Maura Murray

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
It is an honor to mentioned in good company. Thank you.

Thanks. Some day, we shall all be one.

I am an open book I have never held back and wiling to answer any questions

Anyone want to pm me ? I will give link

I will answer all questions

hmmmm wrote:

<quoted text>
[I]t is impossible to say at this time whether Suzanne's statement is not fact ...

Suzanne's statement concerned a factual issue; whether Maura's alive. Whether someone is a live is susceptible of actual knowledge. For example, it's not merely my opinion that George Washington is dead. He is, in fact, dead.

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
Every single piece of information that I found that identified Suzanne came from Topix. Because I have read widely on this case, I immediately knew who Suzanne was when I read certain comments made on Topix by you, Wowzer and Shack. I didn't need to do any research into her personal life, you all provided that information for me and anybody else who reads the Topix forums. I have never said that I would contact her in any way. I have not revealed any personally identifiable information about her here or to anybody else. I have only shared information that shows that she has many identities on Topix (and she has many more that weren't listed here - she has sockpuppets galore). I have caused her no harm.
Pretty much every single person who posts regularly on Topix has referred back to older posts by others, and searched them out and reprinted them - if that is "stalking," then lots of people here are guilty of it, including you.
Welcome to the jungle.

again, my recollection is that you printed to topix your personal fact-finding (taken from sources outside of topix posts) about MM's sister and brother-in-law almost immediately following Renner's posts to that subject.
it was surprising, and unnecessary, for you to "dig" to that extent, or at all.

to the point of "researching" posts and reprinting them, it is when the intent is to support an accusation against other posters that there is harm. systematic accusations as to the identity of posters, and suggestions or outright accusations that they may have had involvement in MM's disappearance is an ignorant game played best by JWB, Jenkins and that ilk.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
Suzanne's statement concerned a factual issue; whether Maura's alive. Whether someone is a live is susceptible of actual knowledge. For example, it's not merely my opinion that George Washington is dead. He is, in fact, dead.

Sam, you are mixing your factual issues. Whether Maura is alive is still a fact and was not changed by the geocities letter. Fact: Maura is either dead, or she is alive.

The author of the letter stated she was alive, and if they believe it to be true then it is not a fraudulent misrepresentation. The only way to prove it as a fraudulent misrepresentation is to prove Maura was dead at the time of the letter, and then prove that the author knew this for a fact when the geocities letter was posted.

Lawyer Shmoyer wrote:

<quoted text>
[I]f they believe it to be true then it is not a fraudulent misrepresentation. The only way to prove it as a fraudulent misrepresentation is to prove Maura was dead at the time of the letter, and then prove that the author knew this for a fact when the geocities letter was posted.

Wrong.

"The fraud consists in stating that the party knows the thing to exist, when he does not know it to exist; and if he does not know it to exist, he must ordinarily be deemed to know that he does not. Forgetfulness of its existence after a former knowledge, or a mere belief of its existence, will not warrant or excuse a statement of actual knowledge." Chatham Furnace Co. v. Moffatt, 147 Mass. 403, 404 (1888).

Someone just posted on my blog where Maura's body is located.

I will communicate this to authorities.

I believe that someone really wants to direct attention away from Suzanne's identity. I have no idea why.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

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.

That's part of my point. Why do you think you have the right to investigate ANY poster here on Topix? Are you a licensed investigator? A detective? In the CCU? LE of some kind?
I personally don't see where Suzanne did anything criminal. And I certainly don't think she should be investigated by the police. Why would I want to contact them and waste their time on something so stupid. Yes I think it's stupid.
The Canada rumor has been around forever. There is no proof that I've seen that Suzanne did anything criminal. There's no proof that she is all the people that you think she is.
There's been so many trolls and posters using other poster's monikers and changing addresses that I've lost track of who's who anymore.
I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm just saying with the "evidence" shown so far it certainly doesn't warrant an investigation of any kind IMO. Do we know that Maura isn't/wasn't in Canada alive and well? Do we know that she is no longer living. No we don't so maybe it was a lie and maybe it wasn't.

Lawyer Shmoyer wrote:

<quoted text>
Sam, you are mixing your factual issues. Whether Maura is alive is still a fact and was not changed by the geocities letter. Fact: Maura is either dead, or she is alive.

Schrodinger's Cat ....

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong.
"The fraud consists in stating that the party knows the thing to exist, when he does not know it to exist; and if he does not know it to exist, he must ordinarily be deemed to know that he does not. Forgetfulness of its existence after a former knowledge, or a mere belief of its existence, will not warrant or excuse a statement of actual knowledge." Chatham Furnace Co. v. Moffatt, 147 Mass. 403, 404 (1888).

I stand corrected. So as long as the letter constitutes a legal document and was posted in such a place that it's readers would expect posted materials to be 100% factual, then you might have a case.

Lawyer Shmoyer wrote:

<quoted text>
I stand corrected. So as long as the letter constitutes a legal document and was posted in such a place that it's readers would expect posted materials to be 100% factual, then you might have a case.

Vermont must have a higher reliance standard than Massachusetts.I'm glad I don't practice there.

Tester wrote:

<quoted text>
Schrodinger's Cat ....

Since the box can be opened, the question of life or death can be answered. It's still a factual issue.

Whether we actually open the box to see whether the cat's alive is irrelevant.

By the way, I find your moniker interesting. How'd you think it up? Ever use it before today?

Sam Ledyard wrote:

Someone just posted on my blog where Maura's body is located.
I will communicate this to authorities.
I believe that someone really wants to direct attention away from Suzanne's identity. I have no idea why.

Most likely just another troll but I agree the right thing to do is report it to authorities.

Tester is either purposely or inadvertently using one of Suzanne's "monikers" (for when she was testing her proxies).

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/rapid-city-sd... (compare this thread, page 813).

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/rapid-city-sd... (compare this thread, pages 206 and 264).

Gotta love the fact that Bill Wood posted in the same forum.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong.
"The fraud consists in stating that the party knows the thing to exist, when he does not know it to exist; and if he does not know it to exist, he must ordinarily be deemed to know that he does not. Forgetfulness of its existence after a former knowledge, or a mere belief of its existence, will not warrant or excuse a statement of actual knowledge." Chatham Furnace Co. v. Moffatt, 147 Mass. 403, 404 (1888).

Sam I think you are making this a bigger issue than what it is. The poster posted a view of what they think happened. You are only making this a bigger deal because it is related to Maura Murray.

Your definiton you quoted is when someone is making a legal statement or entering into a legal contract. I have full knowledge that Snow White doesn't exist but when I tell my cousin the story for bed I tell her Snow White is real. Fraud? Please. What about people who claim they saw Bigfoot? Or even better were you trying to indict the man in the red suits claiming to be santa.

Your definition is only good if used in a legal setting. Public posting places aren't.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Your definition is only good if used in a legal setting. Public posting places aren't.

A fraudulent misrepresentation is only actionable if it results in pecuniary loss. Your hypothetical about Snow White would not result in pecuniary loss and, therefore, is not actionable. Suzanne's statement arguably resulted in pecuniary loss. But, regardless of the result, it was nevertheless a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
A fraudulent misrepresentation is only actionable if it results in pecuniary loss. Your hypothetical about Snow White would not result in pecuniary loss and, therefore, is not actionable. Suzanne's statement arguably resulted in pecuniary loss. But, regardless of the result, it was nevertheless a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Then it becomes a matter of context. What dumb azz would take action that resulted in a pecuniary loss based on a statement posted on a page designed for opinions without first doing their due diligence? No one could expect a factual statement in that setting.

If a man yelled fire in a crowded theater where people have a reasonable expectation that it was true and they would come to harm is much different than if that same man yelled fire with the same crowd of people while floating on an ice burg in the North Pacific. Both would be fraudulent misrepresentations but the context in which they were made makes one a crime and the other a joke.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

Tester is either purposely or inadvertently using one of Suzanne's "monikers" (for when she was testing her proxies).
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/rapid-city-sd... (compare this thread, page 813).
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/rapid-city-sd... (compare this thread, pages 206 and 264).
Gotta love the fact that Bill Wood posted in the same forum.

Inadvertent -- sorry to confuse. I'm not Suzanne.