Maura Murray

Judged:

10

9

6

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
Three points.
First, slander (or in written form, "libel") must be false or at least published with malice. The post that I authored merely states that pictures taken inside the home, from the MLS listing, help illustrate observations reported in the Conway article. There is nothing false about this. I, in fact, copied the picture from the MLS. Further, I harbor no malice. I simply wished to illustrate the occupant's observations as reported to Conway. So your "slander" argument fails.
Second, I did not tag the post with their address (although I did mention the address). I mentioned the address because I believe that one should credit a source. I borrowed the picture from the MLS and did not want to take the credit. But I was not intentionally advertising the address.
Third, it is unlikely that a prospective buyer will scroll through three pages of Google searches about the house unless the prospective buyer is already looking for something.
I think that it's a beautiful home. The buyers will be lucky to have it. And, at least in my opinion, it's proximity to Maura's ribbon only enhances it's value.

Judged:

7

6

3

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
Three points.
First, slander (or in written form, "libel") must be false or at least published with malice. The post that I authored merely states that pictures taken inside the home, from the MLS listing, help illustrate observations reported in the Conway article. There is nothing false about this. I, in fact, copied the picture from the MLS. Further, I harbor no malice. I simply wished to illustrate the occupant's observations as reported to Conway. So your "slander" argument fails.
Second, I did not tag the post with their address (although I did mention the address). I mentioned the address because I believe that one should credit a source. I borrowed the picture from the MLS and did not want to take the credit. But I was not intentionally advertising the address.
Third, it is unlikely that a prospective buyer will scroll through three pages of Google searches about the house unless the prospective buyer is already looking for something.
I think that it's a beautiful home. The buyers will be lucky to have it. And, at least in my opinion, it's proximity to Maura's ribbon only enhances it's value.

Judged:

8

6

4

JWB wrote:

I recind my last statement about the pics appearing to be taken from the street.I wasn't aware of the newest pics posted.Just looked at them (yikes).

Judged:

2

2

2

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
That's what I said.
If I was taking a picture of someone's home or yard (which I wouldn't cause I think it's wrong) I would show respect by asking them if they would mind if I took the pictures.

Judged:

6

6

6

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
I have to wonder if the people near that curve that only tried to help Maura could imagine that nearly 10 years later they would still have people taking pictures of their yards and homes.

Judged:

9

9

7

Tyler from Pittsburgh wrote:

<quoted text>
The area in question generates public interest due to Maura's disappearance. I'm sure it's annoying for locals, but life isn't fair. Time to accept things for what they are and move on. The victim card got old a long time ago.

Judged:

5

4

2

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
Three points.
First, slander (or in written form, "libel") must be false or at least published with malice. The post that I authored merely states that pictures taken inside the home, from the MLS listing, help illustrate observations reported in the Conway article. There is nothing false about this. I, in fact, copied the picture from the MLS. Further, I harbor no malice. I simply wished to illustrate the occupant's observations as reported to Conway. So your "slander" argument fails.
Second, I did not tag the post with their address (although I did mention the address). I mentioned the address because I believe that one should credit a source. I borrowed the picture from the MLS and did not want to take the credit. But I was not intentionally advertising the address.
Third, it is unlikely that a prospective buyer will scroll through three pages of Google searches about the house unless the prospective buyer is already looking for something.
I think that it's a beautiful home. The buyers will be lucky to have it. And, at least in my opinion, it's proximity to Maura's ribbon only enhances it's value.

Judged:

9

9

4

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
I never said that the picture was taken without permission. I said only that the photographer wished to remain anonymous.
In fact, I tend to think that the photographer did ask permission. Do you have information that I don't?

Judged:

2

2

1

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
I[n the] marrotte's case the "news" is how someone disappeared nearby and all the neighbors are suspects. How unfortunate for them. But as Tyler says, life's not fair, right?

Judged:

12

12

4

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
That's easy to declare when you don't live in the area.

Judged:

12

11

10

Tyler from Pittsburgh wrote:

<quoted text>
The area in question generates public interest due to Maura's disappearance. I'm sure it's annoying for locals, but life isn't fair. Time to accept things for what they are and move on. The victim card got old a long time ago.

Judged:

3

3

3

hannah_b wrote:

AT least Sam Ledyard succeeded in one thing. He drove a lot of traffic to his blog, congrats to that!

Judged:

14

11

5

Sam Ledyard wrote:

Topix is actually our biggest website referrer; 1,049 people have clicked on a link, on Topix, to the blog (860 from topix.com and 189 from topix.net ).
But whenever I've posted a link, I've accurately portrayed the content.
Bill's assessment has no basis in reality. Therefore, he deserves the credit for any traffic he drove to the blog.
For the record, Bill, I have never believed that someone who lived in the immediate vicinity of the crash site was involved in Maura's disappearance.