Maura Murray

Judged:

2

2

2

Lauren wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know if you are joking or serious, but there was that post on Renner about the NH bank account. The poster should be canned forthwith, it is an outrageous (and probably illegal) violation of privacy, but still ... it is intriguing, although probably means nothing.

Judged:

3

3

2

Kitten wrote:

<quoted text>
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1123458787919...
The link goes to the Maura Murray Missing Group Code of Conduct.
That's where it talks about not posting for profit.

Judged:

3

3

2

Kitten wrote:

<quoted text>
It's actually not legally considered a breach of privacy until you start giving out numbers-- the person who contacted Renner about that was within his/her rights to do so. I deal with the accounts at work, and I often have to confirm bank accounts for people leasing apartments, buying a car, etc. Nothing specific, just something like "To whom it may concern, Jane Doe is a full-time employee at XXXX, who is paid XXX per year. She resides at XXXX, and keeps a checking, savings and money market account with XXXBank."
It does seem like a breach of privacy though, I agree. Even if the law doesn't.
And I'm serious, I think there is a possibility Maura is alive and well, and that police are feigning an investigation to cover up for her. It's her Constitutional right to remain hidden, so why not? It would certainly explain why the official investigation has moved so slowly.

Judged:

2

2

2

sophie bean wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, not precisely.
"There shall be NO advertising of any kind of any publications or websites made to profit from the disappearance of Maura Murray."
I understand this to mean that there is to be no direct advertising on the site which will profit from Maura's disappearance. Renner was not banned. Renner is not forbidden from posting, that I can see. I believe, though I may be mistaken, that this code of conduct was in place before Renner even posted, and so it was not "aimed" at him.

Judged:

1

1

1

sophie bean wrote:

Lauren, many people have been accusing "the ducks," in which they clearly include me, of being offended by Renner's inquiry. I have clearly and repeatedly said that I do NOT feel that way and that I do NOT find his inquiry inappropriate. I am, in fact, requesting the withdrawal or retraction of any statements that suggest that I hold such a position, because they are inaccurate at best.

Lauren wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for clarifying that. Mason and other former posters plus Renner and others have always made a point of how it is violating Maura's rights to reveal her present circumstances. I personally believe Maura is alive and well and have always said this. I confess the bank account post did attract my attention and interest. The best place to hide is in plain sight, so I am told. Who would look for Maura alive in the White Mountains? They would look for her remains there, but not, alive and well!

Judged:

2

2

2

Lauren wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know if you are joking or serious, but there was that post on Renner about the NH bank account. The poster should be canned forthwith, it is an outrageous (and probably illegal) violation of privacy, but still ... it is intriguing, although probably means nothing.

Judged:

6

3

2

jwb wrote:

all we need is citigrl into the mix for a real verbal brawl

Judged:

1

1

1

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
If I requested the withdrawal or retraction for every statement that was inaccurate there wouldn't be much left to reply to.
And I'd probably be told to go crap in my hat.

Judged:

4

3

2

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
a teller doesn't typically have access to account/loan information; they can accept and process payments on accounts, but identifying information beyond a balance would be a customer service function. more smoke, mirrors and BS.

Judged:

3

1

Kitten wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sorry, I don't think I was clear before. What I meant there was, it IS illegal/it DOES violate Maura's rights to reveal her location if she wants not to be found. It is NOT illegal/a breach of privacy to provide general information about a bank account in someone's name.(That's what my letters to landlords at work do-- verify that the person is employed and liquid enough financially to have a bank account. It's like I'm speaking for the person and saying, Sure Mister Landlord, Jane Doe will pay her rent!)
I suppose you could make the argument that by revealing the location of the account, Mr. Renner's source violated Maura's rights. But that's only IF she's alive.

Judged:

3

2

1

Kitten wrote:

<quoted text>
That's not necessarily true-- what if the teller in question was someone who opened/closed accounts, or who managed small business loans, or who did data entry part time? Then they would have access to the main database of bank customers.
That's not to say you're not correct, I'm just trying to stay open-minded.