Maura Murray

Judged:

1

1

hannah_b wrote:

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

Judged:

1

1

1

Jenkins wrote:

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.

Judged:

1

1

Maruchan wrote:

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.

Judged:

1

1

1

Wowzer the real one wrote:

I thought Renner owned the MM blog. Was I mistaken?
When you click on John Green's name it says that his blogs are :
[ Signs of Life and Death]
[ My Search for Maura Murray]
The first blog is empty and the second blog that he claims is his goes to Renner's blog. Did Renner give him the blog? Or am I missing something?
I also find it interesting that with all the talk about JG that Renner hasn't popped in here to defend him or at least say something.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
That's just how blogger profiles are. I have been one of many writers on a blogger site and it will list any blog you write for as your blog.
I am surprised that Renner and Green have not responded. I just came back from an appointment and figured I would see some kind of explanation and/or have been called some names by now.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Judged:

1

1

1

Ridiculous wrote:

Interesting; John Posted on the blog two days ago and there still haven't been any comments posted...Typically, there would be at least twenty by now...Trouble in paradise?
John Green, for the sake of God man don't leave us hanging....We're all waiting with bated breathe for your theory on why we are all such haters, dude, buddy (spoken in a shameful whisper). Oh, I know, the weather up here is a little damp for your liking so you are on sabbatical....By the way, I thought you might like to know that my uncle daddy finally passed the bar today! Unfortunately, he ended up driving back for happy hour..Damned consumption. ; )

Judged:

1

1

1

Jenkins wrote:

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.

Jenkins wrote:

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.

Judged:

2

2

2

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenkins it's hard enough to get through one of your lengthy posts but now you are copying and pasting them so posters have to read through twice. Really??? Is that really necessary?

Judged:

1

Jenkins wrote:

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.

Judged:

1

1

John Green wrote:

<quoted text>
I think this could be a rare case of you missing something. So, Renner does not own the Internet business known as "Blogger." So, if I have more than one blog that I host or follow, you'll see it on my profile. You know what's funny though? When I created my own blog - which is more like just a place to throw some musings about the world in general - I was thinking that gosh I bet this will confuse one of those PIs out there sniffing around about me.
Funny funny. Keep up the good work!
JOhn

John Green wrote:

<quoted text>
That's a good question mcsmom.
Here's another one: why would he delete it. Some, but not all accounts I have seen, say he deleted it. He was at the airport to go look for his missing girlfriend (right?)... he hears what he says is her sobbing on a voice mail (right?)... then he deletes it? Really? Wouldn't you if someone you loved were missing be really careful about making sure the police heard that voice mail.
I've only read what I've about this and I've never really taken a hard core look at it, so perhaps I'm mistaken.
John

Judged:

1

1

1

John Green wrote:

<quoted text>
I think this could be a rare case of you missing something. So, Renner does not own the Internet business known as "Blogger." So, if I have more than one blog that I host or follow, you'll see it on my profile. You know what's funny though? When I created my own blog - which is more like just a place to throw some musings about the world in general - I was thinking that gosh I bet this will confuse one of those PIs out there sniffing around about me.
Funny funny. Keep up the good work!
JOhn

Judged:

1

1

1

John Green wrote:

<quoted text>
That's a good question mcsmom.
Here's another one: why would he delete it. Some, but not all accounts I have seen, say he deleted it. He was at the airport to go look for his missing girlfriend (right?)... he hears what he says is her sobbing on a voice mail (right?)... then he deletes it? Really? Wouldn't you if someone you loved were missing be really careful about making sure the police heard that voice mail.
I've only read what I've about this and I've never really taken a hard core look at it, so perhaps I'm mistaken.
John

Judged:

1

1

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
The phone message was turned over to police.
Police determined that what they were hearing wasn't a human voice bur rather typical cell phone static.
Billy deleted the message because it was too painful for him to re-listen to it, according to his mother.