Maura Murray

Judged:

17

17

16

Sam Ledyard wrote:

Why should it be presumed that these reports were false?

Judged:

10

10

10

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
[T]o answer the originial question [--]'Why should it be presumed that these reports were false?'[--] I offer you a simpl[e] answer. They are presumed false because you haven't proven them to be true.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
For you to prove this information as true you need to create a perfect explanation as to why his post on a blog is truthful.I only need to enter one contradiction to your explanation and it becomes false.

Judged:

16

16

16

Hans Strudle wrote:

Renner probably has connections to the CCU and NHSP, so I'm sure he's at least looked into the backpack. I'm guessing its a bunch of drama to stir up traffic on a fledgling blog.

Judged:

2

1

1

BillNH wrote:

Hey all. Just dropped in to say Hi. Interesting reading from the past week or two, Maruchan as always, awesome researching. Currently working near Honolulu, Oahu. The weather is divine and no sign of Maura. This would be a perfect place to disappear. Aloha.

Judged:

3

3

1

BillNH wrote:

Hey all. Just dropped in to say Hi. Interesting reading from the past week or two, Maruchan as always, awesome researching. Currently working near Honolulu, Oahu. The weather is divine and no sign of Maura. This would be a perfect place to disappear. Aloha.

Judged:

2

2

1

BillNH wrote:

Hey all. Just dropped in to say Hi. Interesting reading from the past week or two, Maruchan as always, awesome researching. Currently working near Honolulu, Oahu. The weather is divine and no sign of Maura. This would be a perfect place to disappear. Aloha.

Judged:

5

5

4

Maruchan wrote:

By the way, I've always believed that letter was a just another hoax and am not sure why it has become such a focal point of the "investigation." You really have to ask yourself, would any family member or friend of Maura really have told the world, essentially, that Maura committed a felony hit and run? From the letter:
"Maura Murray has the right as every independent adult does to leave with her new boyfriend and start a new life. Maura is living a content and satisfying life in the Province of Quebec.... Sometime between 12 MN and 1 AM Maura driving her Saturn struck and critically injured the UMass student Petrit Vasi leav- ing him for dead ... She disappeared, her only wish is that she be left alone to live her life in peace. She is happy and contented and just wants to be left alone."
Really? She injures someone "critically," and just wants to get on with her happy contented life? Besides the fact that none of this letter sounds true to me at all, would a friend or family member really think it's OK for a relative to evade a felony charge with possible prison time to escape to another country and live happily ever after? And then give her location so she can be more easily found?
Sorry, I think everything about this letter is a red herring and really don't understand why it is being relied on as some sort of "fact," but since Renner has so few facts, I guess he needs things like this to pad his book.

Maruchan wrote:

"Maura Murray has the right as every independent adult does to leave with her new boyfriend and start a new life.<snip>
Sometime between 12 MN and 1 AM Maura driving her Saturn struck and critically injured the UMass student Petrit Vasi leav- ing him for dead ... She disappeared, her only wish is that she be left alone to live her life in peace. She is happy and contented and just wants to be left alone."

Judged:

13

12

12

Hans Strudle wrote:

Renner probably has connections to the CCU and NHSP, so I'm sure he's at least looked into the backpack. I'm guessing its a bunch of drama to stir up traffic on a fledgling blog.

Judged:

16

15

15

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Better question so I will answer.
For you to prove this information as true you need to create a perfect explanation as to why his post on a blog is truthful. I only need to enter one contradiction to your explanation and it becomes false. What you want me to do is to explain why its false, and then find a problem in my logic, and then trick people into thinking because I was wrong your blog post has merit. It should be the other way around.
I don't need to explain to you why the post is false. You in order to enter your blog post as true you need to prove that it is true. I won't even waste my time to disprove something that hasn't been proven.
So to answer the originial question "Why should it be presumed that these reports were false"? I offer you a simply answer. They are presumed false because you haven't proven them to be true.

Judged:

20

20

19

Knot Not Naysay wrote:

<quoted text>
You haven't proven that your assertion, the blog post is false, is true.
So the truth of the presumed falsehood is presumed false until you prove the falsehood to be true.
However...if the falsehood is not incorrect but the proof is not proven you have not negated the presumed falsehood and it cannot be presumed to not be the truth.

Judged:

10

9

8

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
Instead of "guessing," why not go to the source?

Judged:

3

3

2

Knot Not Naysay wrote:

I am going to presume that it is false that I want you to create an explanation to deviate from the fact that what has been claimed hasn't been proven to be true until you provide proof of the idea's truthiness.

Judged:

5

4

4

Hans Strudle wrote:

<quoted text>Aren't you the same guy who drove by Fred Murray's house, watching him do his landscaping. And by doing this, you could read his thoughts? And, aren't you the same guy who yucks it up with known moonbat, John Green. Ok, maybe you don't yuck it up with; you are him.:)

Judged:

5

4

3

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. While driving by Maura's childhood home, I observed Fred doing landscaping. In my mind, he was preserving something for Maura in case she returned. I was drawing a conclusion from this actions.
In contrast, you are not drawing a conclusion from James' conduct. You have speculated that he's in a position to divulge specific information. My response: go to the source.
As to John Green -- maybe I have not been clear enough in the past. I do not communicate with Green and do not intend to do so.

Judged:

2

2

1

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. While driving by Maura's childhood home, I observed Fred doing landscaping. In my mind, he was preserving something for Maura in case she returned. I was drawing a conclusion from this actions.
In contrast, you are not drawing a conclusion from James' conduct. You have speculated that he's in a position to divulge specific information. My response: go to the source.
As to John Green -- maybe I have not been clear enough in the past. I do not communicate with Green and do not intend to do so.

Judged:

4

4

2

Hans Strudle wrote:

<quoted text>what? Trimming boxwoods means you preserving memories? I'd say he's doing what anyone who has a lawn does: maintaining it. If you want to know for sure if he was preserving it, go ask him. You know, go to the source. Zzzzzing.

Judged:

3

3

1

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
This is exactly what you guys want. You want me to create an explanation to deviate from the fact that what has been claimed hasn't been proven to be true.
So if I wish to disprove Sanata clause and say he can't exist because he has reindeer and no animals can fly.
You can come back and say well birds fly and lighthouse's explanation is wrong. But me being wrong only deviates the readers that you haven't proven sanata clause to exist.
Its a play of words that was created the second I was asked. "why. in your mind, should it be presumed that they made false reports"
He belittles me to say "why in my mind" then says "presumed" to confirm to the readers anything I write is my presumed opinion, and now I'm going against his "report". As in Lighthouse is making their opinon against my iron clad report.
But if it was so iron clad it seems the iron clad proof would be offered up but it isn't instead you want to play a game of words.