judgement that might not of ever happened again? I don't know. Like I have always told my kids, trust is a very hard thing to get back once your proven untrustworthy. Easily lost, extremely hard to regain.

Bill

Ridiculous wrote:

Bill,
Isn't it amazing? People were jumping out of the woodwork! I told you it would go to hell if you bailed! Lighthouse and Wowzer and a few others tried to keep things in check but it just got out of hand.
I'm still pretty new here and even I have been through the whole cycle two or three times already. Even Emmett is getting a little testy!

Sit back, enjoy the entertainment and the breeze, like I was doing.

Bill

Just lost my post. Crap. The essence is there's nothing new in 9 years. It's not entertainment, imo, it's stupidity; it's a bad habit to come here and argue over nothing. Which of us can let it go? I feel certain the media qill alert us to updates. 24/7 vigilance is a little much. Sorry for the typos. Whatever.

Emmett Dove wrote:

Lol.. Not testy, just my name keeps getting brought up & compared.. This forums not about me.. It was my opinion on a subject & I think it got a lil out of hand..
I dont post nothing or anyway like I did back in feb.. I took the cursing out & generally try to be nice.. Either way, besides my name, I thought lighthouse & I had a decent lil debate & have no hard feelings to her at all..

Again my apologies. I made reference to your past and I shouldn't have done that. After rereading my posts I don't even think the right point was trying to be made by me.

I was not trying to put the CC fraud or her in a positive light. That was not my intention. I would never condone someone going through the garbage with the intent to steal cc's.

Its just the branding of "thief" even though by definition is right just sucks that she will never have a chance to change that stigmata. Where I don't know her personally, I would want someone to stick up for me if I made stupid choices and didn't have a chance to correct them.

It was an emotional argument that I should have realized that I wouldn't win.

Emmett and Lighthouse,

I wasn't trying to re-stir the pot. You guys straightened it out well. I was just ribbing Emmett a little because he got a little cranky ; )
I believe a person can change a bad behavior or even grow out of bad behavior. It's true Maura did steal CC's. This makes her a thief, but, if she recognized this as a problem and so chose, she could change the behavior and put it behind her and not be a thief any more imho. I have made many mistakes and had poor judgement in my past and I have learned and grown from them.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Again my apologies. I made reference to your past and I shouldn't have done that. After rereading my posts I don't even think the right point was trying to be made by me.
I was not trying to put the CC fraud or her in a positive light. That was not my intention. I would never condone someone going through the garbage with the intent to steal cc's.
Its just the branding of "thief" even though by definition is right just sucks that she will never have a chance to change that stigmata. Where I don't know her personally, I would want someone to stick up for me if I made stupid choices and didn't have a chance to correct them.
It was an emotional argument that I should have realized that I wouldn't win.

I get what you're trying to say, I really do and I believe you are a kind person. We all make decisions in our lives that follow us through life and even death. It is up to us to decide if the choices we make are good or bad. It's a choice that we all must make in life. I think it's a shame for anyone to be labeled a thief but when someone chooses to steal something unfortunately that choice labels them as a thief.

It's all good.. I would want someone to back me also , no1 has to apologize .. It was just a simple debates where we both got a lil angry.. It'll die out & maybe something else will come up :)

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
elphalba wrote:***He in essence said that ED should not be considered a criminal for what appears to be an honest mistake.***
And I totally agree. If I'm carrying my handgun and I forget I've got it with me and happen to drive over a short bridge into VT to get milk at the Jiffy Mart I could be arrested for carrying the gun out of state.And yes I would consider that an honest mistake on my part.
On the other hand if I went to visit a friend and took her credit card when she wasn't looking and bought groceries on the way home then I would consider myself a THIEF.
Jenkins was trying to compare someone that made an honest mistake to someone that knew exactly what they were doing and was smart enough to know it was against the law but did it anyway.You can't compare apples to oranges and to bring Emmetts past into it was unnecessary IMHO.

Sometimes you do compare apples to oranges if you believe it to help make your point. And that is what occurred. One may or may not agree with the intended point, but the technique that was used was pretty obvious and is not unorthodox in the least. I am assuming that the info used was voluntarily submitted at one point as well, so it is not like it violated anybody's privacy. It just appears as a few here are selective as to what is considered offensive/off limits and many times it seems to depend on who is delivering the message. Anyways, the bigger point that I found to be amusing is that somebody (marauchan) actually took the time to tell somebody that no, he shouldn't be mad at person x but instead person y. As if somebody who is not a child really needs to be told such a thing.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
I get what you're trying to say, I really do and I believe you are a kind person. We all make decisions in our lives that follow us through life and even death. It is up to us to decide if the choices we make are good or bad. It's a choice that we all must make in life. I think it's a shame for anyone to be labeled a thief but when someone chooses to steal something unfortunately that choice labels them as a thief.

I am not sure if this is as cut and dry as you are making it to be. And I think that was what the original disagreement was between some posters, and hence why the crime=criminal analogy was brought up to begin with. It depends on how literal one chooses to define such labels. For example, a person might view a kid who shoplifted a pack of smokes as a thief while others may view the same individual as a kid who made a mistake. It is pretty subjective really and one's opinion is no better than another's in this case.

The last Postings have been about criminal/thievery
regarding the disappearance of Maura. I couldn't add anything to these discussions. However, I can't help thinking abut the wording on the Maura Murray Missing site at the top that Somebody Knows.
I, personally...imo..believe that if someone does not share any information with ie Cold Case Unit is a liar. I, personally..imo...detest liars.

There appears to be many angry Posters here...if only it was directed to finding out what happened to Maura.

Lighthouse wrote, just for the record,

"I wanted another poster to show MM as young person who could make a mistake. You know like what you did. No one knows why she left WP the only evidence of cc is just once."

This, to me, represents an effort to frame the behavior, which may actually be a pattern of behavior, in a positive light.

OKAY wrote:

Lighthouse wrote, just for the record,
"I wanted another poster to show MM as young person who could make a mistake. You know like what you did. No one knows why she left WP the only evidence of cc is just once."
This, to me, represents an effort to frame the behavior, which may actually be a pattern of behavior, in a positive light.

I appreciate you helping me stay in character. As a Lighthouse I create light. I rather create positive light to shine for all to see.

Shack wrote:

I, personally...imo..believe that if someone does not share any information with ie Cold Case Unit is a liar. I, personally..imo...detest liars.

I always get a charge out of these posts. Two or three sentences and she can't even get that small amount of information correct. So, here we go. Lying is an act of commission. In other words you must actively do something to lie. i.e. speak a untruth. So, not telling someone something (an act of omission) cannot possibly be a lie, so they can't be liars. So while you can call them liars, or toe jam or pfffft or anything else you may want, it doesn't make it true. Like so many of your posts.

Now, if we want to discuss WHY if anyone in the area did know something WHY they might not admit it. That is another discussion that I think most are well aware of by now. If you need to be refreshed, let me know.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I always get a charge out of these posts. Two or three sentences and she can't even get that small amount of information correct. So, here we go. Lying is an act of commission. In other words you must actively do something to lie. i.e. speak a untruth. So, not telling someone something (an act of omission) cannot possibly be a lie, so they can't be liars. So while you can call them liars, or toe jam or pfffft or anything else you may want, it doesn't make it true. Like so many of your posts.
Now, if we want to discuss WHY if anyone in the area did know something WHY they might not admit it. That is another discussion that I think most are well aware of by now. If you need to be refreshed, let me know.
Bill

This is why I still read this forum. I learn things from some posts and some posters. Maybe they aren't about the specific case, but they are bits of information that I find interesting.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I always get a charge out of these posts. Two or three sentences and she can't even get that small amount of information correct. So, here we go. Lying is an act of commission. In other words you must actively do something to lie. i.e. speak a untruth. So, not telling someone something (an act of omission) cannot possibly be a lie, so they can't be liars. So while you can call them liars, or toe jam or pfffft or anything else you may want, it doesn't make it true. Like so many of your posts.
Now, if we want to discuss WHY if anyone in the area did know something WHY they might not admit it. That is another discussion that I think most are well aware of by now. If you need to be refreshed, let me know.
Bill

I assume most of us know what "lying" means. I think she was implying that if you know something and don't go to the CCU or whatever it is as good as lying. This board has become very technical lately. People better be careful of every word you post or, god forbid, face the dire consequences of being called out on topix for improper definitions.