Maura Murray

Judged:

4

4

3

Samuel Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
Right ... she's one of those reporters who hates when people read her articles.
This is just pathetic, Ben.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

I believe that you are being protective of Suzanne.

Judged:

1

1

1

Sam Ledyard wrote:

I believe that you are being protective of Suzanne.

Judged:

1

1

Sam Ledyard wrote:

I believe that you are being protective of Suzanne.

Judged:

2

1

1

Sam Ledyard wrote:

I believe that you are being protective of Suzanne.

Judged:

1

1

1

Sam Ledyard wrote:

I believe that you are being protective of Suzanne.

Judged:

2

1

1

Sam Ledyard wrote:

I believe that you are being protective of Suzanne.

Judged:

2

1

Sam Ledyard wrote:

I believe that you are being protective of Suzanne.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

I believe that you are being protective of Suzanne.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

I believe that you are being protective of Suzanne.

Judged:

3

2

1

Benjamin Franklyne wrote:

<quoted text>
What you don't seem to understand is that the original moniker Suzanne probably is now and certainly was believed to be, by many people here, to be a real, identifiable person.
You've been asked more than once - what if the above, real, identifiable person I refer to up there...was targeted after she left.
I'm not ego shocked that I didn't recognize that some plagiarism had taken place from her posts and placed in the Geocities web page when I first did my report. In fact I was somewhat relived that there were other pieces of evidence that made the picture clearer to the public that I hadn't made any solid conclusions.
Some post back there you said that I asked to look into the web page.(as if I shouldn't have an interest in helping find out who might have been targeting Citigirl.) So, just so you know...I WAS ASKED TO DO LOOK INTO THE IP NUMBER. I DIDN'T ASK FOR IT AS YOU SAID.
MY REPORT SAID:
1. I'M NOT DOING THIS AS A CPA
2. I CANNOT DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS, AS I AM NOT EQUIPPED TO DO SO
3. BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS I RECOMMENDED THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOULD INVESTIGATE AND COMMUNICATE WITH GEOCITIES AND THE ISP OF THE MESSAGE DELIVERER TO FIND OUT WHO MADE THE WEB PAGE AND WHO SENT THE EMAIL.
4. I SAID THAT MY TEST WAS IMPERFECT IN AS MUCH AS I COULD NOT GUARANTEE THAT THE WEB PAGE CREATOR OR MESSAGE DELIVERER EVER POSTED AT TOPIX.
5. I SAID THAT THE RESULTS WERE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE TOOLS I USED AND I HAD NO CERTIFICATION AS TO THEIR ACCURACY.
6. I SAID THAT THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS WHERE POSSIBLY SIGNIFICANT, BUT ONLY IF THE WORK I DID DIDN'T FAIL BECAUSE OF THE WEAKNESSES IN THE TESTS OUTLINED ABOVE.
7. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESULTS WAS THAT IT APPEARED THAT EITHER SUZANNE, ICE QUEEN OR CITIGIRL WERE ****TARGETED BY SOMEONE PROXYING**** OR ONE OF THEM WAS THE AUTHOR OF THE OBVIOUS HOAX WEB PAGE.
You see, I was able to imagine that someone had targeted Citigirl. I didn't just assume that she made the web page because Topix said that she posted from Taunton. That is irresponsible to assume, even though the IP number was not associated with a proxy server.
So why the change in behavior? You didn't proceed with decency and consideration for person who works for the Globe. It doesn't matter if she ever posted here. What matters is that its very likely that some people that read Topix believed that she posted here.
It doesn't matter that you think that you've done your due diligence in searching out articles on Pam Smart, unless everyone agreed with you. But you didn't take the time to get in touch with the reporter...and I know you know who I am talking about. Instead your group acted as if people were protecting the imposter and that there was no possibility that your search might have been imperfect.
That Renner was looking into the case with him seeing the document. But I didn't think he would make the kind of blog post that he did. I was not happy to say the least. It was missing the important part about the fact that CITIGIRL COULD HAVE BEEN TARGETED and so, it was no longer decent. Meanwhile, every time I tried to post at the blog, they wouldn't show up. As you may sumize, I didn't deliver the report to him directly.
I am also sorry but the blog post gives me abilities I just don't have. I recommended that the police follow up because I don't have access to confidential records at Geocities or the ISP. By the time I found out about the blog, Renner had moved on to other subjects.

Judged:

3

2

2

Benjamin Franklyne wrote:

Cry me a river
<quoted text>
No I am not protecting Suzanne. No one is protecting Suzanne.
How many times do i have to repeat this shit?
Lets see.