Maura Murray

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
White Wash posted her name on Topix.
I decided she had pictures she never laimed to have.
I asked her about pictures she didn't have on Topix.
White Wash ignored my question.
I asked others if they had her email.
I made a blog post giving other people tips on how yo find her.
i finally was desparate enough to pay $10 to Spokeo to get her illegally obtained private information collected by some botnet. I called and left a message, just to make sure she knew that I'd keep calling her and asking her for pictures she didn't have. Just so she would know that I didn't actually care about what she said unless she agreed with me. I provided my fake 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.

Blah blah blah Telepathy?!!!???

We don't want to buy Life Insurance from you. That's it.

Live from Santa Clara wrote:

<quoted text>
We don't want to buy Life Insurance from you. That's it.

The fact that I know your name and will not post it, despite your insults, misrepresentations and accusations should tell you a lot about my motives.

I honestly don't know where you're coming from on this. I thought you were interested in the truth.

Where are the pictures Samuel?

We know you have them Samuel.

Where are they?

SAMUEL

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
The fact that I know your name and will not post it, despite your insults, misrepresentations and accusations should tell you a lot about my motives.
I honestly don't know where you're coming from on this. I thought you were interested in the truth.

Were going to keep asking until you give us the pictures Samuel.

Look here Sammy. My, uh, partner here isn't going to stop ssking. So why don't you just tell us where you put the pictures.

Let me look at your pictures.

So maybe, by example here, you now know that it can get annoying when people assume things about you that aren't true. Its even further annoying when the things they assume are made up. Like the Life Insurance.

What I refuse to demonstrate by example, I explain here. It is additionally annoying, if, in spite of your denial and denisls by others on your behalf, that the false belief is further acted on. With exhaustive Internet searches and ultimately, unsolicited phone calls.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

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

Some people believe that Bigfoot is real, so in their view a Bigfoot could have taken Maura ... should they be investigated too?

Then there are these stories:

http://paranormal.about.com/cs/humanenigmas/a...

Sam Ledyard wrote:

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

Definition of fradulent misrepresentation - the party making the statement is aware that it is false or disregards the possibility of it being false.

Do you know for a fact that this poster knew they were writing "false statements" or is it possible they just miswrote an opinion and it just looked like a factual statement by mistake?

There is a chance that you aren't 100% sure that this was actually a fraudulent misrepresentation. You by "disregarding the possibility of what you are saying is false" are just as guilty as the accused?

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
You by "disregarding the possibility of what you are saying is false" are just as guilty as the accused?

No. A fraudulent misrepresentation must concern a fact (something susceptible of actual knowledge). The issue of whether Maura's alive is factual (as opposed to an opinion). Legal conclusions are, of course, not factual.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
No. A fraudulent misrepresentation must concern a fact (something susceptible of actual knowledge). The issue of whether Maura's alive is factual (as opposed to an opinion). Legal conclusions are, of course, not factual.

Since it is impossible to say at this time whether Suzanne's statement is not fact, there is no fraudulent misrepresentation.

Although there are very good reasons to believe it to be true nobody has outright proven thay Suzanne and the other posters are one in the same. from the information given you can extrapolate that they are most likely the same person, but there has been nothing that I have seen that constitutes solid proof.
If you are conducting an investigation I think it's pretty important to know what constitutes proof of something.
even if it is proven that Suzanne made the whole thing up, like it's evident you believe, then that in no way is information that has any bearing on this case. you can find her identity all you want but that is not going to bring you any closer to solving the mystery of what happened to Maura Murray.

And it does not matter what mason said, the author of that Geocities post is in no legal trouble. we have free speech in America, you can make up whatever you want and post it on the internet, that is not a crime.
now if Suzanne made up this story while talking to LE during an interview that would be another story, that could be considered obstruction of justice, but saying things on the internet is in no way obstructing any investigation.

the investigation into what happened to Miss Murray is being conducted by law enforcement, NOT on the Internet. sorry to be the one to have to break this to you but posting on blogs and forums is not an investigation.

dontletgo wrote:

Although there are very good reasons to believe it to be true nobody has outright proven thay Suzanne and the other posters are one in the same. from the information given you can extrapolate that they are most likely the same person, but there has been nothing that I have seen that constitutes solid proof.
If you are conducting an investigation I think it's pretty important to know what constitutes proof of something.
even if it is proven that Suzanne made the whole thing up, like it's evident you believe, then that in no way is information that has any bearing on this case. you can find her identity all you want but that is not going to bring you any closer to solving the mystery of what happened to Maura Murray.
And it does not matter what mason said, the author of that Geocities post is in no legal trouble. we have free speech in America, you can make up whatever you want and post it on the internet, that is not a crime.
now if Suzanne made up this story while talking to LE during an interview that would be another story, that could be considered obstruction of justice, but saying things on the internet is in no way obstructing any investigation.
the investigation into what happened to Miss Murray is being conducted by law enforcement, NOT on the Internet. sorry to be the one to have to break this to you but posting on blogs and forums is not an investigation.

bravo. well said. points well made. all of it.
and if said poster claims to have a legal background, then the rational thought process evading him suggests a weak to very poor understanding of basic reasoning and logic.

Barre, I agree with you.Just because Sam says that Observer is suzanne, what is to say the story is not true.Until the identity of Suzanne is known then there is no way to know if what xhe says has a so called ring of truth to it.
Suzanne aka observer must be within the family circle for this to be true.

Ok
Why am I wrong.I am willing tosay I am wrong but if you can tell me how then that would be helpful.

Thanks

What did Wowzer see? was She Interviewed?

Seems really weird to me that Wowzer wo says he. Lives in the vacinity and admits to seeing something yet won't say what . She spends tons of time on this flfum deflecting talk of Maura and not saying what he saw.
Also if you are so scared about other posters then why do you continue to post and agitate?

You are full of bull dung

JWB wrote:

What did Wowzer see? was She Interviewed?

Why don't you leave wozer alone. Tell us more about the backpack you found. Tell me all the details how you opened it what was inside the good stuff?

Sam get ready for some more fraudulent misrepresentation.....