Maura Murray

Judged:

1

1

1

Maruchan wrote:

Hmmm, I think I'm wrong about LocoLefty - he/she has posted several times on Renner's blog and other places.
Apologies to LocoLefty. Too many irons in the frying pan, too many "new" people posting.
I said I was going to take a break from here for a few days, I should have kept to it.:)

Contagiously complicated wrote:

<quoted text>
Honestly, I don't know that we know for the most part. He's either accusing someone of something without any real evidence, cussing and insulting someone, spewing his real hateful self while attempting to seem sincere and apologetic, or just being a total dick in any way possible. He just talks. And talks. And it's honestly all most of us have left to talk about anymore. Sorry.

Ridiculous wrote:

<quoted text>
I have the same question and share your sentiments.

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, just some crazy old woman. Pay no attention to her.

Judged:

2

1

1

LocoLefty wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sure this will sound harsh.
Yes, you should have kept to it. Take a break. Have a drink. Lay in a hammock. Put your fake badge away.
Before I started posting, I really thought long and hard about it because I didn't want to deal with people pulling the very shit that you just pulled. I decided to post anyway, wanted to give people the benefit of the doubt..
This forum is a fucking joke. So, now that you know that I've posted a few times on Renners blog I'm "legit"? Creepy. Way to go asshat. If you spent as much time investigating Maura's case as much as you apparently spend investigating the people on this forum, we'd probably have more interesting things to talk about.
I accept your apology. If you accept my response to a really annoying incident that I hoped I would not have to address. I think the reason it pisses me off so much was because it was one of the first things I considered before posting. I thought it might happen. And then assumed it probably wouldn't. And then it did. That's really fucking annoying.
Thanks. I feel better now. Like I really am a part of this crackpot team of people who converse about Maura occasionally. But spend most of the time bitching and moaning about everyone else on here.

Judged:

2

1

1

DATAWZRD wrote:

Serious followers of this case might be interested in a newly released novel on the topic by a friend: B.O.L.O. Be On the Look Out
It's a fictional accounting of what happened to Maura, but plays within the facts of the case.
Check out background on the project at dblakenh.com -- it includes links to purchase from Amazon.

WTH-the-original wrote:

OK, now I have a little more to report. If you look at the book on amazon you can read the copyright without buying the book. Since it doesn't allow me to reproduce any of the information in this self published book I will need to give you the gist without the direct quote.

Here goes. He basically says this book is a work of fiction. We kind of knew that but he goes on to say that the entire book is based on his imagination and there is no resemblance to anyone living or dead. Then in a separate paragraph he continues to explain that anything related to Maura, and any "conversations" with Maura's family in the book are total fiction and and anything attributed to them as far as behavior or activities are in no way based on real life events.

Amazon allows one to look at some of the content of the book. If you use that feature, go to the copyright notice and you can read his description and what appears to be a disclaimer to me.

So in short, it appears to be a novel, and only a novel. Why he uses a real person and their name for a novel, again, self published, seems low rent to me. Using a known tragedy to push a novel you are writing for profit that has no basis in fact.

Judged:

2

2

1

Tyler from Pittsburgh wrote:

Good morning.
I'm Tyler. I post at the MMC.
John Green, self-admittedly, has a bit of an ego and has made mistakes in the past when dealing with commenters here and on Renner's blog. But he has acknowledged that. And as far as investigative skills goes, John knows what he's doing. He honestly does have his shit together.
I'll dispel a few of myths while I'm here...
1. There ARE posts at the MMC that not everyone can see.
2. New evidence related to this case DOES get uncovered.
3. I am certainly NOT John Green.
As did Sam, I do genuinely invite any of you to come over to the MMC and contribute there. I have no agenda relating to this case other than trying to find answers. None of us at The Community do as far as I can tell.
I know that many of you here have speculated about much of what we're addressing at MMC several times over during the last decade, therefore I can understand some of the annoyed feelings on your part. But you have to understand that not all of us have been following this case since February 9, 2004. And despite what has been said here, new information DOES come to light thanks to our group. I sincerely encourage anyone to try and be a part of it. It's not about hits or comments, it's about starting over. Taking a fresh look at things and finding answers. Just because they haven't been uncovered before doesn't mean they aren't there. The progress we're making is proof of that. Please, don't hesitate to get involved. If you don't want to do it at MMC, then do it here. Enough of the mud slinging. Talk about the case. If you guys don't like John, just ignore his posts.
I'll answer questions about myself or involvement in the MMC if anyone has them. And if anyone has any further doubts about my identity I have NO issue setting up a phone call.
Please think about my points before you simply disregard them.
Tyler

Judged:

3

3

2

LocoLefty wrote:

This is my first post on here even though I've been reading the various threads on MM on and off for a few weeks now ...

I'm sorry if that sounds imposing and yes, I'm new to reading about the case so I also apologize if these are just stupid questions ...

Judged:

2

2

1

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
***I decided to post anyway, wanted to give people the benefit of the doubt..***
I spent time answering your question and I answered it honestly. You just need to read his post to know I'm telling the truth.
But it seems you weren't really looking for an answer to your question. It looks more like you came here to look for a fight.
You picked the wrong place. We're just a happy peace loving bunch
that doesn't get upset about too much.
Maruchan apologized to you and instead of excepting her apology you call her names and fill your reply with obscenities.
Well since you think this forum is a fucking joke then all I'll say is don't let the door hit you in the as* on the way out.

Judged:

2

2

2

Maruchan wrote:

Asshat? This forum is a joke? Crackpot team?
<quoted text>
A few weeks? New to reading about the case?
From Renner's blog - note the date:
"LocoLeftyNovember 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM
@Anonymous 11:42:
I just started reading this blog because of my curiosity and interest in Maura's case, but this is my first time posting, so I apologize if this is a stupid question...? "
Responding to comments about Beagle's blog about being homeless:
"LocoLeftyNovember 1, 2012 at 11:45 AM
I read his blog, as well ... What if you had received your degree from Hampshire College, and once lived a "normal" life, in a decent home, in a decent neighborhood, with your wife (as he alleges this is what his life was before he became homeless)... I also find it interesting that he called out a man in the [_______] parking lot who he noticed was getting a bit too close to young female customers ..."
Hmmm, new to reading about the case ... for a few weeks now ... hmmm ...

Judged:

1

John88Green wrote:

<quoted text>
You know Sam, we caught kind of big fish here, it looks like, by working together. Maybe we can make that post private and let folks here chase via little drips of rumor and overhearing the train that Renner et al, you et al and me et al will be long gone on, and the rest of us?
Listen, I will only bug you folks here on Topix a few more times. I still need to come here every few days to complete my work with citigirl's posts. And while here, you know it is hard not to come up to the top of the comment heap for some laughs. Anyway, by contrast - Sam - seems like our friends here seem to practically LIVE on our site. I mean, the amount of time that I can see a couple of them there - who are not smart enough to hide their scent in the data - is astounding. But I wont embarrass anyone. And did you see that one dude who went through and counted all the comments and then declared that I had exaggerated, triumphantly assuming that all the posts were open to just anyone with time enough - and weirdness enough - to COUNT every damned post on our site and not enough common sense to think that we might not want HIM to see every post? God heavens!
You know I should point that we have more followers now than Topix most often has people online at any given time. And that does not include the more than 100 other unique visitors, aside from them, who show up every day.
Look, folks here, the door is open to anyone who wants to come act like an adult and many from here already have and have made nice contributions. Past ridiculousness wont be held against you. None of this shit matters. The case matters. Lets address that and the new evidence that is emerging. If you have something to of value to add about the case, that is all that matters in the collegial discussion we have created. If instead you want to stay here and indulge your ironic obsessions with me (ironic in light of you stated attitudes which contradicts your psychological need to think about me to the point of a sadly large percentage of your posts being about me), well that is flattering except that it is utterly twisted and pathetic and makes me kind of wonder what unfortunate circumstances beset your peace of mind in life.
I am sorry to say, but in any case, there is a post coming from me in the next few weeks that will only heighten your fascinated angst toward me and probably further energize your Quixotic attempts to ... um ... what are you trying to accomplish again? But don't worry; I am not naming unknown names, which - hell, if I were you, damn - I would not want anyone to know who I am either! I am just point out something REALLY obvious that once happened here and documenting it. As far as I know, nobody has documented this event and dynamic even though many recognize it. Plainly portrayed it rises to the level of being an issue in the case. So, I am going to plainly portray it. Sorry in advance for how it will only make your angst toward me a lot worse.
Like I said, door's always open no hard feelings. Thanks to those of you who though you might deny it have already come along. Particularly would love to work out past problems with CC and see my late friend Amy come along. But ANYONE is welcome. Just post substance.
John

Judged:

3

2

2

Contagiously complicated wrote:

How unfair is life that Maura is missing, not John green? I can't say that there would be a fraction of the interest into his whereabouts as there is into Maura's. she may have had some troubles, as we all do, but I think she's far more of a loss than John greens arrogant self.
I know that's probably tacky to say, but I needed to get it out. Thanks. I feel much better.

Judged:

4

4

4

LocoLefty wrote:

Me responding to "Silence From Fred Murray":
LocoLeftyNovember 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM
"I'm not sure if any parent could ever be "too" focused on finding their daughter after she had gone missing. I know that if I was a parent, and my daughter just seemingly disappeared, my only concern would be to find her, and I assume that pretty much any parent would do the same thing."
What else, Maruchan? Finding out my real name and address?

Judged:

5

5

3

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
Maruchan is not the type of poster to stalk down the identity of any Topix/blog poster - not a creep, in any fashion.
Maruchan does have stellar researching skills, especially for locating posts/reference points and screen captures.
Just a little Topix biographical information for you. Maruchan is not one of the stalkers, but rather, has integrity.

Judged:

3

3

2

LocoLefty wrote:

<quoted text>
You can assume all you want. The thing is though, I never doubted that you were telling the truth. You just need to read my post to know that I was responding to something specific that was said about me. Not your post. I actually thought I had thanked you for your response but I see that I did not. It was my intention to do so.
And yes, I was looking for an an answer to my question. No, I did not come here to look for a fight. But, since you mention it, that seems like a pretty ironic statement to me. If I came here looking for a fight, would my first couple of posts have been honest questions? Or would I just start posting hateful things right away? I did not do the latter. I responded to something that was uncalled for. You have said some fighting words yourself, to others here. Should I assume about you, what you assume about me? Based only on your posts that aren't exactly friendly? Or, should I assume that you are like most people and you too might get pissed off about things sometimes?
You are a "happy peace loving bunch"? That doesn't get upset about much? I disagree. From what I've read, I can see that that is not true. Do you think it is in the spirit of peace and loving that someone calls me a troll, and adds "trolls are at it again" and "do what you will"?. No, it is not.
If you read my post, you'll see that I said I would accept her apology if she accepted my reaction. Yes, that is conditional. But you incorrectly stated that I did not accept her apology.
I'm not the only one who has called this forum a joke. You can go and tell everyone else who has said the same thing to "not let the door hit you on the ass on the way out." You don't need to like my response. I stated at the beginning that it would be harsh. That does not mean that I don't have a right to defend myself without being told that I "picked the wrong place".