Maura Murray

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

Judged:

1

1

1

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):)

Judged:

1

1

1

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe you should contact the siblings before you post. They don't like posting on forums as they said, and hard to think they would allow you to do so, unless ofcourse you wrote what they wanted? I'd assume you'd be respectful of the siblings wishes to stop typing on a forum if asked, and I'm assuming they allow you to type because you serve some type of agenda by arguing, and omitting certain information? Do I need to send an email to Julie or is this a safe enough assumption?

Judged:

1

1

1

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>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.

Judged:

1

1

1

Snowy wrote:

SNIPPED
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?

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.

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
Could not agree more, Snowy. Nor could I put it any better.
I read that the same way you did...

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I don't, and here's why.
I don't think that he has found out anything that could be construed as time-sensitive. I'm sure it's something of past transgressions or perceived wrongdoings in the past. There's very little chance that the information he has uncovered has any bearing on a current situation - i.e., someone currently under duress,- and therefore, isn't pressing.
It's more than likely that he is waiting for the weekend to pass and then he is going to take action. This could be for any number of reasons: Plans on the weekend, his contact at LE isn't in the office on weekends, etc.
None of the aforementioned reasons are in any way nefarious.
JMO

Judged:

1

1

1

Snowy wrote:

here's a thought....as an offshoot to reading some of the comments at J Renner's blog today.
seems like some people think they've been misled by FB censoring and by the lack of honesty coming from MM's family....even when reasonable and caring individuals want to allow for privacy considerations and sensitivity to this family's loss.
people expect to hear and read the truth from a family when they appeal to the public to find a lost loved one. or a murdered loved one. after all, who knows better than family about their loved one?
in the early days, some very well meaning posters swallowed everything whole. some of those statements made from the MM camp were suspicious then, and have been proven inaccurate and / or false since. the word "credibility" comes into play here.
very good people were punished and, in fact, turned away from posting on the original forum(s)....because they began to question statements presented as "facts" that never quite added up. some of that behavior probably continues on FB today.
Maura is still likable, respected for her accomplishments, and there is concern that she be found. it is a myth and an excuse that the public would have cared less for her if they knew about her flaws early on.
if there is more to her story, then there is more; so be it. but the public doesn't like to be duped.

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.

Judged:

1

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
Maruchan,
My only point of contention regarding that carefully crafted, well-worded letter, is the inference I draw from this statement:
"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."
The subtle point that shines through to me, at least, is that 'SOURCES of information...endure..level of scrutiny to determine if derogatory facts exist which may call their credibility into question.'
That part throws me, a bit. I can understand why any family member would think it, but putting it out there in a letter to the general public somewhat sounds like a thinly-veiled warning: If you come forward, be ready for your past to be called into question.
I do understand that wasn't stated outright. I get that I am drawing a conclusion. But, I think it's a correct one. I think they may be sick and tired of people dragging their name through the mud, their father, even...
And yet, it raises me eyebrows, nevertheless. That's just my respectfully-stated (I hope!) opinion.
I would love for Fred to have had NOTHING to do with this. I have no opinion on that matter, one way or the other. I don't have enough data in the public domain (do any of us?) to state unequivocally, one way or the other.
As WTH has stated in the past - or words to this effect - you can't prove a negative. So, there we are.
SS

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Neither have I ever accused anyone.