Maura Murray

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm no longer able to access his list of prior employers on his FB page.

...and don't let others know what state they practiced in in hopes that no one will contact the state bar to find out the truth.

Soon I'll be starting an investigation of your investigation of the investigation. Its your chance to be more Clinton like.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I never knew Fred, but I don't think so.

It seems more and more like Fred everyday......I have dealt w/ Him for yrs.

Has anyone found any info on Green being a lawyer...?

Check closely....Dig Deep....look under the carpet...!

Surprise

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I never knew Fred, but I don't think so.

That was my first thought, that it might be Leatherman, but I doubt it also.

Hey Amy would you mind telling everyone the difference between a lawyer and an attorney. Maybe others know. I remember I didn't know there was a difference until you told me. Just something I thought was interesting.

Bill

remembering BJack as well.......Fred Leatherman also.!

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
That was my first thought, that it might be Leatherman, but I doubt it also.
Hey Amy would you mind telling everyone the difference between a lawyer and an attorney. Maybe others know. I remember I didn't know there was a difference until you told me. Just something I thought was interesting.
Bill

Technically anyone who passes the bar can call himself a lawyer. An attorney has received his law license to practice in his state and can represent clients, go to court, etc. You're only an attorney as long as your law license is in good standing. So while an attorney is always a lawyer, not all lawyers are necessarily practicing attorneys.

Anyone can look this info up online if they want to verify it.

Qew wrote:

<quoted text>
Soon I'll be starting an investigation of your investigation of the investigation. Its your chance to be more Clinton like.

Go for it.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Fred practiced law. I see nothing showing Green ever did, or anything that would make me think they are the same person. If I am wrong, I will apologize.
A few days ago you were sure Beagle was Green, so hopefully you can understand that it will take more than your saying so to convince me that Fred is now Green.

I know....Sorry Amy. I have My reasons.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
It seems more and more like Fred everyday......I have dealt w/ Him for yrs.
Has anyone found any info on Green being a lawyer...?
Check closely....Dig Deep....look under the carpet...!
Surprise

Isn't it you that should be digging deep? Oh wait, that's what a legitimate PI would do.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
Making Me wonder IF He might really be MASON / AKA...Frederick Leatherman.

wrong again. you have no intuitive knowledge...after how many years?

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
I know....Sorry Amy. I have My reasons.

Tang do you honestly think that making up stories, trying to make certain people look guilty and outright lying is helping in any way? I just don't understand why you have done it all these years and continue to do it.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
I know....Sorry Amy. I have My reasons.

You haven't posted any reasonable post, never showed any logical thought process to have any merrit earned in the words "my reasons".

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't it you that should be digging deep? Oh wait, that's what a legitimate PI would do.

Oh that hurt.....why ya gotta be so mean.?

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm no longer able to access his list of prior employers on his FB page. It was there yesterday. I didn't see any attorney work listed.

I figured you were also checking out his FB page when you made the comment about "accountant" yesterday. I was biding my time, waiting to see what other lies he would tell about himself, but since he hasn't been back, I shall post what I know.

First, I think this is a pretty important point - Green's Facebook page was open for public view up until about 5 or 6 p.m. last night. I had been checking it periodically and took lots of fun screenshots.:) Then Amy asked where he practiced law, and voila, he closed access. Prior to closing it, his employment history back to 1989 was available to view. I won't reveal his employers, but I am pretty certain that the information is fairly factual, as he has other FB friends that work at the same companies that he listed as former employers.

1989 - 1992; Cost Accountant, Boston
1995 - 1992; Research Economist, Maryland
1999 - 2003; Program Manager, New Jersey
2003 - 2011; Senior Manager, Virginia*
2011 - today; Independent Mgmnt and Business Analytics Consultant, as well as Singer/Songwriter

None of the companies he worked for are law firms. Even if they have in-house counsel, his job titles make it pretty clear that he wasn't counsel for these companies and that he, in fact, never practiced law.

Other publicly available information on the Internet reveals he graduated high school around 1985, so that's four years until his first posted employment, time enough for college. The only gap is three years from 1992 to 1995, which could mean a stint in law school, and which could have led to him having enough legalese to hang himself (a "little bit of knowledge" as he said earlier). But I don't see any way at all that John Green has ever practiced law.

Oh, and a check of the bar associations that have their lawyers listed online in the states in which he was employed and where he lived previously do not show any listings for him.

I'm sure Green is frantically concocting a story to cover his behind, but I do hope that people take his actions, especially the fact that he closed access to his FB page when people started questioning his background, into account when determining his credibility.

As Amy said earlier, Renner should have checked on Green's background before selecting him to represent himself in his own blog as it further degrades his own shaky credibility.

*He misspelled his own company's name.

Sorry, that was a typo in his second job - should say 1995 - 1999.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
Making Me wonder IF He might really be MASON / AKA...Frederick Leatherman.

I doubt it. Mason was a lot more intelligent than Green.

BTW Amy, I also did a check for disciplinary actions against Green in the states that have that access online and didn't find his name. Not surprising as I strongly doubt he has ever practiced law.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Tang do you honestly think that making up stories, trying to make certain people look guilty and outright lying is helping in any way? I just don't understand why you have done it all these years and continue to do it.

If lying, making up stories and casting suspicion had been helpful, Maura would have been found years ago.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh that hurt.....why ya gotta be so mean.?

Oh that is my good side. It's amazing what you can find out when you sit and chat with new friends from Littleton, Woodsville, North Woodstock and other places. Yep, freakin amazing.

As for Maura's inclusion on the CCU list there is no interpretation needed, the language is very clear and unambiguous.
It clearly says that they only investigate missing persons where foul play is suspected, meaning they suspect foul play in her dissapearance. There is no other possible answer, if you guys want to pretend there' annother interpretation that's your right to do so but it's incorrect.

Now that doesn't neccesarily mean they're right, they obviously could be wrong, that just means that they suspect foul play.

When you ccombine her inclusion on the CCU list with the sheer amount of time and resources that they've put into this case then it's very hard to say that the NHSP doesn't truly believe that she got murdered. 6,000 hours is a tremendous amoun of time, bggest case in NH history, this would have to be the most investigated suicide in history if it turns out she killed herself.

So i'm not saying she definitely got killed or definitely isn't lost in the woods somewhere, nobody can possibly say that at this point, all I'm saying is that the proffesional investigators who's job it is to investigate this case believe that she fell victim to foul play.

I'm sorry to tell you lighthouse but that is a very logical conclusion to draw based on the words and actions of the NHSP in regards to this case. It is MUCH more of a logical conclusion than to say they DON'T believe she fell victim to foul play. That conclusion completely flies in the face of logic and truth. To say that proffffessional homicide investigators are going to put 6,000 hours into a case they believe is a suicide is just ridiculous, i find it very hard to believe anyone actually thinks that.

As for Maura's inclusion on the CCU list there is no interpretation needed, the language is very clear and unambiguous.
It clearly says that they only investigate missing persons where foul play is suspected, meaning they suspect foul play in her dissapearance. There is no other possible answer, if you guys want to pretend there' annother interpretation that's your right to do so but it's incorrect.

Now that doesn't neccesarily mean they're right, they obviously could be wrong, that just means that they suspect foul play.

When you ccombine her inclusion on the CCU list with the sheer amount of time and resources that they've put into this case then it's very hard to say that the NHSP doesn't truly believe that she got murdered. 6,000 hours is a tremendous amoun of time, bggest case in NH history, this would have to be the most investigated suicide in history if it turns out she killed herself.

So i'm not saying she definitely got killed or definitely isn't lost in the woods somewhere, nobody can possibly say that at this point, all I'm saying is that the proffesional investigators who's job it is to investigate this case believe that she fell victim to foul play.

I'm sorry to tell you lighthouse but that is a very logical conclusion to draw based on the words and actions of the NHSP in regards to this case. It is MUCH more of a logical conclusion than to say they DON'T believe she fell victim to foul play. That conclusion completely flies in the face of logic and truth. To say that proffffessional homicide investigators are going to put 6,000 hours into a case they believe is a suicide is just ridiculous, i find it very hard to believe anyone actually thinks that.

I can see people maybe disagreeing with the NHSP, they could be wrong, but it's clear that they SUSPECT foul play, there's no question about that.