Maura Murray

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.

thanks for your considered reply, Lighthouse, to the topic. we usually stay away from religion, politics and PC-sensitive topics, but a few decided to push their beliefs.
while i am not "religious", i felt compelled to defend my traditional values and my faith.
i, and others, feel put upon when the louder voices hope to silence us.

Booneplantation wrote:

<quoted text> 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.

I appreciate you proving my point and envoking the escape clause. I already knew you would write that see below:

"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>
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.

Hope all is well with you too Lighthouse. I agree fully with what you've said. But so far I haven't seen this group of cyberslueths do too much of anything that would be considered proper IMO.
Letting the police and CCU do their jobs would be the proper thing I think.
I find it amusing when one of the group comes here looking for answers but refuses to answer any questions asked of them.
Hope you have a great weekend Lighthouse. It's 53 degrees here, windy and I'm heading outside to take advantage of it before it' turns sub zero again. LOL

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
I find it amusing when one of the group comes here looking for answers but refuses to answer any questions asked of them.

I've never seen that happen. Ask it again and I'm sure it will be addressed.

Sam,
I have always seen you answer questions no matter how nasty the questions or statements were put.I don't always agree but you never go into hiding.I am interested in what Wowzer is talking about

JWB wrote:

I am interested in what Wowzer is talking about

Nothing of substance.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
I've never seen that happen. Ask it again and I'm sure it will be addressed.

Oh goody!
I asked a few questions on post #43511 and didn't get any answers.
And then I asked Tyler a question to something that he posted on #43512 and got no answer.
There's many more unanswered questions but it's been an extremely busy day and I'm too tired and not interested enough to look them up.

Tyler from Pittsburgh wrote:

<quoted text>
Nothing of substance.

Nice! Now you've gone and hurt my feelings. I doubt I'll get a wink of sleep tonight.
And here I thought we were friends. Jeesh!

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text> I asked a few questions on post #43511 and didn't get any answers.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text> [W]hat does anyone think gives them the right to ... hunt[] 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.

White Wash posted her name on Topix. I searched online for her contact info. I found her home phone number and nothing else. I called and left a message. I provided my name, described the Maura Murray Community and asked whether she would consider sharing her photographs.

It was well within my rights to call her. There was nothing unlawful (or otherwise inappropriate) about it.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text> I believe that if [a poster] wanted other posters to know ...[his or her] phone number [he or she] would have posted it[].

I disagree. This is a forum to discuss Maura's case; it's not a phone book.

I found White Wash in the phone book. She listed it, presumably, so that people who don't know her phone number have a way to contact her.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text> This group IMO is doing more harm than good and could be causing people to shut doors and clam up[.]

What would you recommend? Telepathy?

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text> Only LE and CCU have the right to knock on doors and call to question people IMHO.

If I had phoned the police and asked whether they could request the pictures from White Wash, do you honestly believe that they would have complied with that request?

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text> So with that said can any of you ... tell me what or who gives you the right to identify and collect personal information on other posters?

As stated above, White Wash provided her name on Topix and I looked her up in the phone book and called her.

Again, as stated above, I did have the right to call her. There was nothing unlawful or wrongful about it.

I hope I answered your questions.

PS -- Before you start burning phone books to protest against my actions, I want to make one thing perfectly clear: I have absolutely no need to ever contact you. Even if I did have a reason, you have made your position perfectly clear in that respect, and I would refrain from contacting you.

I didn't think that the longer post was published, so I began posting it in two parts. Disregard my second post.

Topix already disregarded my second post. Problem solved.

One more point, Wowzer. It occurred to me that you might have had Suzanne in mind, as well.

I see absolutely nothing unlawful or wrongful about investigating her. However, if you believe that Suzanne's conduct was criminal, and that she should be investigated properly by the police, you might consider contacting the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Report back after you do so that I can step back and let the professionals deal with Suzanne.

Suzanne was my best friend.One day she was found hanging from a phone cord in her barn. She had an abusive Husband and had only been married to him for 3 months. She called me and I didn't get the phone call because the phone was out in my car and I was at work. Then she was gone. I miss her every day.

I think one thing should be made clear here, it seems obvious but some people dont seem to comprehend what's considered evidence or useful info in a case like this.

Discovering the identity of an internet poster is NOT in any way evidence, or even information that's useful to the case. Even more so if you think the person made it up.

Something else is the difference between proof and evidence. Yes it appears that suzanne, adagio,.etc are all the same person. All the points brought up by maruchan and others is rather persuasive and strongly indicates that they are all the same author,.but nobody has outright proven it.

Even if it is proven it is still not information about the Murray case, it is information about someone who's commenting online about the Murray case, big difference.

If you want to be a sleuther i think it's a good idea to learn the basics first before you start calling people for example. You know.basic principles, like the difference between proof & evidence.

the theory that Maura Murray ran away to Canada has been around since day one.
This theory did not originate from that geocities post.

If you theorize that she ran a way to start a new life then you kind of have to theorize that she ran to Canada, it's the only thing that makes sense. If you live in Massachusetts you do not travel up to New Hampshire to get to distant destinations, its the other way around actually. if she was traveling to California, for example, there is just no reason that she would travel up north New Hampshire to get there, there is no mass transit system, no way to even get to California.

if you believe that she ran away to start a new life then you have to believe that she was planning on running to either New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, or Canada. where else would she be traveling to through New Hampshire and why would she be going through New Hampshire to get there?

I disagree with your first point. The information that Suzanne that provided is relevant because some people believe that it's true.

I don't follow you on this point:

dontletgo wrote:

[I] think it's a good idea to learn the basics ... like the difference between proof & evidence.

How are you defining "proof" when drawing this distinction?

When we speak of meeting the burden of proof it means that both the burden of production and the have been met. Are you focusing on the burden of persuasion? if so, what in particular?

dontletgo wrote:

the theory that Maura Murray ran away to Canada has been around since day one. This theory did not originate from that geocities post.

We're not speaking of a theory. Suzanne intentionally spread false information.
If Suzanne had represented the geocities letter as a "theory," then Leone wouldn't have traced her ip and authored a report for the state police. Mason wouldn't have instructed observer on the potential criminal consequences of her behavior.

Suzanne stated her position as fact. She did not treat it as a theory.

I meant to write: "When we speak of meeting the burden of proof it means that both the burden of production and persuasion been met. Are you focusing on the burden of persuasion? if so, what in particular?"

"Sam's" endeavor, like Green's, seems likely to be an exercise in perceived self-importance, possibly originating from a state of boredom with a need for personal recognition or accomplishment.

he is not transparent enough to post his own contact information (email contacts are presumed not to validate user identities), but strives to unearth the real life identities of others whom, like him, are using or have used monikers in discussion boards, on blogs, etc.

he, and others, leave behind a trail and a record of suspicion by way of his judging and / or accusing others.
by attempts to contact them after he has made those accusations amounts to nothing less than stalking behaviors.

"Sam", "Green" and even Renner attempt to justify their less than honorable approaches to "investigating" others, but their actions are unsavory, in my opinion, and their results cannot provide irrefutable proof of claimed intent or actions that they, individually and collectively, assign to targeted private (and public) individuals.

Maruchan was maligned for alerting DW's mother to stalking- in-progress by the same individuals whom nod their approval for her "digging" into the backgrounds of others.
"digging", imo, implies animal behavior; alternately, stalking behavior.

in case anyone wonders, it is not the obligation of strangers to diffuse the suspicions around them by communicating with strangers until the accusers' accusations are either satisfied and / or released.

self-appointed, or volunteer, investigators have failed to yield any progress. first, the ducks, and now, a mixed bag of vigilantes and gossips.
bravo to those whom have approached the curious disappearance of MM with some dignity and limits to the aforementioned unwelcome and unacceptable behaviors.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
We're not speaking of a theory. Suzanne intentionally spread false information.

She is posting on a forum meant for people to voice their opinion. Your acting as if her posts are an affidavit and lied on it.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
She is posting on a forum meant for people to voice their opinion. Your acting as if her posts are an affidavit and lied on it.

I was referring to the geocities webpage and the Tourist in Canada/Canada Topix posts. I admit I was unclear about that.

No, you're correct that an affidavit wasn't involved. But the geocities page consisted in fraudulent misrepresentations concerning a missing person.