Maura Murray

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
You really need to read closer what I wrote. As much disdain as I have for renner and some of the moronic ideas he has foisted upon the masses. The nitwits that have actually contributed money get the lions share of my disgust. Pay particular attention to the word, "except" in what I wrote. If someone tells you, "Hey, I have this really stupid idea and it is so stupid I don't want to put any of my money into it. But, I really would like people with way too much 'extra' money to fund it". Well that isn't renner perpetrating a fraud or doing anything else illegal that I can tell. It is simply renner separating idiots from their money. Nothing illegal there. I actually consider that a service that he is doing because god only knows what idiots like that might spend their money on, if they didn't give it to renner.
Bill

I appreciate your reply. And I guess I am one of those stupid people because I will be contributing to that fund. Lol! Happy New Year !

SnowyB wrote:

Maruchan, i am disappointed; i thought you were better than this.
here's a difference to consider:
WTH/Bill applies his skills as informational, and while he opines, he does not delve into the personal lives of posters to prove or disprove and / or apply his ideas. he causes no harm.
that you, and others, do not personally know MM, are not related to her, and have never met her, it is weird that you would even consider reaching out beyond the internet to contact strangers on behalf of MM and her family….who, by all accounts, are not soliciting Ledyard's and Renner's help.

Well, as I said, I knew that there would be some who wouldn't like me checking into a person that they have "known" for several years as a fellow poster, and somebody who they liked and respected. I see by the judging icons you are not alone. That's OK.

I believe that the person who authored the Geocities letter and other Canada posts meant to cause harm, and I believe that she HAS caused harm. She has gotten people's hopes up, almost certainly the hopes of the Murray family, and undoubtedly diverted LE resources in pursuing the matter. Whether I agree with Renner and his actions or not, people have expended time and money in searching for Maura in Canada, all based on the actions of Suzanne/Adagio/etc.

As JWB likes to say, I am not here to make friends. That I have is a nice plus, and I have enjoyed getting to know the people here, but that is not my primary purpose, which is to find out what happened to Maura. It makes me really angry when somebody does something like this person has done - it is cruel and morally reprehensible, and possibly criminal.

If you are disappointed in me, then I have to say that I am really disappointed in your defense of this person. I personally don't care about what went on in the MMM forums, or in the past, I was not there and it is not my issue, as it is the issue for you and others. I think if we were talking about somebody you didn't like, like Shack, you would be far more willing to look at the examples we have provided and see the likelihood of this person being the author of the Canada information. It's too bad it's a friend of several people here, but it's also too bad that she has done such a reprehensible thing and I sure as shooting wouldn't want to be friends with a person like that.

Just as another example of the type of person she is, here is a quote about how she feels about Maura Murray:

whitenoise wrote:

<quoted text>
NOT ME! I don't care what happened to an adult woman who actually drives a car while guzzling booze, leaves an 18 yr old boy to die on the roadside on a freezing cold winter's night, causing him to spend 3 months in the hospital in a coma, and then have to spend more time in a rehab hospital, a woman who is a thief (we know about the WP and UMA crimes, tip of the iceberg), a liar, a drug addict and an alcohol abuser.

This is not a nice person. This is a person who intentionally posted in as many places as possible, to get as much attention as possible, a complete and total lie about Maura Murray. This person hates Maura Murray and her family and did something harmful to them. This is the person you are defending.

If I can help to put this false report to rest, then that is what I will do, regardless if it pisses people off. I think it is the right and moral thing to do. I did not reveal her name or any personally identifiable information about her, and I didn't say I would contact her, nor will I. I am fine to let it rest as it is. And yes, I am happy if it gets Renner off of Citigirl's back - if she is not the person who wrote the letter, and I never thought she was, then finding the REAL author is the right thing to do.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

TWO DAYS before the Topix posts from "Canada" and "Tourist in Canada," "Suzanne" announced that she was leaving Topix: Here are her "final" words:
"As Mason said several times Maura is an adult who had every right to choose to disappear. Quoting Mason again, we have no right to interfere with the decision of an independent adult. Everything in Amherst leads me to this 'run away, start a new life, conclusion. But now once again Amherst is off the table and MMM has been restored.
I'll miss the good people I met here, I've learned a lot from them but right now my life is bursting at the seams and I wouldn't have time to visit here anyway, let alone read here and actually post. So I'm erasing these two forums from my favourites. Goodbye, it's been interesting and very, very educational."

Thanks for sharing this. Please note the Canadian/UK spelling of "favourites," just like Adagio/Lauren/etc.

Maruchan, as i explained, you may surmise, but cannot definitely assign who has authored which quotations.
if it mattered, anyway, the CCU has resources to make that determination.

you are, indeed, operating in a social realm, and apparently within a group of like minds whom feel strongly that any aspect of the "search" for MM is not out of bounds or without limits.

L4M has been held, by a secondary lynch mob, to be a suspicious individual for not allowing strangers to trespass on her property in the name of MM. again, the same mindset prevails; not only has she has been tried and convicted in the court of the online community, but her rights to privacy are disregarded by the same amateur sleuthing gang.

indeed, it does matter what came before you; the previous lynch mob was no better in making and justifying accusations than the current one.

you were also quick to jump into "researching" the personal lives of MM's sister and brother-in-law...and documenting that info. where is the line between citizen, private investigator and journalist? or does one feel free to act in any capacity one chooses?

further, you are not personally tasked to investigate others. it is also not your duty to decide how little or how much the state expends to "find" MM.

apparently, Beagle's overt behaviors and actions DID draw the attention of authorities, and with all associated costs.
your tracking down any individual poster, especially comments previously studied, doesn't affect the bottom line, nor does it justify or advance the current status of MM's disappearance. in fact, it doesn't even correct the record because your method is not scientific, is merely intrusive, and therefore, your conclusion has not been proven.

i choose to have zero offline contact with Shack, even though i disagree with her ideas. in fact, you are no better than JWB by your making an assumption about White Noise and then intending to and / or acting upon it.

the means do not justify the ends, even if you are skilled in calling up info to compare and contrast. ditto for any other sleuths trained as lawyers, but may be frustrated by their under or unemployed status, and so find an outlet in delving into strangers' lives in real time. JMO

obviously, i'm old school, and i'll add that Renner's approach to "investigative journalism", supplemented by crowdsourcing, has created and left behind a permanent record of tainted information after his many false starts.

there is, IMO, an element of exhibitionism and narcissism associated with having each step of a process made public before producing a body of work, regardless of whether the trends and landscape have changed...IMO, not for the better. today, the products are all tabloid journalism.

Renner's sourcing crowd, as represented by the likes of several of his minions, would seem to follow a less than credible approach to researching this book by employing questionable tactics to do so. it is to accuse first, then consider whether there is any merit to the accusation having been already made. the harm is already done.
just my opinion, based on observation.

whitenoise wrote:
<quoted text>
NOT ME! I don't care what happened to an adult woman who actually drives a car while guzzling booze, leaves an 18 yr old boy to die on the roadside on a freezing cold winter's night, causing him to spend 3 months in the hospital in a coma, and then have to spend more time in a rehab hospital, a woman who is a thief (we know about the WP and UMA crimes, tip of the iceberg), a liar, a drug addict and an alcohol abuser.
**********
i, too, don't give a rat's azz about drunk drivers, as i care only about their victims when they physically and emotionally harm, maim and kill others.

i, too, don't care about whomever critically injured Vasi and has not taken responsibility for that action.

i also suspect the "All American Girl" PR campaign was created to hide MM's flaws and to plant an image to support any notion that she, in no manner, contributed by her actions or inactions, to her apparent fate and, ultimately, to her official status as a disappeared person.

the only victim suggested by the original lynch mob was, and is, Maura.

White Noise's emotional statement is her opinion, and was likely based on information she believed, but had not proven to be true.
your response, years after the fact, is to accuse her of lying about MM's whereabouts, and attributing the geocity's comment to her.

in a word: retaliation.
retaliation is also "not nice", but has been a theme and prevalent manipulation of online history.

frankly, i respect the manner in which Brianna Maitland's family has conducted themselves in the public view on behalf of their missing loved one. by being forthcoming, they provided the best opportunity for raising awareness about her tragic story.
in fact, one interview was very touching in which they described and honored the young woman that was, flaws and all, and the woman she might have become.

once again, someone must know what might have prompted MM to leave campus that day, and to run toward northern new england; someone can, but may be unwilling, to shine a light on that critical piece of information. no one wanted to get MM "in trouble".

Wow Snowy!!! Excellant posts and very well said.
I agree with most all that you have said and feel the same.
IMHO no one here has the right to dig into and investigate others.
While I would love to know what happened to MM I don't feel it's my job to knock on door and go around questioning people.
IMHO it is not only wrong but also harmful to the investigation.
LE and CCU are the only ones that have the right to do that.
Strangers knocking on doors to question people, calling them on the phone and putting their picture and personal information on an internet forum is doing more harm than good IMO. When does it become interfering with an ongoing investigation?

Wowzer the real one wrote:

Wow Snowy!!! Excellant posts and very well said.
I agree with most all that you have said and feel the same.
IMHO no one here has the right to dig into and investigate others.
While I would love to know what happened to MM I don't feel it's my job to knock on door and go around questioning people.
IMHO it is not only wrong but also harmful to the investigation.
LE and CCU are the only ones that have the right to do that.
Strangers knocking on doors to question people, calling them on the phone and putting their picture and personal information on an internet forum is doing more harm than good IMO. When does it become interfering with an ongoing investigation?

thank you for the affirmation. as always, you can get to the point sooner than i, and with fewer words.
all the very best to you and yours in the year ahead.

Sam, your speculations re adagio are interesting. Kudos for digging so tenaciously. Still, on the evidence you have provided, I think it is hard to conclude anything, beyond it being an interesting idea. I am puzzled, however, because either (1) you seem to be starting with your conclusion and driving toward it even though your evidence does not strongly point that way, or (2) you know more than you are posting.

For instance, you stated on Topix that you are "interested in Geocities letter because [you] believe that it is the basis of the current theory that Maura might be alive and in Canada. If the letter can be shown to be a hoax, then the theory goes with it. If it proves to be credible, then it makes the theory something [you] can believe." (#43308, p. 2098)

That is perfectly reasonable.

But you also stated that:

(1) You are "pretty confident that Lauren/adagio/White Noise/Tourist in Canada/observer/Canada created a story and presented it to as fact. I'd be very interested to learn LaWToC's motivation" (Post #43348, p. 2100), and

(2) You don't believe the geocities letter and observer post are credible evidence, saying that "[you] have seen no credible evidence suggesting that Maura lives in Canada. Therefore,[you] have no reason to believe that she does." (Post #43369, p. 2101)

The evidence that you have presented does not, in my view, warrant these conclusions, particularly that the geocities post was a "created story ... presented as fact."

Conceding for the present argument that the sole origin of the idea of Maura being in Canada was the two geocities posts (i.e., the one beginning "Maura Murray is not a missing person" and the subsequent post by "observer," stating that the theory in the first post "is common knowledge in certain circles of people who are close to the family"), it seems that to show this as having been a hoax, you would need evidence showing:

(1) The specific identify of the person who wrote the original geocities letter;

(2) The specific identity of "observer;"

(3) Evidence that the original poster had no basis for the comment about Maura's fate; and

(4) Evidence that "observer" had no basis for saying that the original poster's comment was "common knowledge in ... circles close to the family," such as evidence that the specific person who pasted that day as "observer" doesn't know anyone close to the Murray family.
If you don't have evidence of those four things, it appears to me that - for all you know - the concept elicited in either of those two comments (the second by reference to the first) could be accurate and you have no evidence to say otherwise.

So, do you have evidence of these four things?

I may not have read all of your posts on this topic, but from the ones I have seen, it seems that your evidence goes like this:

(1) You have found a selection of posts that exhibit content and perhaps style similarities between "adagio" and one of the two sources of the geocities posts;

(2) You have found multiple additional online identities that you think belong to the same person who owns the "adagio" handle;

(3) Adagio posts from Taunton; and

(4) At least one person on Topix believes they know the identity of "adagio."

Have I missed something?

How do you get from there to being "pretty sure" the geocities post was a "created story ... presented as fact."

I wonder if you would do a post where you addressed what evidence you have of the four items above? Alternatively, if a different logic structure is leading you to your conclusions and making the evidence you have already presented more compelling, I would be interested to see it.

I appreciate any clarifications you can provide.

~ John Green

SnowyB wrote:

whitenoise wrote:
<quoted text>
your response, years after the fact, is to accuse her of lying about MM's whereabouts, and attributing the geocity's comment to her.
in a word: retaliation.
retaliation is also "not nice", but has been a theme and prevalent manipulation of online history.

Retaliation? You think I'm retaliating against Adagio/etc? For what exactly?

I didn't know of her existence until three days ago. I have nothing at stake in this, no history, no emotions involved, nothing, nada. What in the world would I be "retaliating" against?

I knew there would be backlash, but this is just silly. You are suddenly attributing lots of things to me that simply aren't true. The only times I have contacted anybody in the real world regarding MM is calling DW's mother to warn her, calling the authorities twice to report JWB's stalking behavior, which I can tell you was a huge step for me and still causes me fear (which was praised and applauded by Wowzer and others, but, hey, I guess that's different, right?), and contacting the CCU with information I have found through research. I have not PM'd anybody, I have not met anybody, like many of you have done. I did not reveal any info about Adagio/etc., and I did not say at any time, nor did I condone, contacting her in any way, and in fact said just the opposite, that I felt it would be a waste of time. I did not share her information with anybody.

Again, if this were somebody other than your friend, you certainly would have no problem with my research. As far as searching and re-posting old quotes, you do it yourself, when it is somebody you don't like, and you deliberately re-posted personal information about JWB:

2/10/13, Page 1607,#32830

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
JWB has previously revealed a great deal about himself on this thread...at various times he has offered personal contact and has revealed his age, family constellation and his location.
here, for example he is openly discussing his location:

"JWB
xxxxxxxx, NH
Reply »|Report Abuse|Judge it!|#xxxxxxx Apr 28, 2012
Judged:221
I live in a small town (xxxxxxxx) and I am not originally from this town- But I have learned quickly that most people are related in some form or another and will protect all locals till the end-- those that move in town from elsewhere are called flat landers and don't fit the mold. don't get me wrong, I love the small town community because they will help you no matter what, but the local bond is tops and I have seen it thrown in my face!!"

the context in which he reveals this information is here:
[link to JWB's post]

I removed the name of his town and your link back to his post and added quotes to make it clear.

So, it is OK for you to research old posts and re-post quotes that reveal personal information when it suits you, but it is not OK when other people research friends of yours. And you will also see in my next post that you praised me when I researched and posted historical info about the Murrays, and as you said, I did it to protect the family, so apparently that is OK too.

You can't have it both ways.

"Have I missed something?"

It appears that you have accurately represented my position.

"How do you get from there to being 'pretty sure' the geocities post was a 'created story ... presented as fact'"

This is based on the premise that Suzanne did not have the requisite basis of knowledge to have authored the geocities letter.

"I wonder if you would do a post where you addressed what evidence you have of the four items above? Alternatively, if a different logic structure is leading you to your conclusions and making the evidence you have already presented more compelling, I would be interested to see it."

I can do that. I look forward to your comments.
Expect it later this evening; I have a few things to do today.

Let me clarify one part of my response:

"This is based on the premise that Suzanne did not have the requisite basis of knowledge to have authored the geocities letter" AS FACT.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

"Have I missed something?"
It appears that you have accurately represented my position.
"How do you get from there to being 'pretty sure' the geocities post was a 'created story ... presented as fact'"
This is based on the premise that Suzanne did not have the requisite basis of knowledge to have authored the geocities letter.
"I wonder if you would do a post where you addressed what evidence you have of the four items above? Alternatively, if a different logic structure is leading you to your conclusions and making the evidence you have already presented more compelling, I would be interested to see it."
I can do that. I look forward to your comments.
Expect it later this evening; I have a few things to do today.

Great Sam. I look forward to reading it. You are one of the most productive thinkers about this case in my view, although I think sometimes you get caught in taking others' ideas out of their contexts by subjecting them to linear criticisms when they were simply offered as ideas. In that context, your willingness to address these questions sheds a good light on you.

Also, keep something in mind. I have no issue with exploring ideas and seeing how exploration of one idea shapes or shades your views of others. I think that is a healthy process, particularly when you are trying to scrape new information up about a mystery. You are especially good at thinking that way and I hoped you would be glad, not upset, with the challenge to your ideas. You know, Galileo surprassed his peers in explaining the mysterious movements of celestial bodies (like Venus in retrograde) both because he could explore unconventional ideas that had little basis in mainstream thinking AND because he didn't just mentally engineer his ideas, but also spent hours and hours rolling balls down inclined planes to test them.

I don't agree with some of the things you do, but - in general man - keep up the good work.

I am looking forward to your next post.

Also, if you have a chance, would you email me?

John

Sam Ledyard wrote:

Let me clarify one part of my response:
"This is based on the premise that Suzanne did not have the requisite basis of knowledge to have authored the geocities letter" AS FACT.

The one thing I want to add here - implied by the four pronged test I asserted - is that, unless you can show that the two authors were the same person (which, maybe you have, I am not sure), you only have half the proof you need.

This because even if the letter itself were written by someone as a prank, if observer is close to the family and recognized that it happened to be true, then you are left with a random prank that hit a target and a confirmation of it by someone who would know.

Listen, it is worth definitively debunking the rumors about Maura being in Canada if in fact they are bunk. So this effort on your part is important and I hope Renner is helping you by telling you every source he has.

And like I said, I am VERY glad to see that you respond positively to the "QA" of your thinking which you often offer for others. In my view, while we have had our differences, that REALLY increases your credibility.

~ John Green

SnowyB wrote:

Maruchan, as i explained, you may surmise, but cannot definitely assign who has authored which quotations.
if it mattered, anyway, the CCU has resources to make that determination.
you are, indeed, operating in a social realm, and apparently within a group of like minds whom feel strongly that any aspect of the "search" for MM is not out of bounds or without limits.
L4M has been held, by a secondary lynch mob, to be a suspicious individual for not allowing strangers to trespass on her property in the name of MM. again, the same mindset prevails; not only has she has been tried and convicted in the court of the online community, but her rights to privacy are disregarded by the same amateur sleuthing gang.
indeed, it does matter what came before you; the previous lynch mob was no better in making and justifying accusations than the current one.
you were also quick to jump into "researching" the personal lives of MM's sister and brother-in-law...and documenting that info. where is the line between citizen, private investigator and journalist? or does one feel free to act in any capacity one chooses?
further, you are not personally tasked to investigate others. it is also not your duty to decide how little or how much the state expends to "find" MM.
apparently, Beagle's overt behaviors and actions DID draw the attention of authorities, and with all associated costs.
your tracking down any individual poster, especially comments previously studied, doesn't affect the bottom line, nor does it justify or advance the current status of MM's disappearance. in fact, it doesn't even correct the record because your method is not scientific, is merely intrusive, and therefore, your conclusion has not been proven.
i choose to have zero offline contact with Shack, even though i disagree with her ideas. in fact, you are no better than JWB by your making an assumption about White Noise and then intending to and / or acting upon it.
the means do not justify the ends, even if you are skilled in calling up info to compare and contrast. ditto for any other sleuths trained as lawyers, but may be frustrated by their under or unemployed status, and so find an outlet in delving into strangers' lives in real time. JMO

There was never a lynch mob attacking Looking4moose, stop lying.

going back and reading this thread it looks like she was treated pretty nicely actually, where exactly did this lynch mob occur? and when?

Sam Ledyard wrote:

Let me clarify one part of my response:
"This is based on the premise that Suzanne did not have the requisite basis of knowledge to have authored the geocities letter" AS FACT.

I am guessing that you did not post my comment on your blog for the same reason that you said you cannot post until tonight. You wanted to have time to think through and respond to it before you posted it, which is reasonable. I will admit that pasted the post here because when I did not see my comment as "pending moderation" on your site (i.e., deleted, I thought), I wondered if you were dodging it.

I am VERY happy to see that you are not and like I said it speaks well of you.

John

John Green wrote:

<quoted text>
Great Sam. I look forward to reading it. You are one of the most productive thinkers about this case in my view, although I think sometimes you get caught in taking others' ideas out of their contexts by subjecting them to linear criticisms when they were simply offered as ideas. In that context, your willingness to address these questions sheds a good light on you.
Also, keep something in mind. I have no issue with exploring ideas and seeing how exploration of one idea shapes or shades your views of others. I think that is a healthy process, particularly when you are trying to scrape new information up about a mystery. You are especially good at thinking that way and I hoped you would be glad, not upset, with the challenge to your ideas. You know, Galileo surprassed his peers in explaining the mysterious movements of celestial bodies (like Venus in retrograde) both because he could explore unconventional ideas that had little basis in mainstream thinking AND because he didn't just mentally engineer his ideas, but also spent hours and hours rolling balls down inclined planes to test them.
I don't agree with some of the things you do, but - in general man - keep up the good work.
I am looking forward to your next post.
Also, if you have a chance, would you email me?
John

Ah, the return of Super Ego. Just can't stay away from Topix, even though he could have posted this on Sam's blog - nope, has to post here and make sure to dismiss me with "At least one person on Topix believes they know the identity of "adagio." Does he honestly think we don't see through his little games? Does he honestly think we don't know he is deliberately insulting us by not acknowledging us? Soooooo transparent ...

As I said before, guess that job where he wouldn't be able to post on forums was a lie, eh?

His benevolence and approval towards Sam is so touching - oh, isn't it sweet and cute that Sam has a brain and can actually use it? Such high praise, coming from such a superior being. Truly, it brings tears to my eyes.:)

Apparently this didn't post earlier:

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
And you will also see in my next post that you praised me when I researched and posted historical info about the Murrays, and as you said, I did it to protect the family, so apparently that is OK too.

7/10/13, Page 1893,#38789

Maruchan wrote:

Regarding Renner's post "Fred Murray was losing his home the week Maura vanished," I have confirmed that the house at 22 Walker Street has six owners on title as of the end of June. The house was passed on from the estate of Maura's grandfather, Frederick M. Murray (also listed in many records as Frederick E.), in 1995 to six individuals:
Daniel P.
Mary
Rita
Grace
Martha
Fred J.
There are different last names attached to two of the women's names, but I'm leaving them off for privacy reasons. Since four of those names are children of Frederick M. and Mary J. Murray, I am going to assume that the other two are as well.
Regardless, the house is jointly owned by six people who would be responsible for keeping the taxes paid.
I have checked back as far as online records go, and it appears that this house has been in the Murray family since at least 1913. Records show that Maura's great-grandfather, Patrick H. Murray, owned it in 1913, and signed title over to his wife, Catherine E. O'Donnell, in 1916. By 1920, Catherine was a widow and mother to eight children. Per the 1940 Census, Catherine and her sons Leo and Frederick M. were residing in the house.
I'm posting this info simply to show that this house was the Murray family home, not just Fred's home. It has been in the family for at least 100 years. We know that Fred, Rita and Daniel have all resided there - the other three owners may have as well.
Another note - Renner said "Fred Murray is still listed in the phone book as living at 22 Walker St. in Weymouth, Mass, but he hasn't lived there in some years." In checking all online White Pages sources, the person listed is Fredk E. Murray, not Frederick J., Maura's father. As I said above, Frederick M. Murray also went by Frederick E., so the listing is not for Maura's father, but her grandfather.
And just for more interesting Murray trivia, since I found it, I might as well share it - Catherine Murray originally owned the two parcels across the street from 22 Walker Street as well as three parcels on adjoining Richmond Street. The house where the Murray cousins that Renner mentioned live was granted to her son Walter in 1940, and one of the houses on Richmond was granted to her son James in 1954, and then granted back to her in 1957.
So Walker street is not only the family home, but the family neighborhood. It must be nice to have roots like that - I sure don't.:)

7/9/13, Page 1893,# 38793

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
good information, Maruchan. not extraordinarily difficult to obtain, but the fact that you've devoted time to collecting it and setting the record straight is helpful and laudable.
still, the button pushing judges can't even recognize when someone is defending the Murray family. if all the brain power is occupying the cheap seats i'm assuming there is a section roped off for the group with low reading comprehension.

well, Maruchan, in less than 3 days you have failed to convince me that i am the hypocrite you suggest, and i also believe your presumed identification of the geocity's poster is flawed both by your interpretation of White Noise’s posts, their being related to other monikers, and for lacking sufficient evidence / proof to support your statements:

you write @43378:

“Even without her corroboration, I am satisfied that she is the author of the Geocities letter and other Quebec posts.”

“it is the many similarities in writing patterns that proves to me it is her.”

“If Renner continues on without acknowledging that he has no proof that Citigirl is the author, and that there is far more proof that the author is Suzanne/Adagio/etc.”

in a related matter:

Sam Ledyard wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is not whether Suzanne is intelligent or sophisticated. It's whether she's observer.
Having said that, I understand that this is a delicate issue. I think we all agree that it's best to be cautious. When I identify Suzanne, I will not publish her name. Instead, I will contact her by email, explain the present issue, and ask for a comment.
Maruchan -- do you agree that this is the best approach?

Ledyard’s stated intent to identify White Noise (not IF, but WHEN) and to contact her by email reflects, at the very least, that a little knowledge can be dangerous thing, and that, but for the legal protections provided by Topix TOS, unscrupulous posters are willing to pursue other anonymous posters to crack their identities.

all of this follows a recent, similar frenzy about WhiteWash.

and who says White Noise is my friend? i’ve stated i am defending an individual i respect for taking a stand against those whom abused innocents in the name of MM, for her taking no prisoners, and for her intelligence and sophistication, as evidenced by the content of her posts.

together, you and Ledyard are no different than JWB’s accusing Wowzer of witnessing MM’s crash and failing to speak about it. he would then harass her in numerous ways to incite a reply and to engender fear in a manner he covers by alternating multi-moniker identities.
truth be told, he has a history of these threatening behaviors, which are usually directed at women, and to which a number of us have witnessed. these unstable behaviors are triggered by whomever he disagrees with, whomever may disagree with him, and on several other occasions, by displays of incoherent self-talk.

“So, it is OK for you to research old posts and re-post quotes that reveal personal information when it suits you, but it is not OK when other people research friends of yours.”(Maruchan @43407)

if you’ve paid attention, you would know that JWB harassed and incited fear in me and others by his online threats, to the extent that i found it necessary to report him both to Topix on numerous occasions, and prior to your action, i, too, reported him to the police as a matter of record.
his self-identification assisted me in doing so, well before he was outed by another poster.

on retaliation – the name of the game

ducks relegated dissenters to the TOT in retaliation for moving away from the party line.

Granny is known to retaliate by threatening inappropriate consequences for disagreeing with her.

you do not agree with White Noise’s position regarding Maura and her family; she is not “nice” by your standard, and so there is a suggestion that your willingness to accuse her of being another poster, without proof, seems retaliatory.

while i’ve failed to convince you to use your skills to a higher purpose. I am happy to agree to disagree.

Wowzer ultimately formulated and made the most important points,@43404:
bottom line
"When does it become interfering with an ongoing investigation?”

OH BOY-

I almost posted yesterday when I agreed with Snowy -Lighthouse and Maruchan all bang bang bang. I couldn't believe it but yet I did agree to some levels to all .

I think it is ridiculous to start to talking about old posters as if that is going to solve the case etc-- I think it is taking the eye off the ball or possibly saying that there is no more info and we need to start trying to keep the conversation going ( Blog interest).

If someone new came and posted to Renner saying "Hey I believe that Maura is in Canada" and this is why then that would be different but it seems that a stretch to write the book is in play( sorry JR cause I am on your side).

That really burns Grannies Ass!! New info pointing to Canada I say yea check it out but to rely on forums as your source IDK- Been there done that.

I am not a deflector of finding Maura and I would hope everyone knows that but I am saying lets be real and stop the salesmanship cause the long time followers are not into that and only want finality,