|
Sam Ledyard
Rockland, MA
|
@ Pot & Kettle: "A real investigator would have jumped all over her use of the word 'killed.' You not only dismissed [her use of the word 'killed'[,] but were afraid to even call her on it! What a waste of an opportunity! A real investigator, LE or otherwise, would have continued to question about the use of the word 'killed' and perhaps had gotten some real information from her. Why say killed? Could they know something? Do they know for a fact she is not alive? Now DW and mom are alerted to the interest in them and will be on guard." While I appreciate your position, I made the right choice. I chose not to "jump[] all over her use of the word 'killed[]" because I did not wish to put her on the defensive -- especially where she's my only connection to David. "This is why amateur sleuths should call LE with possible leads instead of doing the investigating themselves." Your position is illogical. There would have been no lead to turn over in the absence of an investigation. Let me clarify my position, generally. I have no idea whether David is significant. James believes that he is and James has been unable to speak with him. If James doesn't speak with him, then James' theory (whatever it may be) will be the only side of the story presented. Maruchan took active steps to prevent David from having a voice. And he did so by lying about my motives.
|
|
Since: Nov 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Sam Ledyard wrote: <quoted text>I find it even stranger that, according to Maruchan, she later denied saying that. Unless of course, she didn't say that. You tape recorded the "interview" of course. Just like any competent "investigator" would. So that there is none of that he said, she said. We would KNOW what she said. So if you didn't record the conversation, then your intrusion was just for what? Entertainment? It certainly had no investigative value. Sorry, was that an ad hominem attack? Or just pointing out someone who has no clue what the hell is doing? Bill
|
|
Sam Ledyard
Rockland, MA
|
WTH-the-original wrote: <quoted text>
[W]as that an ad hominem attack? No. But it was completely inaccurate. -- "[A]ny competent 'investigator'" would have tape recorded the interview. I agree that a tape recording would be the best evidence of the conversation. But it would have made her guarded (or she might have outright refused to be taped or refused to talk to me). "So if you didn't record the conversation, then your intrusion was just for what? Entertainment? It certainly had no investigative value." Applying this logic, every investigation that wasn't recorded was done for pleasure? What about those that predate tape recorders? That's truly your position?
|
|
Clarity shmarity
Boyertown, PA
|
Sam Ledyard wrote: @ Pot & Kettle:
"A real investigator would have jumped all over her use of the word 'killed.' You not only dismissed [her use of the word 'killed'[,] but were afraid to even call her on it! What a waste of an opportunity! A real investigator, LE or otherwise, would have continued to question about the use of the word 'killed' and perhaps had gotten some real information from her. Why say killed? Could they know something? Do they know for a fact she is not alive? Now DW and mom are alerted to the interest in them and will be on guard."
While I appreciate your position, I made the right choice.
I chose not to "jump[] all over her use of the word 'killed[]" because I did not wish to put her on the defensive -- especially where she's my only connection to David.
"This is why amateur sleuths should call LE with possible leads instead of doing the investigating themselves."
Your position is illogical. There would have been no lead to turn over in the absence of an investigation.
Let me clarify my position, generally.
I have no idea whether David is significant. James believes that he is and James has been unable to speak with him.
If James doesn't speak with him, then James' theory (whatever it may be) will be the only side of the story presented.
Maruchan took active steps to prevent David from having a voice. And he did so by lying about my motives. Let me clarify your position. Your biggest transgression was not in how you bungled the "interview" it was showing up on her doorstep in the first place. Do you think James was unable to find her # and ask her where her son was? Not to speak for James but he could have done that himself. So your actions were unnecessary and have tainted any product of what may have come of a real interview with DW. If DW was involved with criminal activity in connection with Maura's disappearance, you have intrusively alerted him to that fact and he is now able to try to cover any tracks that may exist. A proper investigator could have found him first, then see what he does after being alerted. If not involved in criminal activities, and for 10 years has not been willing to discuss maura, I don't think showing up on his mothers doorstep will thrust him into a disclosure. This is all your doing, well before Maruchan did anything to try to protect DW and his mother from your overzealous amateur sleuthing. A proper tip to LE about his involvement, whatever it is, would have been a better choice. If you believe Maura was the victim of a crime, then you took action that jeapordizes that investigation as DW and his mother could have been key elements. The fact that you ran right to her house at James request appears to be about your ego, not about Maura, whether you want to admit it or not. Your action speaks for itself.
|
|
Since: Nov 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Sam Ledyard wrote: <quoted text>
No.
But it was completely inaccurate.
-- "[A]ny competent 'investigator'" would have tape recorded the interview.
I agree that a tape recording would be the best evidence of the conversation. But it would have made her guarded (or she might have outright refused to be taped or refused to talk to me).
"So if you didn't record the conversation, then your intrusion was just for what? Entertainment? It certainly had no investigative value."
Applying this logic, every investigation that wasn't recorded was done for pleasure? What about those that predate tape recorders?
That's truly your position? Hmmmmm. You really should look up a concept called "best practice". It is what professionals in all different fields prescribe to. The concept of "best practice" for each profession is created by a group of competent, experienced professionals in their specific field. It is done so that there is a standard so others in the profession can do what might be considered useful. Now back before recording devices, they didn't have the concept of best practice. Now that we have such a thing, I believe that any competent investigator would use such devices and adhere to the "best practices" standard. You may find that some investigators actually are using video equipment. But again, we are talking about professionals, not to be confused with what is going on here which is purely entertainment. So if you insist on being afraid to ask people for permission to even tape them, you probably should be just as afraid to approach them at all since anything you repeat is second hand information (at best) and as such, useless. Bill
|
|
Maruchan
Merrimack, NH
|
Sam Ledyard wrote: <quoted text>
I wanted to give him a chance to tell his side of the story. LIE. Sam Ledyard wrote: <quoted text>
I just wanted to give David a chance to talk. LIE. You went there to find out where DW is. You offered to do so in Renner's thread in which he implied that DW is the person who took Maura from the accident scene where he set her up in his part-time abode, where he implied that the Londonderry "ping" was DW calling Maura on the way to meet her in Woodsville. You stated in your blog post that "I further explained that James is reaching out to Maura’s friends to hear about their memories of Maura" and that is EXACTLY what you did. You LIED TO DW'S mother about your intentions, and you LIED TO HER by giving her a false name. You are a liar and are completely unethical and unscrupulous.
|
|
Maruchan
Merrimack, NH
|
Welcome back, Ridic, you've been missed. :)
|
|
Maruchan
Merrimack, NH
|
Please note that Ledyard is, once again, the ONLY person who introduced DW's full name into this thread, again insuring that his name will be found on future Internet searches on yet another forum connecting him with Maura's disappearance when there is NO EVIDENCE that he did nothing other than be friends with her.
|
|
Caps
Washington, DC
|
It's amazing how angry all the Topix posters get when someone (Renner, Sam Ledyard) does anything for Maura beyond participating in the useless, mindless, massive online circlejerk that is Topix. It's like these posters are jealous that some people do real things with their intelligence--like write books and earn law degrees--and real things with their time, like getting off the computer chair to actually go out and find Maura. What, would we all be better off if everyone who thought they were smart used that talent exclusively to compose sardonic Topix posts that rarely even have anything to do with Maura Murray?
|
|
Tyler from Pittsburgh
Oakdale, PA
|
In no way did any of Sam's actions go out of bounds. He, as I, am interested in hearing DW's side of the story. According to James, it seems, that might be significant in the Maura Murray disappearance - or it might not. Personally, I lean towards the latter. But in any case, there is absolutely no harm done in asking his mother a few questions. And I have NO doubt Sam's account of his conversation with the mother is 100% accurate. Hearing that she denies saying what she told Sam only makes it seem as if she really does have something to hide. Whoever posted that will be responsible for more interest in her than Sam's post to the blog created. I don't understand why every time the search for Maura develops further, this forum cries foul. Get off your high horses. Asking someone a few questions doesn't make them a victim. There's this weird sort of childish entitlement that posters here seem to have. We saw it with those who live around the crash site and now we're seeing it from those of you trolling Sam. Grow up. Do something more productive with your lives than crying wolf over something you don't understand.
|
|
“"Dancing with wolves"”
Since: Oct 10
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Maruchan wrote: <quoted text>
This implies transparency, as if you are being honest in your dealings with others by providing an email address. It implies, to me, that you feel you are not trying to hide anything, and that you are different than DW, who you feel IS hiding something.
But you are not being honest at all. If you were, you would use your real name.
I'm really stunned by your complete lack of ethics. You approached the mother of a person who you are trying to help Renner tie to Maura's disappearance, you lied and implied that your mission was a purely innocent one, and you used a false name to do so. I'm sure the phone number you gave her couldn't be traced back to you as well. I'm sure of this because you told her your name was Samuel, which you and I both know is not your real name.
I had a nice, long chat with DW's mom earlier this evening. I called her (after all, her number took about two minutes to find - I found it last week). I didn't call to ask her any questions about her son, and I didn't ask her any. I called only to warn her that the person who had appeared on her doorstep yesterday was misleading her in his interest in her son. She wanted to know how in the world I knew Sam had come to her house and had to explain to her that her son and now his family were being featured on two blogs, and that the conversation she had was posted on Sam's blog. She only had dial-up and couldn't access the blog while we were on the phone, so I read her Sam's blog post. She claims she never said what Sam wrote - "Her first question:'oh, that was the girl who was killed in New Hampshire?'" - she knew Maura had disappeared, not been killed, and said she wouldn't have said that. I told her about Renner's blog, and I gave her the website addresses for both blogs and impressed on her that Renner was trying to tie Maura's disappearance to her son. I told her that her son's photographs and name were posted on both websites where they will now come up in any Google searches of him. I also warned her that many of his followers were actively trying to find as much information about her son as they could, and that she should be careful as she might receive phone calls or visits from other unscrupulous people like Sam who would lie to her about their purpose in trying to locate her son. I also informed her that if her son did get in touch with Renner and refused to answer any questions that he would be deemed by him and his followers as being even more of a suspicious person who was hiding something. She thanked me for calling and warning her. She was a very nice lady who felt violated by a stranger coming to her door, giving her a false name and questioning her under false pretenses.
This witch hunt needs to stop, NOW. I commend you for giving his mother a warning. She and her son should know that his name and picture is being shown on internet blogs and forums. I've watched this crap go on for years in my own neighborhood. Accusations, pictures of people, pictures of their yards and houses etc.etc. Strangers have knocked on doors to question the people for almost 10 years now. Renner has been shown the door(to put it politely) from the store where the red truck was supposedly seen and from our ex police chief's home. More should do the same when strangers come knocking. Even after all this time make believe armchair detectives are still hounding anyone that even remotely knew Maura, knew of Maura or was anywhere near the accident scene. IMO you did the absolute right thing Maruchan.
|
|
Ridiculous
Manchester, NH
|
Clarity shmarity wrote: <quoted text>
Let me clarify your position. Your biggest transgression was not in how you bungled the "interview" it was showing up on her doorstep in the first place. Do you think James was unable to find her # and ask her where her son was? Not to speak for James but he could have done that himself. So your actions were unnecessary and have tainted any product of what may have come of a real interview with DW. If DW was involved with criminal activity in connection with Maura's disappearance, you have intrusively alerted him to that fact and he is now able to try to cover any tracks that may exist. A proper investigator could have found him first, then see what he does after being alerted. If not involved in criminal activities, and for 10 years has not been willing to discuss maura, I don't think showing up on his mothers doorstep will thrust him into a disclosure. This is all your doing, well before Maruchan did anything to try to protect DW and his mother from your overzealous amateur sleuthing. A proper tip to LE about his involvement, whatever it is, would have been a better choice. If you believe Maura was the victim of a crime, then you took action that jeapordizes that investigation as DW and his mother could have been key elements. The fact that you ran right to her house at James request appears to be about your ego, not about Maura, whether you want to admit it or not. Your action speaks for itself. Absolutely!
|
|
“"Dancing with wolves"”
Since: Oct 10
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
If I remember correctly didn't the FBI do the questioning in MA? I thought they questioned her college friends and others. Hmm, I wonder if trying to question Maura's friends, family or anyone that was remotely associated with her is considered interfering with an ongoing investigation. Hmm...
|
|
Ridiculous
Manchester, NH
|
Maruchan wrote: Welcome back, Ridic, you've been missed.
:) Thanks Maruchan. I actually really thought about Snowy's reason for leaving and I concur with her. I do read, but have tried to refrain from interjecting too much. After all, I really don't have much of value, as far as information that could lead to a conclusion here goes. That being said; I am burdened with a conscience and a tremendous dislike of pomposity, so I felt compelled... ; )
|
|
Since: Nov 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Tyler from Pittsburgh wrote: And I have NO doubt Sam's account of his conversation with the mother is 100% accurate.
Hearing that she denies saying what she told Sam only makes it seem as if she really does have something to hide. Or of course, Sam is full of shit. How you KNOW one answer is better than the other amazes me. Since I know neither one of them, I give the benefit of the doubt to the mother simply because if someone is going to make believe they are "investigating", they should use proper techniques and tools to do it. Sam either doesn't know how to do that, making his information useless, or doesn't want to do it, again, making his information useless. You might see where this is going. Back to it's just for entertainment and has no real VALUE what so ever. I won't even get into the how he thinks he should be popping up at witnesses locations doing "investigations" when he clearly has no idea what he is doing. Especially since there is supposedly an active investigation by the CCU into this case, from what we are told. Bill
|
|
Ridiculous
Manchester, NH
|
The pot calling the wrote: <quoted text>
kettle, black.
Really? Maruchan got involved when she shouldn't have?
This truly shows how far out of your league you are and probably shouldn't be doing these things. A real investigator would have jumped all over her use of the word "killed". You not only dismissed it, but were afraid to even call her on it! What a waste of an opportunity! A real investigator, LE or otherwise, would have continued to question about the use of the word "killed" and perhaps had gotten some real information from her. Why say killed? Could they know something? Do they know for a fact she is not alive? Now DW and mom are alerted to the interest in them and will be on guard. This is why amateur sleuths should call LE with possible leads instead of doing the investigating themselves. Maybe DW was truly the person with the answers. Your meddling may make it impossible to ever know. Maruchan's warning to the mom is not the problem here, you overstepped your bounds in the investigation of a missing person. DW and mother may have had 100% of the missing information and you blew it. Might be a 0% of ever getting that info now. That's on you, not Maruchan. Well Done! Why is it that so few people see this?! I mean, it really is as simple and black and white as this post makes it. Maruchan has made an excellent point concerning ethics Sam and we both know that you, as a member of the bar, are held to a higher standard.
|
|
“"Dancing with wolves"”
Since: Oct 10
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Tyler from Pittsburgh wrote: In no way did any of Sam's actions go out of bounds. He, as I, am interested in hearing DW's side of the story. According to James, it seems, that might be significant in the Maura Murray disappearance - or it might not. Personally, I lean towards the latter. But in any case, there is absolutely no harm done in asking his mother a few questions. And I have NO doubt Sam's account of his conversation with the mother is 100% accurate.
Hearing that she denies saying what she told Sam only makes it seem as if she really does have something to hide. Whoever posted that will be responsible for more interest in her than Sam's post to the blog created.
I don't understand why every time the search for Maura develops further, this forum cries foul. Get off your high horses. Asking someone a few questions doesn't make them a victim. There's this weird sort of childish entitlement that posters here seem to have. We saw it with those who live around the crash site and now we're seeing it from those of you trolling Sam.
Grow up. Do something more productive with your lives than crying wolf over something you don't understand. Do you have children Tyler? Do you have a family? If someone plastered your child's name and picture on an internet blog for the world to see and insinuated that they may be hiding something or possibly have something to do with the disappearance of a young woman would you think that was OK? Would you answer questions about your child to a stranger on the phone or at your door and feel it was OK to tell this stranger where your child could be found? I don't know about you but if that was my child I'd be on the phone with a lawyer and I'd be suing these people that dared to incriminate my child in a missing person case. Maybe this forum cries foul because there's some very foul things being done by a few with no morals. I think you are the one that doesn't understand the harm that these actions could cause.
|
|
“"Dancing with wolves"”
Since: Oct 10
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Ridiculous wrote: <quoted text>
Thanks Maruchan. I actually really thought about Snowy's reason for leaving and I concur with her. I do read, but have tried to refrain from interjecting too much. After all, I really don't have much of value, as far as information that could lead to a conclusion here goes. That being said; I am burdened with a conscience and a tremendous dislike of pomposity, so I felt compelled... ; ) It's great to see you back. I haven't seen any information here of value that could lead to a conclusion so with that said I hope you will feel compelled enough to continue posting. It would be awful to carry that burden all alone. ;)
|
|
Ridiculous
Manchester, NH
|
Tyler from Pittsburgh wrote: In no way did any of Sam's actions go out of bounds. He, as I, am interested in hearing DW's side of the story. According to James, it seems, that might be significant in the Maura Murray disappearance - or it might not. Personally, I lean towards the latter. But in any case, there is absolutely no harm done in asking his mother a few questions. And I have NO doubt Sam's account of his conversation with the mother is 100% accurate.
Hearing that she denies saying what she told Sam only makes it seem as if she really does have something to hide. Whoever posted that will be responsible for more interest in her than Sam's post to the blog created.
I don't understand why every time the search for Maura develops further, this forum cries foul. Get off your high horses. Asking someone a few questions doesn't make them a victim. There's this weird sort of childish entitlement that posters here seem to have. We saw it with those who live around the crash site and now we're seeing it from those of you trolling Sam.
Grow up. Do something more productive with your lives than crying wolf over something you don't understand. Oh Tyler, what are we going to do with you? Listen, you too are a dumbass. Don't let it hurt your feelings, it's just important that someone clarify that for you okay? There's so much here in this post of yours that proves it. I just don't have time at present to break it all down for you. I think it's wonderful that you just jump right out here on this blog and explain to us that you Sam and James want to hear his side of the story, so we should all quite crying foul at the tossing of his name upon the heap of all of the other casualties. Clearly he is just dying to share his side of this story. That's why he did a simple google search, found this topix site and volunteered all of his info.Geeze, what a bunch of jealous zealots we are. Now excuse me, I've decided to do something of value with my intelligence (minimal though it may be) and get a law degree so that I too can become an investigator and interfere with active investigations...xoxo
|
|
Tyler from Pittsburgh
Oakdale, PA
|
Wowzer the real one wrote: <quoted text>
Do you have children Tyler? Do you have a family? If someone plastered your child's name and picture on an internet blog for the world to see and insinuated that they may be hiding something or possibly have something to do with the disappearance of a young woman would you think that was OK?
Would you answer questions about your child to a stranger on the phone or at your door and feel it was OK to tell this stranger where your child could be found?
I don't know about you but if that was my child I'd be on the phone with a lawyer and I'd be suing these people that dared to incriminate my child in a missing person case.
Maybe this forum cries foul because there's some very foul things being done by a few with no morals.
I think you are the one that doesn't understand the harm that these actions could cause. Welcome back. I understand the point you are trying to make. But all we desire is for DW to give his side of the story. There's no hidden agenda. What's the harm in attempting to contact him? If he thinks the posts about him are harming his well being in some manner, all it takes is a phone call to stop them. There's nothing "immoral" going on here. What made you decide to resume posting? Thought you said you were done.
|
|
|
Dating
