Maura Murray

So, Suzanne had an opinion, that she wasn't so sure about: "Why I should be influenced by this 'man in the street' opinion, I do not know."

Meanwhile Sam is acting like no reasonable person should doubt that his conclusion is correct. He has no hesitation to announce he is searching for Suzanne specifically.

But, in spite of the uncertainty, Sam thinks he's is very correct in his conclusion that the creator of the Maura Canada Site was Suzanne. So very correct that he acts as if he is the only person here with any moral stature.

However, good morals include being able to realize when you actually know something for sure, and when you do not, and to act consistently with that realization.

Skunki wrote:

Sam thinks he's is very correct in his conclusion that the creator of the Maura Canada Site was Suzanne.

I do.

But I'm aware of the dangers of tunnel vision and keep an open mind. Maybe your responses to my questions will convince me otherwise.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
On its surface, this sounds reasonable.
But I have two questions.
First, assuming that I am correct that Suzanne lied about being a journalist, was that just a coincidence? Or might it have motivated Suzanne II?
Second, who were Suzanne's subsequent monikers under this theory? Suzanne I, Suzanne II or second person who wished to copy Suzanne?

OK, so you say that she lied about being a journalist. There are lots of Suzanne journalists. Do you have access to every periodical every published and know for a fact that there never was a Suzanne that did a story on Pam Smart?

And even if you have better information about Suzanne, like a last name or something, just because you search a database, doesn't mean the database included every article and every photo credit ever done.

Is Suzanne IV a copy? V? I don't get it.

The Pam Smart article was allegedly printed in the Boston Globe.
I do have access to every issue from 1980 - present, yes.

I even double-checked by calling the Boston Public library. The librarian checked the archives. Feel free to double check. Be my guest.

-- My second question is this: Under your theory, is adagio, for example, Suzanne, observer or a third party?

I am convinced that adagio is Suzanne. This comparison is striking:

Suzanne: "FIT and MMM are essentially the same.[...]. I never posted there, so had no personal axe to grind. I was the fly on the wall, objective observer.

adagio: "I NEVER posted on MMM. I was the fly on the wall. I absorbed. I analyzed. I didn't post. Why should the Landrey report interest me? I believe Maura is alive and well, she ran away from abuse and from a possible felony trial."

By the way, I literally scrolled through the name of every Globe article that mentioned "Pam Smart" or "Pamela Smart."

No journalist with the first name Suzanne was in that list. So the absence of a last name is not relevant.

As I said, a research librarian did the same, checking the actual archives.

Hans Strudel wrote:

<quoted text>
You know I used to stick up for you but can you do something other than complain? Is it your mission in life to be the crankiest woman on Topix?? Cuz I got news for you. WTH already has the title. So you're pretty much just a cranky loser.

Sorry you feel that way Hans. I stand by what I have been saying for quite awhile.....a poster on a public internet forum does not have the right to out, dig up personal information, call or go to the house of another poster uninvited.
If everyone had to worry that there words or how they worded something would cause another poster to try to find out their identity then I think there would be a lot less posters on these forums. Just my opinion which I think is covered under free speech.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

The Pam Smart article was allegedly printed in the Boston Globe.

And how did you reach that conclusion?

Sam Ledyard wrote:

I do have access to every issue from 1980 - present, yes.

Well that must take up a lot of space. Unless you have access to a database on line. Which, in that case, what assurance do you have that it is a complete database?

Sam Ledyard wrote:

I even double-checked by calling the Boston Public library. The librarian checked the archives.

And how long did that take the librarian? How do you know she didn't check the same database you did? Did you ask her to check Microfilm? If so, what assurance have you that the microfilm was painstakingly looked over?

Those are rhetorical questions. I doubt that whatever database you or anyone else checked is complete.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

-- My second question is this: Under your theory, is adagio, for example, Suzanne, observer or a third party?

I find it remarkable that you feel this question is appropriate.

Its not your job to disturb people to investigate unsubstantiated opinion in the public domain. It is the job of law enforcement to investigate opinions and to use the legal process to establish facts.

Since we are not equipped to gather evidence to establish proof, what does anyone's opinion matter, as opinions are short of proof?

With proof, what does any opinion matter?

If anyone says it might have been was Sally Jones, you'll look for Sally Jones. Sally Jones will be disturbed. Next someone will tell you Jane Doe. Then you'll look for Jane Doe. and she will be disturbed. Just one big wheel of disturbance.

Maybe Suzanne wasn´t "Suzanne´s" real name? She may have been a journalist, but with a different name. Or maybe not. Many at the time questioned it.

Skunki wrote:

<quoted text>
And how did you reach that conclusion?

The day before Suzanne submitted her final post, she had an exchange with Christian.
Christian's geo-location was Houston, TX.

Christian wrote:

<quoted text>
Suzanne, I'd know you anywhere! I recognize your take no prisoners style from the UK Guardian and I remember your piece in the Boston Globe on Pam Smart and I talked to you on Justice For Laci Peterson.

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
Yikes! You nailed me C. I can run but I can't hide apparently. I'm really embarrassed to be found here with some of these clowns but what can I say there are some very good people here too.

Skunki wrote:

<quoted text>
I doubt that whatever database you or anyone else checked is complete.

I conducted a thorough search. The idea that Suzanne's article might have escaped my search and that of the librarian is (and I say this respectfully) unpersuasive. Produce the article and I will rethink my position.

-- I am asking your opinion on my second question, yes. Humor me.

Which scenario is consistent with your theory: that Suzanne returned as adagio or that observer, continuing to emulate Suzanne, created adagio?

hannah_b wrote:

Maybe Suzanne wasn´t "Suzanne´s" real name? She may have been a journalist, but with a different name. Or maybe not. Many at the time questioned it.

Fair enough.

But "Christian's" post suggests that Suzanne was supposed to be her actual name. It wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
The day before Suzanne submitted her final post, she had an exchange with Christian.
Christian's geo-location was Houston, TX.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I conducted a thorough search. The idea that Suzanne's article might have escaped my search and that of the librarian is (and I say this respectfully) unpersuasive. Produce the article and I will rethink my position.
-- I am asking your opinion on my second question, yes. Humor me.
Which scenario is consistent with your theory: that Suzanne returned as adagio or that observer, continuing to emulate Suzanne, created adagio?

So why do you think that Suzanne worked for the Globe?

Sam Ledyard wrote:

By the way, I literally scrolled through the name of every Globe article that mentioned "Pam Smart" or "Pamela Smart."
No journalist with the first name Suzanne was in that list. So the absence of a last name is not relevant.
As I said, a research librarian did the same, checking the actual archives.

Produce the entire list if you want to be persuasive.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
Fair enough.
But "Christian's" post suggests that Suzanne was supposed to be her actual name. It wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

Enough bullshit. You say youre a member of the bar. Fine. You want to know peopke's names. OK. Well first you have to tell us who you are. Go ahead. Give us your real name so we can see your license. Call you at your office. FIRST.

Because there is no Samual Ledyard that has a licence in Massachusetts.

Otherwise...you're a fraud. So STFU.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>

So I guess you're not going to point out an instance where I have "thrown stones" in the past?

Wowzer the real one wrote:

This circus is going no where fast. It's hard to talk sense to some one that doesn't have any.

you are correct. with no new news in years, they return to topix to chew on old bones. nothing, of any significance or perceived significance is new. period.
and, frankly, the boys seem to have trouble finding "White Noise" or they'd be on the phone. she, of course, would give the little sneaky peekers a few choice words, if she bothered at all. i've admired her style, without having the pleasure of knowing her. we ladies can be refreshingly blunt if chronically annoyed.

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
you are correct. with no new news in years, they return to topix to chew on old bones. nothing, of any significance or perceived significance is new. period.
and, frankly, the boys seem to have trouble finding "White Noise" or they'd be on the phone. she, of course, would give the little sneaky peekers a few choice words, if she bothered at all. i've admired her style, without having the pleasure of knowing her. we ladies can be refreshingly blunt if chronically annoyed.

What's up with you ladies not backing up your statements? First Wowzer tells me I "throw stones" but won't provide an example. Then you accuse me of attempting to "breathe life" into (I presume) Renner's book. Neither of you care to elaborate on your flawed statements?

Making false claims then running away? I guess White Noise would be proud. Must be a generational thing. I'm glad they taught manners so extremely well before my time.

Some Moniker wrote:

<quoted text>
Enough bullshit. You say youre a member of the bar. Fine. You want to know peopke's names. OK. Well first you have to tell us who you are. Go ahead. Give us your real name so we can see your license. Call you at your office. FIRST.
Because there is no Samual Ledyard that has a licence in Massachusetts.
Otherwise...you're a fraud. So STFU.

i think like you, but moderate my tone. we've been too polite to the a-clowns and take them too seriously.
let's lighten up a little. looks like no one is immediately going to offer an all expense paid excursion for JR to Ireland.
10 years is a big anniversary. perhaps FM could use that trip to the homeland instead.
there's truly been widespread local and national coverage about MM's disappearance across media...enough to pull in stray sleuthpots from all over. Sweden, Russia, Albania...to name a few remote locations.
has anyone with half a brain in key locations missed the fact that 10 years ago she went missing? seriously? UMASS?
hey, her family and friends are not begging for a book or billboards. that says it all, imo.
enjoy yourselves! have some fun with your lives! be mindful of MM's presence in your consciousness...offer up a prayer...but get real. you're out of clues. the avenues and ideas you're exploring are unoriginal. how many other ways can this be stated?

Tyler in Pittsburgh wrote:

<quoted text>
What's up with you ladies not backing up your statements? First Wowzer tells me I "throw stones" but won't provide an example. Then you accuse me of attempting to "breathe life" into (I presume) Renner's book. Neither of you care to elaborate on your flawed statements?
Making false claims then running away? I guess White Noise would be proud. Must be a generational thing. I'm glad they taught manners so extremely well before my time.

.

Tyler in Pittsburgh wrote:

<quoted text>
What's up with you ladies not backing up your statements? First Wowzer tells me I "throw stones" but won't provide an example. Then you accuse me of attempting to "breathe life" into (I presume) Renner's book. Neither of you care to elaborate on your flawed statements?
Making false claims then running away? I guess White Noise would be proud. Must be a generational thing. I'm glad they taught manners so extremely well before my time.

a sexy endeavor would be more fun than an unsexy one. envisioning that smokin hot ride on a full moon, complete with orgy, leaves little to rhe imagination about Gran's fantasies.

so, Ty, you keep a watch on Granny; it's full moon time again. and when you find WN, tell her i miss her.
i've got my own problems. i'm loathe to tell my commuting bud that her strong vanilla hair product and coffee breath leaves me faint every morning on my long commute.

oh, and you boys might consider that blue bow / tree cam that no one can seem to afford. it's cheep cheep cheaper than a trip to Ireland. Granny thinks that issue is a viable clue.

how do i tell her, Ty? she thinks she smells like a sweet vanilla cupcake, but it's as gagging as a cheap Christmas Tree Shoppe candle fragrance. you know what i mean?
here's the thing of it. JR, like many others, is searching for MM, and no one can seem to force a happy ending or sooner knowledge about bringing her disappearance to resolution.
i just wonder why you need to play out these silly searches on topix. i thought Sam has a blog?
is Granny invited there, too?

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
The day before Suzanne submitted her final post, she had an exchange with Christian.
Christian's geo-location was Houston, TX.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I conducted a thorough search. The idea that Suzanne's article might have escaped my search and that of the librarian is (and I say this respectfully) unpersuasive. Produce the article and I will rethink my position.
-- I am asking your opinion on my second question, yes. Humor me.
Which scenario is consistent with your theory: that Suzanne returned as adagio or that observer, continuing to emulate Suzanne, created adagio?

1. If I was interested in being anonymous and someone said "I know you are so and so from that place", embracing and confirming that inaccurate identification would be a very good way to solidify my anonymous status.

2. If they are a liar why would you choose to believe one statement but not others?