Maura Murray

"CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch! A witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! We've found a witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch!

VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch. May we burn her?

CROWD: Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!

BEDEVERE: How do you know she is a witch?

VILLAGER #2: She looks like one."

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Who cares about the crimes that have been committed at this point. The crime scene tape is not funny. It's sick if the person in that pic is not maura and if it is, shame on you folks who have now hidden or deleted their profiles on facebook.

Without posting any names: can anyone confirm that these Facebook pages exist and that the profile picture has, in fact, changed?

Here's what I would do: I would take the current profile page URL and get the "Google Cache" at the following website: http://www.cachedpages.com/ .

Again, I'm not asking that anyone be identified. I'm just looking for a "yes" or "no."

Maruchan wrote:

Voila!
From Mrs. Forman on Renner's blog:
"The fact that they all keep hiding and vanishing quietly one after the other just makes them stand out as guilty- of something!!!"

I've watched the people in my area accused and blamed for years. Unfortunately from what I have seen once you are put in a guilty light it follows you forever. Some just don't give a rats ass who they harm as long as it benefits them in some way.A perfect example is the quote you've posted above.
Almost 10 years have gone by and strangers are still lurking around here taking pictures of people yards and homes and knocking on doors.
I don't blame these women from closing their FB page or doing whatever they need to do to do to protect their privacy.

Yes I found the man's page and the pictures are also both on his Facebook wall.

what is the mans name or face book page? i really think it looks like her! i just wonder how some people know the names of them but not post it?

So I'm pitching this idea to Renner. Next time, he "finds" Maura in Guantanamo Bay. His followers will eat it up.

Ding dong, the witch is dead. Three more down, how many more witches to go?

James Renner wrote:

You counted wrong. Try again.

"She has me blocked on Facebook ... Never tried to contact her through Facebook ... A reader who was not blocked from her account sent me this ... She lied when she said she told them she had never heard of Maura Murray, before (many of her friends are members of the Maura Murray Missing Facebook page)... I can't see it either. Can someone send me a screen cap?"

So ... you couldn't see her page, how did you determine how many of her friends "are members of the Maura Murray Missing Facebook page"? Through the reader who sent you the screen cap? Is that your source for this "fact"? How did you verify this fact?

Just wondering.

Renner's post, name omitted by me:

"When you run Maura's background, it shows that her social security number was mixed up with a L___ G___, who also lived in Mass. It's possible Maura was using her social security number."

From CNBC:

"So how many Social Security numbers do you have?

That may seem like a ridiculous question, but a recent study found more than 20 million Americans have multiple Social Security numbers associated with their name in commercial records.

The research was conducted by ID Analytics, a San Diego-based company that provides services to both detect identity fraud and to assess consumer identity risk and creditworthiness.

The study also found that rather than serving as a unique identifier, more than 40 million SSNs were associated with multiple people.

'Our research shows that Social Security numbers, contrary to popular perception, do not uniquely identify an individual,' said Stephen Coggeshall, chief technology officer at ID Analytics.

Many of the duplicate numbers were the result of data entry errors as opposed to deliberate falsification, but the fact that these multiple numbers exist shows that it may be difficult for an organization to rely solely on the SSN to verify an individual's identity.

Telling consumers to be protective of their SSN, while sound advice, may inadvertently reinforce the idea that the SSN is an effective means of identification, according to Tom Oscherwitz, chief privacy officer at ID Analytics.

'Using the SSN as the sole means of identification and verification is a risky proposition,' Oscherwitz said.

The study also found:

More than 100,000 Americans have five or more SSNs associated with their name.
More than 15 percent of SSNs are associated with two or more people.
More than 140,000 SSNs are associated with five or more people.
More than 27,000 SSNs are associated with 10 or more people."

Essentially, Renner said to LG, "If you don't talk to me, I'll make your life miserable. And it will be all your fault."

Which is a writer's version of saying, "Your skirt's too short. I'll kill you if you don't have sex with me. And it will be all your fault."

Renner has had his online orgasm and now says, predictably enough, that it wasn't satisfying. It was a waste of HIS time, not his VICTIM's time or emotional stress or humiliation.

Beagle wrote:

Essentially, Renner said to LG, "If you don't talk to me, I'll make your life miserable. And it will be all your fault."
Which is a writer's version of saying, "Your skirt's too short. I'll kill you if you don't have sex with me. And it will be all your fault."
Renner has had his online orgasm and now says, predictably enough, that it wasn't satisfying. It was a waste of HIS time, not his VICTIM's time or emotional stress or humiliation.

Exactly.

Hi Alden.

Recently, I received the entire "Where is Maura Murray" thread. I hope to eventually upload all of it to the Maura Murray Community.

While looking through it, I found this interesting post by you (p81 # 1627):

"I have little choice but to believe that the reason I have drawn so much fire, much of which has occurred privately, is that I might know something about a specific phone call received in the ICU after Petrit Vasi's admission.

For obvious reasons, I cannot say whether I do or do not know about any phone call, but it's not unreasonable for a certain few people to have figured out that I MIGHT know about it, since the impersonating caller may have talked with my wife who told me about it at dinner that night.

I'm not trying to be a tease. The point is simply that very early on, someone MAY have inadvertently revealed her true identity to my wife and then she or someone else MAY have become desperately obsessed with trying to keep it a secret."

Five years later, do you feel comfortable elaborating on the discussion between yourself and your former wife?

I ask this respectfully; if you do not wish to speak to the matter, I understand. I would, however, find an elaboration to be of great value.

Hypothetically speaking, how might the caller have "inadvertently revealed her true identity?"

This is incredibly disturbing.

From Renner's blog entry "Who is L___ G___?":

"John Green December 11, 2013 at 8:44 PM
Incidentally, in response to the origin post of this comment thread and the first comment under it, I have seen both Julie and Kathleen in person within the last year. They both put on significant weight in their 30s, as many people do ..."

In person? He has "seen" them, not "spoken" with them? How did he "see" them? Where? If he had spoken to them, wouldn't he have said that? Is he stalking the Murray sisters? Family?

Beagle, please be careful. In my opinion, Green has a frightening obsession with you, and if he has "seen" the Murray sisters, I'm willing to bet he has "seen" you as well.

And then there is this as well from Renner's "Oh Canada" post comments:

"John Green December 7, 2013 at 3:54 PM
You can always tell when Renner is getting close to something important. The vitriol increases, usually spurred by one or two particular posters. I think there are only 3 or 4 people behind the most asinine posts. But my gosh, they are bizarrely determined to undermine rational discussion. They continually invent new online identities and appear to be SCARED TO DEATH of being identified. I have a pretty good idea who two of them are."

They are more than likely "SCARED TO DEATH" because he has "a pretty good idea who two of them are." They are scared of being hunted down by this, in my opinion, unbalanced person who has shown time and again that he has no control over his anger.

We all need to be careful.

Maruchan wrote:

This is incredibly disturbing.
Beagle, please be careful. In my opinion, Green has a frightening obsession with you, and if he has "seen" the Murray sisters, I'm willing to bet he has "seen" you as well.

We all need to be careful.

I agree, it's incredibly disturbing. This is way more than online flaming. IMHO, someone could actually get hurt or killed.

For those who haven't already read this...

http://detectivedirtbag.blogspot.com/2013/11/...

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree, it's incredibly disturbing. This is way more than online flaming. IMHO, someone could actually get hurt or killed.
For those who haven't already read this...
http://detectivedirtbag.blogspot.com/2013/11/...

Alden:

Your philosophy has always been "it doesn't hurt to ask." I hope that you might respond to my question in the same way that you hoped that others would respond to yours.

If you feel that discussing this information might place you in peril -- might you say so?

You have always been candid. I hope that your recent experiences haven't changed you in that respect.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree, it's incredibly disturbing. This is way more than online flaming. IMHO, someone could actually get hurt or killed.
For those who haven't already read this...
http://detectivedirtbag.blogspot.com/2013/11/...

I totally agree. It's much more than just online flaming.
I don't think that there's any book or article that is worth stalking, accusing and scaring innocent people. What has happened to respect, decency and kindness?

Maruchan wrote:

This is incredibly disturbing.
From Renner's blog entry "Who is L___ G___?":
"John Green December 11, 2013 at 8:44 PM
Incidentally, in response to the origin post of this comment thread and the first comment under it, I have seen both Julie and Kathleen in person within the last year. They both put on significant weight in their 30s, as many people do ..."
In person? He has "seen" them, not "spoken" with them? How did he "see" them? Where? If he had spoken to them, wouldn't he have said that? Is he stalking the Murray sisters? Family?
Beagle, please be careful. In my opinion, Green has a frightening obsession with you, and if he has "seen" the Murray sisters, I'm willing to bet he has "seen" you as well.
And then there is this as well from Renner's "Oh Canada" post comments:
"John Green December 7, 2013 at 3:54 PM
You can always tell when Renner is getting close to something important. The vitriol increases, usually spurred by one or two particular posters. I think there are only 3 or 4 people behind the most asinine posts. But my gosh, they are bizarrely determined to undermine rational discussion. They continually invent new online identities and appear to be SCARED TO DEATH of being identified. I have a pretty good idea who two of them are."
They are more than likely "SCARED TO DEATH" because he has "a pretty good idea who two of them are." They are scared of being hunted down by this, in my opinion, unbalanced person who has shown time and again that he has no control over his anger.
We all need to be careful.

I think if anyone feels scared to death of being identified there is very good reason for it. Once online posters step out of the forums and blogs and physically start tracking people down who they think MIGHT be related in some way to a missing person it turns into a dangerous situation for everyone involved.
There must be a way to stop putting people's names, personal information and pictures online. Very sad indeed.
And yes I agree with you, I think we all need to be careful.

For me anonymity has everything to do with my children. I would be an extremely dangerous person to anyone that would dare expose these innocent boys to any type of danger, stalker or weirdo. I have the right to voice opinions about anything I choose online and with anonymity. Should anyone choose to bring it into the real world, they would suffer real world consequences and I will put that out there right now as fair warning. I'm pretty sure most people feel the same concerning their children. Granny was threatening an innocent ANONYMOUS poster with exposure and I made a choice to expose him. I do regret the way I went about it, but, I feel very strongly based on evidence and history provided on this blog that JWB is an unbalanced lunatic that definitely has the potential to be dangerous to woman. In a perfect world he would have suffered real consequences for his behavior. I have it on very good authority that he is being watched.
As much as I agree that JG, JR Sammy and all of these other stalkers are scaring people, I have to wonder that they don't seem to have the good sense to realize that some people, when feeling threatened, strike first. In fact, i dare say it's the smart thing to do. I wonder if these folks feel protected because they are in the public eye? It's no protection at all against an angry unbalanced individual. None. As much as I dislike JG and Sammy and have grown completely disillusioned with James, I wouldn't want to see any of them harmed. Well, to be honest, I wouldn't mind punching JG and Granny right in the kisser, but just one solid shot, nothing more. ; ) As far as their children or spouses or family are concerned, I would be the first to condemn anyone that would put them in any fear regardless of their( JG, JR, Sammy and co.) behavior.

Didn't Beagle post vids of Renners son?