Maura Murray

the letter is intelligently written, however, it sends a strong message to affirm the presence of family representatives in the milieu of social media -

" Recently, outrageous and completely false allegations vilifying our father and our family have surfaced during this difficult time. While some may give instant credibility to these allegations, there is never a mention of any investigation to determine the presence of any biases or motives to fabricate of these sources. We feel all sources of information, along with any persons of interest, should endure the same level of scrutiny to determine if derogatory facts exist which may call their credibility into question."

interpretation:

is this an implied or actual threat to "sources" of "derogatory facts" (along with "any persons of interest") that they shall endure "the same level of scrutiny" for the purpose of discrediting them for bringing unflattering information about MM or her family forward?

does this not comport with the vigilance in the original, monitored MM forum and in the current FB format where negative comments are squashed? the family statement implies retaliation more than an effort stop rumors and establish facts.

what if the "derogatory facts" are true...or partially true?
why are the "derogatory facts", themselves, not wholly dismissed as fabrications if they are untrue?
why is there assumed to be a motivation other than to help "find Maura Murray"?

indeed, it is a fine line for anyone to walk, whether family, acquaintance or stranger...
but maintaining the integrity of the official investigation is not mentioned, which would seem very important.

comment - anyone?

Idyldreama wrote:

Here we go again. Maura wasn't a "young girl" when she went missing, and she certainly isn't a "young girl" now--won't she be 30 on her upcoming birthday?
Julie's letter is beautifully written and heartfelt, but why does Maura's own family infantilize her?

Couple of reason off the top of my head. 1)Referring to her in the diminutive invokes more sympathy. Not sure if the writing was that contrived or not but it works both ways. More emotion = more diminutive terms when talking about them. Seems to be worse when a tragedy is involved. 2)Maura is younger than Julie. Anyone who has a younger sibling knows, you generally refer to them and think of them as little brother/little sister no matter that you are 60 and they are 55.

Not sure why this bothers people so much though, I have seen several posts about it. Does it offend you when the band plays "Daddy's Little Girl" at weddings?~~ She is clearly not a little girl, she is getting married for god's sake!~~

Snowy wrote:

the letter is intelligently written, however, it sends a strong message to affirm the presence of family representatives in the milieu of social media -
" Recently, outrageous and completely false allegations vilifying our father and our family have surfaced during this difficult time. While some may give instant credibility to these allegations, there is never a mention of any investigation to determine the presence of any biases or motives to fabricate of these sources. We feel all sources of information, along with any persons of interest, should endure the same level of scrutiny to determine if derogatory facts exist which may call their credibility into question."
interpretation:
is this an implied or actual threat to "sources" of "derogatory facts" (along with "any persons of interest") that they shall endure "the same level of scrutiny" for the purpose of discrediting them for bringing unflattering information about MM or her family forward?
does this not comport with the vigilance in the original, monitored MM forum and in the current FB format where negative comments are squashed? the family statement implies retaliation more than an effort stop rumors and establish facts.
what if the "derogatory facts" are true...or partially true?
why are the "derogatory facts", themselves, not wholly dismissed as fabrications if they are untrue?
why is there assumed to be a motivation other than to help "find Maura Murray"?
indeed, it is a fine line for anyone to walk, whether family, acquaintance or stranger...
but maintaining the integrity of the official investigation is not mentioned, which would seem very important.
comment - anyone?

I agree Snowy. I thought it was an attempt to put their legal stance forward. I saw talk on that FB site about seeking legal action, mainly against Renner. My guess is that their lawyer told them there was nothing they could do since they (the family) have publicly put the case out into the void to achieve their ends, they have to live with the consequences.

This letter was not about the case and finding answers, it was 100% a whine about the things people are saying or implying about the family and a nice shot to the chin to NHLE yet again.

Idyldreama wrote:

Here we go again. Maura wasn't a "young girl" when she went missing, and she certainly isn't a "young girl" now--won't she be 30 on her upcoming birthday?
Julie's letter is beautifully written and heartfelt, but why does Maura's own family infantilize her?

perhaps the language is intended, or even inadvertently intended, to suggest the appearance of more vulnerability as victim and less capacity for responsibility as a young, educated woman, especially since she apparently did not notify anyone of her whereabouts.

this language, of course, is inconsistent with her actual age, accomplishments and presumed capacity for knowledge of self-care at the time of her disappearance.

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree Snowy. I thought it was an attempt to put their legal stance forward. I saw talk on that FB site about seeking legal action, mainly against Renner. My guess is that their lawyer told them there was nothing they could do since they (the family) have publicly put the case out into the void to achieve their ends, they have to live with the consequences.
This letter was not about the case and finding answers, it was 100% a whine about the things people are saying or implying about the family and a nice shot to the chin to NHLE yet again.

indeed, it seems to be a statement with legal language, and in reading, i sensed it is directed to Renner as well as others.
your analysis, that the family's situation is in the public view with associated consequences, also makes sense.
your takeaway that the letter is, once again, critical of NHLE is evident in their bypassing NH state authorities and reaching toward the FBI.

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
Couple of reason off the top of my head. 1)Referring to her in the diminutive invokes more sympathy. Not sure if the writing was that contrived or not but it works both ways. More emotion = more diminutive terms when talking about them. Seems to be worse when a tragedy is involved. 2)Maura is younger than Julie. Anyone who has a younger sibling knows, you generally refer to them and think of them as little brother/little sister no matter that you are 60 and they are 55.
Not sure why this bothers people so much though, I have seen several posts about it. Does it offend you when the band plays "Daddy's Little Girl" at weddings?~~ She is clearly not a little girl, she is getting married for god's sake!~~

you make a good point. "Daddy's Little Girl" is an endearing term. at weddings, it launches a new primary relationship between the newly married woman and man.
and yes...."my baby brother" and "baby sister" endure....to the end! lol

but Jenkins' use of that language, even before Maura's family has, is still creepy, given her maturity by legal and social standards.

http://m.youtube.com/watch...

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
you make a good point. "Daddy's Little Girl" is an endearing term. at weddings, it launches a new primary relationship between the newly married woman and man.
and yes...."my baby brother" and "baby sister" endure....to the end! lol
but Jenkins' use of that language, even before Maura's family has, is still creepy, given her maturity by legal and social standards.

Hit the nail on the head right there^^^..

Maruchan wrote:

We also strongly urge you to request the FBI take action on Maura's case. Despite our repeated requests for a thorough investigation by the FBI, we have run into countless roadblocks, and our cries have fallen on deaf ears. Lobbying for the most powerful investigative agency the country has to offer is not the path a family accused of possible wrongdoing and secrets would choose, and we continue to advocate for their involvement.

This is the best part of the post. Write to the FBI - tell them that they should look into Maura's case, and if they ask you why just tell them you don't know why because family won't tell you.

I would never lobby for the FBI, or on anyone's behalf if I didn't know the full story.

Snowy wrote:

the letter is intelligently written, however, it sends a strong message to affirm the presence of family representatives in the milieu of social media -
" Recently, outrageous and completely false allegations vilifying our father and our family have surfaced during this difficult time. While some may give instant credibility to these allegations, there is never a mention of any investigation to determine the presence of any biases or motives to fabricate of these sources. We feel all sources of information, along with any persons of interest, should endure the same level of scrutiny to determine if derogatory facts exist which may call their credibility into question."
interpretation:
is this an implied or actual threat to "sources" of "derogatory facts" (along with "any persons of interest") that they shall endure "the same level of scrutiny" for the purpose of discrediting them for bringing unflattering information about MM or her family forward?
does this not comport with the vigilance in the original, monitored MM forum and in the current FB format where negative comments are squashed? the family statement implies retaliation more than an effort stop rumors and establish facts.
what if the "derogatory facts" are true...or partially true?
why are the "derogatory facts", themselves, not wholly dismissed as fabrications if they are untrue?
why is there assumed to be a motivation other than to help "find Maura Murray"?
indeed, it is a fine line for anyone to walk, whether family, acquaintance or stranger...
but maintaining the integrity of the official investigation is not mentioned, which would seem very important.
comment - anyone?

Snowy - the second I read the post I felt instantly that the post is a counter measure to try and offset any testimony from the "new" people James interviewed. With Tim C being in family and giving close testimony they have to try and discredit him because family fears what he is going to say. This is my opinion.

BillNH wrote:

2)Maura is younger than Julie. Anyone who has a younger sibling knows, you generally refer to them and think of them as little brother/little sister no matter that you are 60 and they are 55.
Not sure why this bothers people so much though, I have seen several posts about it. Does it offend you when the band plays "Daddy's Little Girl" at weddings?~~ She is clearly not a little girl, she is getting married for god's sake!~~

Bill - Daddy's little girl is a song from a first person narrative so people relate - Father and always daddy's little girl.

Maura is younger than Julie, but Julie is writing this for the group of the "family" so it is a mischaracterization. I can understand from a perspective that if you want people to write the FBI you have to make Maura as innocent as possible. Even after understanding that, it is frustrating that "young girl" implies that she was incapable of doing anything wrong. It is everyone else's fault - can't be hers. NHSP can't find her, call FBI it is the same theme throughout the case.

So the most frustrating part of this whole case is family did nothing wrong treated her like gold, Maura was a young wonderful innocent girl did nothing wrong. The only people that could have done anything wrong in this case is you, me, or LE. That is where I get frustrated. It has to be someone else.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Snowy - the second I read the post I felt instantly that the post is a counter measure to try and offset any testimony from the "new" people James interviewed. With Tim C being in family and giving close testimony they have to try and discredit him because family fears what he is going to say. This is my opinion.

in my previous posts, as well as the ones on this page, i opine from the historical perspective that this family, by their representatives, have been proactively antagonistic toward NH authorities and residents in and around the vicinity where her car was found. this is documented in various articles.

but what about UMASS and MA where her life before her disappearance originated? the family insists her life prior to her disappearance does not matter and has no bearing on the circumstances of her having gone missing.

and before citi tells us, again, how wonderful the NH residents were to her, and that she can't be held responsible for anyone else's words and behaviors....yada yada yada....
the evidence for the accusations made by family representatives (and they do exist here and elsewhere) against NH authorities and residents is to suggest that the authorities are incompetent, that they have an agenda, and that MM's disappearance is tied to countless unsolved homicides and violence against women.

yes, sometimes it does read like a Hollywood script, if one is to believe some or all of what is printed.
few facts are confirmed. the rest is speculation, opinion and imaginings. i guess J Renner has taken upon himself to verify what he can to the best of his ability. the presumed animosity toward him coming from Maura's family must be common by the very nature of his endeavor; maybe he and the family will be able to work out an understanding.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Bill - Daddy's little girl is a song from a first person narrative so people relate - Father and always daddy's little girl.
Maura is younger than Julie, but Julie is writing this for the group of the "family" so it is a mischaracterization. I can understand from a perspective that if you want people to write the FBI you have to make Maura as innocent as possible. Even after understanding that, it is frustrating that "young girl" implies that she was incapable of doing anything wrong. It is everyone else's fault - can't be hers. NHSP can't find her, call FBI it is the same theme throughout the case.
So the most frustrating part of this whole case is family did nothing wrong treated her like gold, Maura was a young wonderful innocent girl did nothing wrong. The only people that could have done anything wrong in this case is you, me, or LE. That is where I get frustrated. It has to be someone else.

you're correct. "young girl" implies innocence.

Just an observation here, along the lines of Maura being a "young girl" and whatnot. It's often been mentioned that she didn't tell anyone where she was going, imlying that she "should have" told someone. But, she WAS an adult, and from that standpoint she was under no obligation whatever to tell anyone where she was going -- it's only in hindsight and in light of whatever happened that we look at her actions and think that it would have been a good idea for her to tell someone her plans. If she had gone and returned safely, no one would give a second thought to this "should have told someone" factor.

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>you're correct. "young girl" implies innocence.

Don't forget helplessness.

Bill

Advocate wrote:

Just an observation here, along the lines of Maura being a "young girl" and whatnot. It's often been mentioned that she didn't tell anyone where she was going, imlying that she "should have" told someone. But, she WAS an adult, and from that standpoint she was under no obligation whatever to tell anyone where she was going -- it's only in hindsight and in light of whatever happened that we look at her actions and think that it would have been a good idea for her to tell someone her plans. If she had gone and returned safely, no one would give a second thought to this "should have told someone" factor.

Advocate - most people i know, at every age, have a circle of family and friends whereby they are in touch, and have enough good, common safety sense to alert at least one person to their whereabouts, especially when stepping out of one's usual routine.

obviously, she excused herself from her classes using a lie....a death in the family....and so it appears there was some advanced planning, and she apparently did not want her absence to be noticed.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't forget helplessness.
Bill

ha! yes....
youth, innocence, helplessness, a victim, vulnerable, and a target for an opportunistic serial killer.
as if no other young woman has ever travelled alone on a rural road or on new england highways.
it just seems like there is something more to the story.

Renner has posted the letter on his blog. I'll bet that annoys the inner circle.

He says the blocked him from their FB group, must be very recent. Saw a post from him within the last week.

Snowy wrote:

the letter is intelligently written, however, it sends a strong message to affirm the presence of family representatives in the milieu of social media -
" Recently, outrageous and completely false allegations vilifying our father and our family have surfaced during this difficult time. While some may give instant credibility to these allegations, there is never a mention of any investigation to determine the presence of any biases or motives to fabricate of these sources. We feel all sources of information, along with any persons of interest, should endure the same level of scrutiny to determine if derogatory facts exist which may call their credibility into question."
interpretation:
is this an implied or actual threat to "sources" of "derogatory facts" (along with "any persons of interest") that they shall endure "the same level of scrutiny" for the purpose of discrediting them for bringing unflattering information about MM or her family forward?
does this not comport with the vigilance in the original, monitored MM forum and in the current FB format where negative comments are squashed? the family statement implies retaliation more than an effort stop rumors and establish facts.
what if the "derogatory facts" are true...or partially true?
why are the "derogatory facts", themselves, not wholly dismissed as fabrications if they are untrue?
why is there assumed to be a motivation other than to help "find Maura Murray"?
indeed, it is a fine line for anyone to walk, whether family, acquaintance or stranger...
but maintaining the integrity of the official investigation is not mentioned, which would seem very important.
comment - anyone?

You have made interpertations concerning this letter. Does it mean you are correct? No. Maybe her siblings should have contacted you to proof read there letter so you could tell them how you think they should have written the letter and what you think they should say to please you.

From Renner´s latest blog post:

"Information was given to me last week that seems to confirm what I've long suspected about Fred. I will be giving that info to police on Monday."

What do y´all make of this?