Maura Murray

hannah_b wrote:

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?

It sounds ominous...I really hope it's not what I am thinking(and have thought since day one of my interested in this case), but maybe, just maybe, some real light will be shed on Maura's disappearnce. Unfortunately, I fear the worst..that Fred turns out to be a bad man, but gets us no closer to finding out what happened to Maura.

BillNH wrote:

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.

Here is a very good example of how quickly information can be read, misinterpreted and then have that misinterpretation shared as if it is fact.

This is what Renner said: "The following letter was reportedly posted on the Maura Murray Facebook page. I am unable to see it myself because I have been blocked by Julie Murray, who posted it."

This does not say Renner was blocked from the Facebook page - it says he was blocked by Julie Murray. People on Facebook can block others from seeing their posts, which is what happened here.

See how quickly and easily it happens? See how nearly impossible it is to know what are facts and what are not in this case?

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Language has nothing to do with it. Iam up there in years but it does not change the fact that Iam my parents child. Your children are your children regardless as to what age they are.

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
It sounds ominous...I really hope it's not what I am thinking(and have thought since day one of my interested in this case), but maybe, just maybe, some real light will be shed on Maura's disappearnce. Unfortunately, I fear the worst..that Fred turns out to be a bad man, but gets us no closer to finding out what happened to Maura.

I think we´re thinking the same... Hope it´s not true.

hannah_b wrote:

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?

Dont you find it rather odd that he was supposedly given info last week and not giving it to LE until Monday.

It is very apparent that those of you who say things like "I really hope it's not what I am thinking(and have thought since day one of my interested in this case)" and "Hope it's not true" do, in fact, hope very much that these allegations against Fred Murray ARE true.

Why is it, I wonder, that not one of you have quoted or discussed this, from Julie Murray, daughter of the man who is being utterly trashed by James Renner:

"Is he a hardass? Yes. Did he drive us hard? Yes. Is he the best father a girl could have? Yes."

Why? Why are you all going with Renner's insinuations? Why are you ignoring the words of his daughter, choosing to believe the words of an "author" who clearly has a grudge against Fred Murray and the Murray family because they will not talk to him?

"Information was given to me last week that seems to confirm what I've long suspected about Fred." Did anybody actually read this? Did anybody notice the words "seems to"? Seems to confirm is not the same as confirm. What James Renner suspects about Fred is simply his suspicion, it has NOTHING to do with fact, and everything to do with his own personal biases against Fred.

Why is it that I seem to be only one who is disturbed by this campaign to malign and smear Fred Murray? I do not know the Murray family. I was not a member of any past forums, so I do not have any history or biases against ANYBODY, unlike most posters here. The only bias I have now is against James Renner, and that is because he peppers his 1% facts with 99% suppositions, most of which are directed at smearing Fred Murray.

Don't you have any compassion at all for a man who is being accused of an improper relationship with his daughter without any proof of any kind?

What is wrong with you people?!?

I don't agree that the Murrays should be keeping certain information secret about this case, but neither do I agree that such withholding of information means they should be persecuted in such a horrible, permanently damaging way by people who are pissed off and looking for revenge.

I am totally disgusted by this whole thing. All you longtimers who rail against the injuries dealt to the Woodsville area and people, who decry the "witchhunt" against the SBD, are absolutely no better. You are all doing the exact same thing against Fred Murray and the Murray family.

All of you who are leaping on the Fred Murray pervert bandwagon, especially James Renner, should be ashamed of yourselves.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Dont you find it rather odd that he was supposedly given info last week and not giving it to LE until Monday.

Maybe he was doing what he is supposed to do and confirm his facts before making an accusation. Just my opinion of course and as always, just because I write it, it does not mean it's a fact. Relax Maruchan.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>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.

no, not at all.
i am inquiring, and expressing reasonable questions as a result of longtime observations. i also believe my inquiries are presented in an intelligent and respectful manner.

Maruchan wrote:

It is very apparent that those of you who say things like "I really hope it's not what I am thinking(and have thought since day one of my interested in this case)" and "Hope it's not true" do, in fact, hope very much that these allegations against Fred Murray ARE true.
Why is it, I wonder, that not one of you have quoted or discussed this, from Julie Murray, daughter of the man who is being utterly trashed by James Renner:
"Is he a hardass? Yes. Did he drive us hard? Yes. Is he the best father a girl could have? Yes."
Why? Why are you all going with Renner's insinuations? Why are you ignoring the words of his daughter, choosing to believe the words of an "author" who clearly has a grudge against Fred Murray and the Murray family because they will not talk to him?
"Information was given to me last week that seems to confirm what I've long suspected about Fred." Did anybody actually read this? Did anybody notice the words "seems to"? Seems to confirm is not the same as confirm. What James Renner suspects about Fred is simply his suspicion, it has NOTHING to do with fact, and everything to do with his own personal biases against Fred.
Why is it that I seem to be only one who is disturbed by this campaign to malign and smear Fred Murray? I do not know the Murray family. I was not a member of any past forums, so I do not have any history or biases against ANYBODY, unlike most posters here. The only bias I have now is against James Renner, and that is because he peppers his 1% facts with 99% suppositions, most of which are directed at smearing Fred Murray.
Don't you have any compassion at all for a man who is being accused of an improper relationship with his daughter without any proof of any kind?
What is wrong with you people?!?
I don't agree that the Murrays should be keeping certain information secret about this case, but neither do I agree that such withholding of information means they should be persecuted in such a horrible, permanently damaging way by people who are pissed off and looking for revenge.
I am totally disgusted by this whole thing. All you longtimers who rail against the injuries dealt to the Woodsville area and people, who decry the "witchhunt" against the SBD, are absolutely no better. You are all doing the exact same thing against Fred Murray and the Murray family.
All of you who are leaping on the Fred Murray pervert bandwagon, especially James Renner, should be ashamed of yourselves.

You have obviously been thinking it. You chose to label Fred, no one else did. Maybe we have some restraint and some compassion for the grieving as you apparently do not. You have NO idea what I was thinking. You just labeled Fred a pervert, feel better now?

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Language has nothing to do with it. Iam up there in years but it does not change the fact that Iam my parents child. Your children are your children regardless as to what age they are.

sorry to disagree, yet again, but as parents we respect the increasing maturity and independence of ADULTchildren.
MM was not a "young girl" at the time of her disappearance. this, of course, just my opinion.

defining "family" and "adult or child" seems wildly variant according to this cross-section of the population.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Dont you find it rather odd that he was supposedly given info last week and not giving it to LE until Monday.

Not really. From the way it´s worded, I doubt it´s a downright accusation. Obviously it´s something JR has been thinking about for the past week and finally decided worthwhile bringing to LE´s attention.

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
no, not at all.
i am inquiring, and expressing reasonable questions as a result of longtime observations. i also believe my inquiries are presented in an intelligent and respectful manner.

They are. Always.

maybe, Maruchan, it's fair to say J Renner is taking ownership of what he writes by attaching his name to it, unlike ANONYMOUS posters who are loyal to the Murray family..."the inner circle" as it has been termed...who, indeed, made/make scathing accusations about SBD, even posthumously.
it takes stones to attach one's name, as Renner has.
Whiston has made some shocking allegations...but he hasn't self-identified.

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
They are. Always.

thank you. afterward i thought it might have been a bold thing for me to say...so i appreciate the nod, and return the respect back to you, as well, hannah, for your years of fair assessments and contributions. and there are at least several others, as well.

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is a very good example of how quickly information can be read, misinterpreted and then have that misinterpretation shared as if it is fact.
This is what Renner said: "The following letter was reportedly posted on the Maura Murray Facebook page. I am unable to see it myself because I have been blocked by Julie Murray, who posted it."
This does not say Renner was blocked from the Facebook page - it says he was blocked by Julie Murray. People on Facebook can block others from seeing their posts, which is what happened here.
See how quickly and easily it happens? See how nearly impossible it is to know what are facts and what are not in this case?

Yeah I misinterpreted what Renner said. Thanks for pointing it out. I assumed that Julie had the ability to block him from the group and did so. It was a tremendous error on my part and after I get my 30 lashes, I expect to be exiled to Siberia, as that is the only fitting punishment for making an error about FB protocol.(btw that Siberia part is not fact)oh and (btw, the part about the 30 lashes is not fact either), oh hell(btw the part about it being a tremendous error is not fact either) I stand by the rest as fact!

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Dont you find it rather odd that he was supposedly given info last week and not giving it to LE until Monday.

What could it be?
...maybe a whispered firsthand account of the actual events from a second removed cousin of a guy in a bar who heard his fishing buddy´s wife who overheard her baby sitters junkie methhead boyfriends roaddog friend who rode his lawn mower to dairy queen one night and heard a suspicious fart.

Admittedly stolen off of another board, but so very applicable on MM case... just couldn´t resist bringing it here.

Totally agree Snowy. Renner may be wrong about some things in the end but he certainly is not afraid to put it out there for all to see.

I agree also that your inquiries are presented in an intelligent and respectful manner. More so than anyone else I have seen in my short time here. So intelligent in fact I have to work to read them sometimes just to follow your thought process.(that's a good thing, and a FACT):)

Snowy wrote:

maybe, Maruchan, it's fair to say J Renner is taking ownership of what he writes by attaching his name to it, unlike ANONYMOUS posters who are loyal to the Murray family..."the inner circle" as it has been termed...who, indeed, made/make scathing accusations about SBD, even posthumously.
it takes stones to attach one's name, as Renner has.
Whiston has made some shocking allegations...but he hasn't self-identified.

Renner is writing a book. Obviously he has to attach his name. You are an ANONYMOUS poster have you ever attached your true name as to who you are on a public forum?

BillNH wrote:

Totally agree Snowy. Renner may be wrong about some things in the end but he certainly is not afraid to put it out there for all to see.
I agree also that your inquiries are presented in an intelligent and respectful manner. More so than anyone else I have seen in my short time here. So intelligent in fact I have to work to read them sometimes just to follow your thought process.(that's a good thing, and a FACT):)

Go back to the beginning and reread. Although we disagree as to what happened to Maura the one that has posted in the most respectful manner toward me as to what I have posted and think happened to Maura is WTH.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Renner is writing a book. Obviously he has to attach his name. You are an ANONYMOUS poster have you ever attached your true name as to who you are on a public forum?

i, as an ANONYMOUS poster, have not accused the SBD and the authorities of wrongdoing, nor have i accused Fred Murray of wrongdoing.

Renner doesn't have to attach his name, in fact.