Maura Murray

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
i'd hope he'd know something, and want to know something!...that he would have asked every one of their family members, her friends, romantic interests and acquaintances whether they had a clue about what was happening in her life prior to her disappearance (assuming he didn't already know).
how can you be so certain "Fred Murray knows nothing."?

Sorry.....He does not know anything that would help solve the case. IMHO

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
Your implication is that Fred Murray knows what happened to his daughter. Let me ask you, even if he was acting all along, what need do you think he would have to petition the court to produce all the records in this case? That costs money, especially since it went from the superior court to the NH Supreme Court. It costs a lot of money in attorney's fees and court costs. I don't think Fred Murray is exactly rich, so those costs would have quite an impact on him. Please explain why he would go to such lengths if he knew that his daughter had run away.

I don't agree with the running away theory but I can think of a reason for FM to want the records regarding this theory. He may want to know how much trouble MM would be in, if any, should she return. The Vasi hit-and-run for example.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry.....He does not know anything that would help solve the case. IMHO

You give me the impression that you are FM, or someone very close to him at least.

Habs wrote:

<quoted text>
You give me the impression that you are FM, or someone very close to him at least.

NO to both, But I have met Him.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
NO to both, But I have met Him.

From what I've seen of FM on tv, I find him to be genuinely concerned. Is he totally forthcoming, who really knows.

Bink Winky wrote:

Looks like a few of you are slamming Renners theory. If he were to find Maura alive or dead, I imagine some of you not entertain the facts at all. You've revolved your life around this case do much you can't see the trees for the leaves. The end of the Maura saga would leave many of you a void that would be to great to fill and except. I'll kindly bow out of topix and follow Renners blog. There seems to be more open minds in that direction.

Isn't James the same guy that said Fred was sleeping with maura?

I don't know how you maintain credibility by making such a statement without an ounce of proof to back it up.

But I guess there are always those that can see the trees for the leaves, yet still find themselves dry humping the trees instead of actually understanding the leaves

as time allows, i continue winding my way through past message boards and threads (including the earlier posts of this thread) just to get a sense of – and glimpse into – the thoughts, speculation and known information of maura's disappearance over the years. so i apologize if i appear to drop into the middle of line of discourse here with some random observations; they are just the result of reviewing past conversations and then posting my reflections on them.

with that, while reading through the second web sleuths forum dedicated to maura's case, i was left with a couple thoughts and a question. the first thought is related to maura's atm withdrawal and how it relates to her intentions on the day she disappeared. i read a lot of speculation over the years about whether maura intended to get away for a short time, a long time or permanently. having not too long before been tracked down by police to her own dorm using a someone else's credit card number, she was obviously well aware that authorities were able to track her down using some form of payment other than cash. to me, that would seem to mean that when she took out most of her money in cash the day she disappeared, she was looking to be untrackable for as long as she wanted, or could with $280. she would know that, if she was trying to get away and to be found – for whatever reason(s)– she would need to rely on cash to do so. that one element alone seems to indicate she was looking to hide from someone or something. if she was simply getting away to think things over with the intent to return in a few days, it wouldn't matter if she used her credit or atm cards. no one would have the time or need to scour those records if she was returning after a brief hiatus.

the second thought i had is that, in all of the more recent threads (since maybe 2009-ish) about what was and wasn't found in maura's car and among her belongings, i recall hearing about her gym bag, toiletries, a change of clothes, running shoes, school textbooks, her copy of 'not without peril', a photo of her younger brother used as a bookmark, broken wine box, necklace, stuffed animal, a reciept for liquor (but not all the liquor itself), an emergency kit, aaa card, even a blue binder with a mysterious cd or dvd sticking out. what i don't ever remember reading about is her favorite photo of billy being found among the items. yet, reading through the web sleuths forum, there are a couple of posts by a frequent contributor that state for a fact they know there was such a photo found.

this, then, leads to the question(s). is it commonly known that maura's favorite photo of billy was also found in the car and people just no longer talk about it much? or is this bit of information as surprising to anyone else who has followed the case for a long time? i'm just sort of hoping to get some context for this information as it surprised me when i read it, but don't want to read too much into it if it's old news.

in the second paragraph above, should be:

"she would know that, if she was trying to get away and *not* be found…"

Orko (aka Clint Harting ) these things you are and have been calling facts are not so much facts. I never said Fred was sleeping with Maura. Do I think it's weird they shared a hotel room that night and often shared a tent alone in the mountains? Yes. But don't put words in my mouth.

Further, your attacks are sounding a little too weirdly personal for someone with their own background in journalism. Marybeth said when you talked to her you said you were working for me, which was not true, and you've been upset ever since I called you out on it. I don't know what you're doing but tone it down, please.

What if wrote:**is it commonly known that maura's favorite photo of billy was also found in the car and people just no longer talk about it much? or is this bit of information as surprising to anyone else who has followed the case for a long time? i'm just sort of hoping to get some context for this information as it surprised me when i read it, but don't want to read too much into it if it's old news.**
I've been here for quite awhile and it's a surprise to me. I don't remember any talk about there being a picture of Billy found in the car but then, my memory isn't what it used to be.

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
BC is just a logical place to go, IMO. you must have some more specific indicator in mind than i do.
Maura lied to say there was a death in the family in order to get out of her classes. again, logically, that tells me she had a plan in place.

If we're talking logically here how does her lying to we teachers about a death in the family indicate anything other than a plan to return to classes the following week? She was in a hard major. The kind of classes that you aren't allowed any excuses absences from except for health emergencies and deaths of family members. The fact that she took the trouble to make up this lie is a good indicator that she was plannin on returning to classes.
Why make up a lie to get excused absences if he's plannin on running away or suicide?? Her teachers WOULD NOT be looking for her, they wouldn't call her family, her friends, nothing. They'd mark her absent and that's that.

IMO the fact that he made up that low is one of the best indicators that she was plannin on returning to school, not start a new life. It seems to me any othe interpretation of that is trying to fit facts into a thory that just doesn't fit.

Maybe you could explain why she would need an excused absence if she was plannin on running away to BC, or anywhere for that matter? Or suicide? How does that make any sense?

She was at umass with 30,000 other students, not high school. They would not be looking for her if she missed class, the most they would do is Maybe ask one of her friends who was in the same class if they knew where Maura was, MAYBE, and that probably wouldn't be til the end of the week, certainly not on Monday or tuesday.

James, isn't strange their is such a strange and obsessive few that follow this case? I understand the following for the mysteriousness of it, like me. But some folks like Orko who lie and attack on a board to discuss the case is odd ...I thought the goal was to find Maura? It seems a few people's goal is to insert themselves into this case for unknown reasons. Maybe seeking an identity to latch onto? Anyways, thanks Renner for what you do. Good luck bro.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
If we're talking logically here how does her lying to we teachers about a death in the family indicate anything other than a plan to return to classes the following week? She was in a hard major. The kind of classes that you aren't allowed any excuses absences from except for health emergencies and deaths of family members. The fact that she took the trouble to make up this lie is a good indicator that she was plannin on returning to classes.
Why make up a lie to get excused absences if he's plannin on running away or suicide??

Maybe she just wanted to keep her options open. She might have been "on the fence" about running away or sticking it out before she left, planned on using some time to make a decision, and possibly the accident with the Saturn tipped the balance.

James Renner wrote:

Orko ... these things you are and have been calling facts are not so much facts. I never said Fred was sleeping with Maura. Do I think it's weird they shared a hotel room that night and often shared a tent alone in the mountains? Yes. But don't put words in my mouth.
Further, your attacks are sounding a little too weirdly personal for someone with their own background in journalism. Marybeth said when you talked to her you said you were working for me, which was not true, and you've been upset ever since I called you out on it. I don't know what you're doing but tone it down, please.

Wow. Are you nuts? Have you no morals whatsoever?!? Outing Orko's real name here? I felt bad for you when Beagle used that video of your child, but no more. You have NO scruples whatsoever.

And hey, dude, not sure what kind of family YOU come from, but I am female and have camped and backpacked for most of my life, and shared tents with my father, brothers, male friends, female friends, and dogs. It is NORMAL to do that. Each person doesn't carry their own freaking tent. I have shared hotel rooms with both of my brothers, as adults. There is nothing wrong with it. Only YOU think so, and only YOU are trying to make something out of it. Yeah, so you haven't come out and said Fred was sleeping with his daughter, but you allude to it a lot, and it is obvious that is going to be a huge slant in your book. There is NO WAY IN HELL you can say that those porn magazines with the photos of the cousins in it was ever seen or touched by Fred Murray. Other Murray relatives lived in that house. It was abandoned and full of trash, most likely occupied by transients - nobody knows whose magazines those were. Those photos could have been put in that magazine by ANYBODY. You have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that they were put there by Fred Murray. NONE. Not even close.

I don't know the Murrays, have no connection with them, but I really really hate seeing somebody deliberately try to destroy another person and that is what you are doing with Fred Murray.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow. Are you nuts? Have you no morals whatsoever?!? Outing Orko's real name here? I felt bad for you when Beagle used that video of your child, but no more. You have NO scruples whatsoever.
And hey, dude, not sure what kind of family YOU come from, but I am female and have camped and backpacked for most of my life, and shared tents with my father, brothers, male friends, female friends, and dogs. It is NORMAL to do that. Each person doesn't carry their own freaking tent. I have shared hotel rooms with both of my brothers, as adults. There is nothing wrong with it. Only YOU think so, and only YOU are trying to make something out of it. Yeah, so you haven't come out and said Fred was sleeping with his daughter, but you allude to it a lot, and it is obvious that is going to be a huge slant in your book. There is NO WAY IN HELL you can say that those porn magazines with the photos of the cousins in it was ever seen or touched by Fred Murray. Other Murray relatives lived in that house. It was abandoned and full of trash, most likely occupied by transients - nobody knows whose magazines those were. Those photos could have been put in that magazine by ANYBODY. You have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that they were put there by Fred Murray. NONE. Not even close.
I don't know the Murrays, have no connection with them, but I really really hate seeing somebody deliberately try to destroy another person and that is what you are doing with Fred Murray.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

When someone calls Renner's sources and purports to be working on his behalf, but that person in truth has no connection to Renner, then Renner has an obligation to set the record straight so others will not be similarly hoodwinked. Renner isn't trying to operate in this Topix "bubble" with fake unwritten rules that don't reflect the real world. He's trying to get through all the obfuscation.

You may not end up liking Renner--and that is fine--but too many people are jumping to extreme opinions before the book's first draft has even been written. He knows more than what is on his blog. That's the nature of his profession. The only standard by which your opinion of him should be cemented is by what he produces in his final product. To see parts and assume the whole, to put words in his mouth or to believe how others have twisted his words, well, this I respectfully don't understand.

There are hard questions to be asked in the search of any truth. Generally speaking, there are many in this bubble that seemingly don't want any questions to be asked if they don't fit a certain mold or point in a certain direction. Which begs the most obvious question: why so?

Let Renner do his thing. Help if you can. Judge him when his work is completed.

All just two cents from a casual observer of Renner and the Murray case.

Casual Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
When someone calls Renner's sources and purports to be working on his behalf, but that person in truth has no connection to Renner, then Renner has an obligation to set the record straight so others will not be similarly hoodwinked. Renner isn't trying to operate in this Topix "bubble" with fake unwritten rules that don't reflect the real world. He's trying to get through all the obfuscation.
You may not end up liking Renner--and that is fine--but too many people are jumping to extreme opinions before the book's first draft has even been written. He knows more than what is on his blog. That's the nature of his profession. The only standard by which your opinion of him should be cemented is by what he produces in his final product. To see parts and assume the whole, to put words in his mouth or to believe how others have twisted his words, well, this I respectfully don't understand.
There are hard questions to be asked in the search of any truth. Generally speaking, there are many in this bubble that seemingly don't want any questions to be asked if they don't fit a certain mold or point in a certain direction. Which begs the most obvious question: why so?
Let Renner do his thing. Help if you can. Judge him when his work is completed.
All just two cents from a casual observer of Renner and the Murray case.

Wow this is priceless.

Here is my exact word for word request to maribeth conway for an interview.

I would love to talk some Maura Murray with you.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am a professional journalist (of 11 years, albeit all of my time spent
>>> in sports).
>>>
>>> But I have been captivated by this case and have spent mucho time
>>> gathering information and I have personally visited several locations of
>>> interest to this case.
>>>
>>>
>>> I want to do some note comparing and get your theories about the case.
>>>
>>> If interested, we can set-up a phone interview, or I can prepare questions
>>> vie email and shoot them your way and give you the chance to answer.
>>>
>>> Lastly, just wanted to say that you did an excellent job with your series
>>> of articles you did on the case. I used those articles as my principle
>>> guide when i visited the amherst and New Hampshire areas and found your
>>> information to be spot on.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your time and I hope to hear back from you.
>>>
>>> Clint Harting

where do i mention james renner at?

To drive home the point: Renner should have more respect for someone's fake name on a message board than that person had for Renner's real name in real life? That is not how journalists operate.

in a full disclosure (which is what you do if you are a real journalist - not someone that couldn't make it in the field - you let your interviewee know who you are and aren't representing.

In my list of questions which one of them mentioned James Renner's blog, I disclosed that I had given him permission to use my photos BUT THAT I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM AND HIS BLOG. but yet because James says something, you take it as gospel.

Priceless.

Clint Harting

James Renner wrote:

Orko (aka Clint Harting ) these things you are and have been calling facts are not so much facts. I never said Fred was sleeping with Maura. Do I think it's weird they shared a hotel room that night and often shared a tent alone in the mountains? Yes. But don't put words in my mouth.
Further, your attacks are sounding a little too weirdly personal for someone with their own background in journalism. Marybeth said when you talked to her you said you were working for me, which was not true, and you've been upset ever since I called you out on it. I don't know what you're doing but tone it down, please.

An implication like you have made is very much one in the same as saying it happened and you know that, when people (including posters here evidently) hang on your every word.

Be more responsible and if you are threatening me, bring it.

Bink Winky wrote:

James, isn't strange their is such a strange and obsessive few that follow this case? I understand the following for the mysteriousness of it, like me. But some folks like Orko who lie and attack on a board to discuss the case is odd ...I thought the goal was to find Maura? It seems a few people's goal is to insert themselves into this case for unknown reasons. Maybe seeking an identity to latch onto? Anyways, thanks Renner for what you do. Good luck bro.

You are commenting on the case on this board. Don't you have a life? Why are you inserting yourself in this case?