Maura Murray

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
I was speaking of new information -- observer's identity.

Sam, you can't seriously believe that if you put a picture up of ANYONE that there aren't people that are going to swear on their lives that they saw that person. I promise you if you put a picture of someone that is known to be dead, in any large city. Guaranteeing that they couldn't have seen that person. You will still get dozens of people who will swear in court that they saw them. Nothing conspiratorial there. Just more evidence at how poorly we can actually identify faces. That idiot could have put a picture of any generic girl who has never been to that city and people would have said they saw her. Guaranteed. It was nothing more than a very transparent stunt to drive book sales and get free publicity, again, using other peoples money. Just like the absurd posters and billboards ideas.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Sam, you can't seriously believe that if you put a picture up of ANYONE that there aren't people that are going to swear on their lives that they saw that person. I promise you if you put a picture of someone that is known to be dead, in any large city. Guaranteeing that they couldn't have seen that person. You will still get dozens of people who will swear in court that they saw them. Nothing conspiratorial there. Just more evidence at how poorly we can actually identify faces.

I agree.

I'm not talking about a photographic identification. My goal is to identify "Suzanne" aka "observer."

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know. My first thought is to watch idiots run all over the continent pretending that they are going to solve this case based upon information they found on the internet. I mean if that isn't entertainment I don't know what is. I know I laugh my axx off every time I think about it. A group of stooges traipsing off to Canada to "find" Maura based upon something that someone wrote on the internet.
Bill

it is amusing that sleuthers take themselves so seriously, and can't keep a balanced perspective about their perceived self-importance.

Renner has already laid out his philosophy about limits to privacy and boundaries to his investigational practices; he is known to be indiscreet with privacies, and there are few limits.
he, therefore, encourages others, of like minds, to join him. not impressive.

I would check out the bus driver. A big yellow bus isn't something that people would forget seeing. I believe he came forward to make it look like he was a good samaratin and incase someone saw him. If she was in distress I'm sure he took advantage of it. It's a theory. He apparently was the last person to see her that we know of.

christy wrote:

I would check out the bus driver. A big yellow bus isn't something that people would forget seeing. I believe he came forward to make it look like he was a good samaratin and incase someone saw him. If she was in distress I'm sure he took advantage of it. It's a theory. He apparently was the last person to see her that we know of.

Shack. Is that you?

Idiot.

Bill

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
it is amusing that sleuthers take themselves so seriously, and can't keep a balanced perspective about their perceived self-importance.
Renner has already laid out his philosophy about limits to privacy and boundaries to his investigational practices; he is known to be indiscreet with privacies, and there are few limits.
he, therefore, encourages others, of like minds, to join him. not impressive.

There is this theory that collectively, we are smarter than we are individually. I believe this to be true in most cases. The problem is that the assumption with the hive mentality concept is that there needs to be a very broad cross-section of divergent people who think differently. It also assumes a very large group. renner has collected a very small band of very like minded people. So his whole crowd-sourcing/hive-thought is based upon a bad construction. It also presupposes that you don't dismiss others who disagree with you. Something else he does often.

In addition. I had a strong dislike for posts/accusations made by shack. I never once considered that gave me the right to track her down. I had no need. To what purpose would anyone do that? And even if I ever came across her name, that would not be anything I would share. This thinking is similar to shack in that anything is allowable if it results in their achieving their goal. And of course they have neither the talent, training, or right to be sleuthing others. These axxholes us to be the people that would send the cops on wild goose chases with their crazy theories until the cops knew them well enough that they realized they were useless. Unfortunately these same idiots now can do their own internet "investigations" at other peoples peril.

And any idiot who tries to do that. Just imagine who the first people to be visited would be if something happened to the person being "investigated", some might call stalked. Imagine all the police conversations you would be invited to. Doesn't matter if you are "innocent", that is the kind of bullsxxt that I personally would avoid.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Sam, you can't seriously believe that if you put a picture up of ANYONE that there aren't people that are going to swear on their lives that they saw that person. I promise you if you put a picture of someone that is known to be dead, in any large city. Guaranteeing that they couldn't have seen that person. You will still get dozens of people who will swear in court that they saw them. Nothing conspiratorial there. Just more evidence at how poorly we can actually identify faces. That idiot could have put a picture of any generic girl who has never been to that city and people would have said they saw her. Guaranteed. It was nothing more than a very transparent stunt to drive book sales and get free publicity, again, using other peoples money. Just like the absurd posters and billboards ideas.
Bill

How might this apply to the bus driver's identification of Maura Murray?

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
How might this apply to the bus driver's identification of Maura Murray?

Simply. SBD was looking at her for a short time. Not a fleeting glimpse. It was night. He couldn't positively ID her but thought it was her.

Far more importantly, I don't need SBD's eyewitness testimony to know who was in Maura's car. The major difference is that until someone proves that it wasn't Maura who drove Maura's car to that area and that it wasn't Maura who was seen in Maura's car at the crash location. The smart money is on it being Maura. Occam and all that.

Bill

Tyler in Pittsburgh wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Beagle,
Is Glen Road Bridge the bridge you filmed in your Youtube video?

Maybe it was brooke side ave in greenfield

Booneplantation wrote:

<quoted text> Although there are some good religious people , I have to completely agree that there are many christians as you describe.

When you say something out loud sometimes you can squeeze these comments by, but when you write them it creates a reference point.

You create a retreat or escape clause in the first part of your statement "although there are some good religious people" You are setting the ground work so if you make a generalized statement and you are pressed about it you can reintroduce your escape clause.

So now if your asked "why are you generalizing (or stereotyping) the christians in your post" You can go back to the retreat clause and say "I just said there are some good religious people"

If we were in a bar your words would be lost but right now when people reread them my point starts to become clear.

Lets take it to one more level. Your escape clause " there are some good religious people" talks about any religious person, but you statement goes on that " I (You) have to completely agree that there are many christians as you describe."

You are completely agreeing with the poster which interestingly enough in post 43464 never mentions the Christains by name. You push the previous post forward and give the group a name.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
When you say something out loud sometimes you can squeeze these comments by, but when you write them it creates a reference point.
You create a retreat or escape clause in the first part of your statement "although there are some good religious people" You are setting the ground work so if you make a generalized statement and you are pressed about it you can reintroduce your escape clause.
So now if your asked "why are you generalizing (or stereotyping) the christians in your post" You can go back to the retreat clause and say "I just said there are some good religious people"
If we were in a bar your words would be lost but right now when people reread them my point starts to become clear.
Lets take it to one more level. Your escape clause " there are some good religious people" talks about any religious person, but you statement goes on that " I (You) have to completely agree that there are many christians as you describe."
You are completely agreeing with the poster which interestingly enough in post 43464 never mentions the Christains by name. You push the previous post forward and give the group a name.

I appreciate your observations regarding my comment. Actually it made me smile. But althought you explained it in what it may mean formally, I was not thinking on those terms when I wrote. I do believe there are good religious people. It was not a " scape" clause... It is a genuine opinion. Thanks for the input.

Beagle is creepy wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe it was brooke side ave in greenfield

That's extremely uncalled for.

I'm curious.....what does anyone think gives them the right to invade someone's privacy by hunting down another posters name, address or phone number and then call them at their home or business, knock on their door to ask questions, call their family or friends or put their personal information on a public forum.
While I know there's a few posters that have mentioned the vicinity where they live either accidently or without thinking that someday a small group of no minds would be trying to find out their identity I believe that if they wanted other posters to know who they were, where they lived and their phone number they would have posted it themselves.
I have to wonder what Renner, Tyler and Sam would do if a complete stranger from Topix came to their door while their wife or children were home alone(if they have a wife and children) and wanted to ask them questions. Or if that stranger called their friends or relatives.
Never in my life have I seen a small group of grown men act like such (fill in the word) trying to outdo each other on winning the booby prize.
This group IMO is doing more harm than good and could be causing people to shut doors and clam up
Only LE and CCU have the right to knock on doors and call to question people IMHO. I really hope that whoever is called or visited next by someone in this small group tells them to go crap in their hat.
So with that said can any of you in the hunting group tell me what or who gives you the right to identify and collect personal information on other posters?

Tyler in Pittsburgh wrote:

<quoted text>
That's extremely uncalled for.

Why??

Wowzer, See what I mean by Hypocrite? Another good example.

Wowzer you certainly thought is was all fun and games for ridiculous attempt to post my familys info and address, You were happy as a clam over that one.
When that took place then you should have nothing to say on the matter.

JWB wrote:

Wowzer, See what I mean by Hypocrite? Another good example.
Wowzer you certainly thought is was all fun and games for ridiculous attempt to post my familys info and address, You were happy as a clam over that one.
When that took place then you should have nothing to say on the matter.

You threatened to out me on this forum several times. You asked me over and over what I could see from my window so many times I really thought you were having some kind of break down. You kept mentioning campers and Bradley Hill Rd. You were openly looking for my house and I have to wonder what you would do if you actually found it. You were stalking me and it's all right here on this forum. Anyone can read back and see for themselves what you said.
There were some posters here that were so worried for my safety that they reported you.
If you want to act like a child and keep calling me names then go for it if it will make you feel
like a big man. Grow up JWB!

It's time to do to them what they've done to us.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
You threatened to out me on this forum several times. You asked me over and over what I could see from my window so many times I really thought you were having some kind of break down. You kept mentioning campers and Bradley Hill Rd. You were openly looking for my house and I have to wonder what you would do if you actually found it. You were stalking me and it's all right here on this forum. Anyone can read back and see for themselves what you said.
There were some posters here that were so worried for my safety that they reported you.
If you want to act like a child and keep calling me names then go for it if it will make you feel
like a big man. Grow up JWB!

I'll drop by his house..

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
You threatened to out me on this forum several times. You asked me over and over what I could see from my window so many times I really thought you were having some kind of break down. You kept mentioning campers and Bradley Hill Rd. You were openly looking for my house and I have to wonder what you would do if you actually found it. You were stalking me and it's all right here on this forum. Anyone can read back and see for themselves what you said.
There were some posters here that were so worried for my safety that they reported you.
If you want to act like a child and keep calling me names then go for it if it will make you feel
like a big man. Grow up JWB!

Listen
I asked you because you were often mean to me and I knew it would get your goat. You didn't answer the legit question ( did you see something), I was told you were a photographer by a poster and I ran with it after you repeatedly pissed me off about where I lived. I don't care who you are nor do i know,

I could care less if you know who i am but your rules are done,

So are you condoning putting someones family info on this forum?

Wowzer the real one wrote:

I'm curious.....what does anyone think gives them the right to invade someone's privacy by hunting down another posters name, address or phone number and then call them at their home or business, knock on their door to ask questions, call their family or friends or put their personal information on a public forum.
While I know there's a few posters that have mentioned the vicinity where they live either accidently or without thinking that someday a small group of no minds would be trying to find out their identity I believe that if they wanted other posters to know who they were, where they lived and their phone number they would have posted it themselves.
I have to wonder what Renner, Tyler and Sam would do if a complete stranger from Topix came to their door while their wife or children were home alone(if they have a wife and children) and wanted to ask them questions. Or if that stranger called their friends or relatives.
Never in my life have I seen a small group of grown men act like such (fill in the word) trying to outdo each other on winning the booby prize.
This group IMO is doing more harm than good and could be causing people to shut doors and clam up
Only LE and CCU have the right to knock on doors and call to question people IMHO. I really hope that whoever is called or visited next by someone in this small group tells them to go crap in their hat.
So with that said can any of you in the hunting group tell me what or who gives you the right to identify and collect personal information on other posters?

Wowzer. Hope all is well. Since it is too difficult to actually solve the case at hand they look for a pyrrhic victory to solve. There is some satisfaction to "solve" who the poster is, but probably doesn't bring anyone closer to resolving the case. If these posters actual had anything to do with this case send the posts to the CCU. If the CCU and a judge agrees with the cyberslueths then they can get the proper court documentation to find the posters and interview them. That would save everyone time.

By getting some small resolution to who this poster is, psychologically it fulfills the need of getting resolution to the larger case.