Maura Murray

fascinating, Maruchan. i didn't even stop to consider how to "play" with a registered acct. Ty wants to cover his own tracks for some reason. but he wants to identify WN and contact her in real life.
he seems rather disingenuous in representing himself to topix posters.

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?

Just curious...are you having discussions, trying to work with or working with Ben Franklyne to find posters identities? A yes or no will be fine.
***I guess that ends the discussion, then***

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, and her not contacting you or any of the others. Should be proof enough that she doesn't want contact. It would be enough for me.
Bill oh, sorry Eric.

It's reasonable to assume she no longer follows the case.

My post #43511 still has me wondering...

*** 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.***

SnowyB wrote:

y wants to cover his own tracks for some reason. but he wants to identify WN and contact her in real life.
he seems rather disingenuous in representing himself to topix posters.

The explanation I gave to Maruchan regarding why some of my posts have disappeared is the truth. If you do not believe me, that is certainly your right. But my answer was honest.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Eric. I saw you used that name before. Who the hell is Eric??? Ohhhhhhh. I think I used that as another possibly fake name, and I guess you think that is my real name. Look over my posts for years and you might find other "names" I accidentally dropped for idiots to think they have found out a useful tidbit about me. Other here can verify that I do this. So try using some of my other fake names also. Makes me shiver.
Some people are so far behind in a race, they actually believe they are winning.
Bill

I'm just joking when I call you Eric. As I have said previously, there are too many Bill's around this case. I don't care who you are, nor do I think Eric is your real name. It's just a poor attempt at humor on my part. I'm sorry that it didn't translate.

Tyler from Pittsburgh wrote:

<quoted text>
It's reasonable to assume she no longer follows the case.

That is a very unreasonable assumption, unless you have done comparisons to all other members who visit here and have eliminated them as not being the same person. Many people who have been involved with this case since the beginning are still here. Some using new monikers for a variety of reasons. So your assumption is totally without merit. My assumption would be to believe that she has certainly seen your inquiry and has elected to have nothing to do with you people.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
That is a very unreasonable assumption, unless you have done comparisons to all other members who visit here and have eliminated them as not being the same person. Many people who have been involved with this case since the beginning are still here. Some using new monikers for a variety of reasons. So your assumption is totally without merit. My assumption would be to believe that she has certainly seen your inquiry and has elected to have nothing to do with you people.
Bill

Your assumption has no more merit than mine.

Tyler from Pittsburgh wrote:

<quoted text>
Your assumption has no more merit than mine.

Actually you are making another invalid assumption. That you know more than I. I have been here long enough to recognize when people are making specious assumptions. I do it everyday in my work. I see the same problems with your thought process. We clearly have many people who read and don't contribute. That can be seen by the number of people listed as watching the site. We know that many people who started with this group of merry watchers still are here. We also know that given some of the things that have happened in the past others may not want to be known. Given those facts my assumption holds considerably more water than yours. Then erring on the side of decency, the assumption should be that if she wants to talk to one of you people, she has many opportunities to do so. If you don't hear from her then it is because she doesn't want to talk to you. Again, being the decent thing. I don't expect that the smart or decent thing is what your band of merry misfits is actually after though so just disregard this and claim again, that your assumption is as good as mine.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually you are making another invalid assumption. That you know more than I.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>my assumption holds considerably more water than yours.

I'm making the assumption I know more than you? Interesting. Seems to be the other way around to me.

Here's the reality of the situation. I make no assumptions. I don't care if you know more about this community, or if I know more about this community. It's absolutely, unquestionably and irrefutably irrelevant (sans you having direct knowledge of who "Suzanne" is). Your personal opinion that you know everything there is to know holds utterly no value.

The facts of the situation at hand are as follows. "Suzanne" lied in a post that she authored, Sam Ledyard uncovered the lie and "Suzanne" has not commented on the implicit questions which have been asked of "her." Therefore, she is either lurking or hiding behind another moniker and will not answer, or she has not seen all the commotion regarding her post and therefore her desire to answer cannot be inferred.

Your personal view that the prior is more likely, means nothing. Just as whichever view I believe, means nothing. Either situation is entirely possible.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Just curious...are you having discussions, trying to work with or working with Ben Franklyne to find posters identities? A yes or no will be fine.
***I guess that ends the discussion, then***

No.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, and her not contacting you or any of the others. Should be proof enough that she doesn't want contact. It would be enough for me.
Bill oh, sorry Eric.

You have to understand why we have to constantly be reminded that "no" means "no". It takes a while for people to get it.

Tyler from Pittsburgh wrote:

The facts of the situation at hand are as follows. "Suzanne" lied in a post that she authored, Sam Ledyard uncovered the lie and "Suzanne" has not commented on the implicit questions which have been asked of "her." Therefore, she is either lurking or hiding behind another moniker and will not answer, or she has not seen all the commotion regarding her post and therefore her desire to answer cannot be inferred.

People can take the fifth amendment and tell congress that they won't say a word, but Tyler thinks Suzanne owes people an explanation. This is great stuff.

Tyler from Pittsburgh wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>

The facts of the situation at hand are as follows. "Suzanne" lied in a post that she authored, Sam Ledyard uncovered the lie.....

Wait a minute...it appears we have made a huge leap here....when did anyone prove what was written in the geocities letter was a lie? I believe it was postulated that since Suzanne lied about who she is (not proven, "most likely" does not mean proven, proven means proven). Based on the "lie" (I will use that word for clarity)about identity, it was then assumed that the geocities letter was a lie. To me, that's a very big jump even if the identity of the author was lying. The contents of the geocities letter will only be proven as a lie or truth when Maura's fate is known as fact.

Rewind wrote:

<quoted text>
Wait a minute...it appears we have made a huge leap here....when did anyone prove what was written in the geocities letter was a lie? I believe it was postulated that since Suzanne lied about who she is (not proven, "most likely" does not mean proven, proven means proven). Based on the "lie" (I will use that word for clarity)about identity, it was then assumed that the geocities letter was a lie. To me, that's a very big jump even if the identity of the author was lying. The contents of the geocities letter will only be proven as a lie or truth when Maura's fate is known as fact.

Please don't ruin this moment with rationale..........

They generally ignore responding to my rational comments that refute their brand of logic, so I don't think I have ruined anything. They prefer to respond to the banalities or toss legalese that doesn't apply, or essentially dodge the point. And before one of them requests me to regurgitate a previous post, I won't. They know what I am talking about. They can dig up 7 year old posts, they can find mine.

Rewind wrote:

<quoted text>
[W]hen did anyone prove what was written in the geocities letter was a lie? I believe it was postulated that since Suzanne lied about who she is (not proven, "most likely" does not mean proven, proven means proven). Based on the "lie" (I will use that word for clarity)about identity, it was then assumed that the geocities letter was a lie.

That's essentially my position, yes. The lie concerning the author's identity is relevant on the issue of her credibility as well as the letter's veracity.

Rewind wrote:

<quoted text>
The contents of the geocities letter will only be proven as a lie or truth when Maura's fate is known as fact.

Not so, which was the point of the case I quoted.
She lied by pretending to have personal knowledge that Maura was alive. If she happened, by chance, to get it right, that doesn't changed the fact that she lied.
For example, if I told you that I know Suzanne is from Westport, MA, that would be a lie; whether Suzanne actually lives there is irrelevant.

No worries wrote:

They generally ignore responding to my rational comments that refute their brand of logic, so I don't think I have ruined anything. They prefer to respond to the banalities or toss legalese that doesn't apply, or essentially dodge the point. And before one of them requests me to regurgitate a previous post, I won't. They know what I am talking about. They can dig up 7 year old posts, they can find mine.

I have no problem answering questions.

It's quite obvious that you don't like my theory; but I still don't know why. I've considered many possibilities; maybe you were friends with (or actually were) Suzanne. Maybe you wish you had solved the mystery yourself. None of those theories makes sense.

Whatever your position is, it's clearly clouded by your emotions. I welcome a debate, but there's no reason to personally attack me. I haven't done that to you.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

My post #43511 still has me wondering...
*** 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.***

Hmm, maybe I need to reword this since no one has replied.
Renner, Tyler or Sam what would you do if a complete stranger from Topix came to your door while your wife or children were home alone(if you have a wife and children) and wanted to ask them questions. Or if that stranger called your friends or relatives inquiring about you and questioning them.
It's a simple question. With no hesitation I know what I would do.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmm, maybe I need to reword this since no one has replied.
Renner, Tyler or Sam what would you do if a complete stranger from Topix came to your door while your wife or children were home alone(if you have a wife and children) and wanted to ask them questions. Or if that stranger called your friends or relatives inquiring about you and questioning them.
It's a simple question. With no hesitation I know what I would do.

Listen people: yall a bunch of very intelligent people although yall get stuck with one another trying to smart one another. If yall get bored, go to to the MacStay sites and see what yall can contribute!! That is one complex case and they need brains like yours there!!! Urgently!!!!