Maura Murray

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
And your point is? Spinal cord fracture? What huh?
What does that have to do with the head impacting the windshield?
Where did you come up with such random information? Oh wait, I know, this must be the "just post random facts that I googled from the interweb" part of the thread, I get it!! Can I play??
People who have bladder control problems have trouble stopping the flow of urine from the bladder. They are said to have urinary incontinence. Incontinence is uncontrollable leaking of urine from the bladder. Although urinary incontinence is a common problem, it is never normal.
Incontinence is both a health problem and a social problem.
•Most people with incontinence suffer social embarrassment. Many become depressed and limit their activities away from home, often becoming socially isolated and lonely.
•Physical conditions linked to incontinence include infection, skin irritations and infections, falls, fractures, and sleep disturbances.
•Many people with incontinence are too embarrassed to talk to their health-care provider about it. They "cope" or "just learn to live with it." This is changing gradually as people realize that help is available.
•Approximately 15%-30% of elderly people who live at home are affected by urinary incontinence. Another 40% of elderly people who live in nursing homes are affected. Incontinence is a major reason for people going into nursing homes. However, it is not an inevitable consequence of aging.
:)

No need to be sarcastic just because I proved you wrong. Man up and admit it if you can.

Head bone connected to the tail bone......

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
No need to be sarcastic just because I proved you wrong. Man up and admit it if you can.
Head bone connected to the tail bone......

You proved me wrong? Good lord, you have no idea what you even posted!! Bwaaaaahaaaaa

How do you connect that nonsense that you posted about "spinal cord fractures" to my point that the airbag deployment prevents the head from striking the windshield?

Tell me, do you have any idea what this discussion is even about? Can you connect your post to my point, or is all you are capable of is to google some crap and copy-paste in your post?

Do you also wade into medical forums about brain surgery and comment that the leg bone is connected to the eye bone?

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
No need to be sarcastic just because I proved you wrong. Man up and admit it if you can.

I just realized who you remind me of......

Remember Pee-Wee Herman? "I know you are, but what am I?"

Thats about where you are right now, instead of making intelligent, articulate comments about facts you simply throw out, "I know you are, but what am I?"

"I know you are, but what am I?"

"I know you are, but what am I?"

"I know you are, but what am I?"

"I know you are, but what am I?"

There, see 2 can play at this game!!:):):)

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
It's been posted (albeit purely unsubstantiated) that the wine came from a previous outing that MM attended. Without a time dated receipt for that barcoded box of wine and proof that MM had consumed that wine within a certain time frame, it doesn't matter what anyone heard.

From Renner's blog stated by John Scarinza:
Inside they found a box of wine, a book about the dangers of the White Mountains (Not Without Peril), and a receipt from a liquor store.

"She had purchased Kahlua, wine, and a six pack of Seagrams. The box had splashed all over the car. The bottle of kahlua was not there."

If she already had wine from a party why would she spend what little money she had to buy more wine?

Maura |being found by now......Explanation

What I was trying to say was:

It is more likely Maura would have been found by now if Her body was in the accident area and the areas that have been searched locally....Rather than being found a distance from the scene or even another state away.

I am sorry If I did not make Myself clear.

John

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Frostman go to this link and scroll down to "Gist of accident". Read the last three paragraphs.
http://www.mauramurraymissing.com/Documents.h...

I completely understand and appreciate your gentle nudging and direction -- thank you. I’ve read the accident report many, many times, but it bears repeating here:

The responding officer logs (as per accident report):

“I could also see red liquid on the driver’s side door and ceiling of the car.”(not stated in the “Disappeared” piece.)

“When the vehicle was towed from the scene by Lavoie’s I recovered a Coke bottle that contained a red liquid with a strong alcoholic odor.”(different than portrayed in the “Disappeared” piece.)

A hypothetical judge and jury might ask: If the wine was in a Coke bottle (1 inch top presumably) how much could splatter and how much could there be on the ceiling and driver’s side door from that Coke bottle? Perhaps a pattern expert could weigh in on this?

Were there fingerprints or DNA on that Coke bottle?

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
I just realized who you remind me of......
Remember Pee-Wee Herman? "I know you are, but what am I?"
Thats about where you are right now, instead of making intelligent, articulate comments about facts you simply throw out, "I know you are, but what am I?"
"I know you are, but what am I?"
"I know you are, but what am I?"
"I know you are, but what am I?"
"I know you are, but what am I?"
There, see 2 can play at this game!!:):):)

FrmLE finest ego on display.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>From Renner's blog stated by John Scarinza:
Inside they found a box of wine, a book about the dangers of the White Mountains (Not Without Peril), and a receipt from a liquor store.
"She had purchased Kahlua, wine, and a six pack of Seagrams. The box had splashed all over the car. The bottle of kahlua was not there."
If she already had wine from a party why would she spend what little money she had to buy more wine?

atta girl. don't need no stinkin' neurosurgeon, lawyer, or clinical psychologist to figure that one out.

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
FrmLE finest ego on display.

Weren't you going to post to explain how your stats on 'spinal cord injury' relates to my statement that the airbag deployment prevents the head striking windshield?

Or.....did you just forget about that? Guess so.

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
FrmLE finest ego on display.

I think this fits

Narcissism is a term with a wide range of meanings, depending on whether it is used to describe a central concept of psychoanalytic theory, a mental illness, a social or cultural problem, or simply a personality trait. Except in the sense of primary narcissism or healthy self-love, "narcissism" usually is used to describe some kind of problem in a person or group's relationships with self and others. In everyday speech, "narcissism" often means inflated self-importance, egoism, vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others. In psychology, the term is used to describe both normal self-love and unhealthy self-absorption due to a disturbance in the sense of self.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Weren't you going to post to explain how your stats on 'spinal cord injury' relates to my statement that the airbag deployment prevents the head striking windshield?
Or.....did you just forget about that? Guess so.

are you going to post about the facts and science I argued about or did you forget that? I know I asked Bill but you are so similar that You can answer it as well.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>From Renner's blog stated by John Scarinza:
Inside they found a box of wine, a book about the dangers of the White Mountains (Not Without Peril), and a receipt from a liquor store.
"She had purchased Kahlua, wine, and a six pack of Seagrams. The box had splashed all over the car. The bottle of kahlua was not there."
If she already had wine from a party why would she spend what little money she had to buy more wine?

I wouldn't stake everything on JR's blogs. Some of us here have provided JR with his postings, corrected his postings and provided links that he he failed to see which were in front of his nose. All uncredited. And thank goodness for that... now that the Twitter police may have reined him in (allegedly). My personal experience is that JR posts only those comments that support his soap opera backstory on MM. He is a self-confessed "former" muckraker after all.

Show me the receipt from the liquor store and and together we can follow the audit trail...

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
I wouldn't stake everything on JR's blogs. Some of us here have provided JR with his postings, corrected his postings and provided links that he he failed to see which were in front of his nose. All uncredited. And thank goodness for that... now that the Twitter police may have reined him in (allegedly). My personal experience is that JR posts only those comments that support his soap opera backstory on MM. He is a self-confessed "former" muckraker after all.
Show me the receipt from the liquor store and and together we can follow the audit trail...

it remains to be seen what renner is or isn't. he does make the connections and attaches his name to the interviews he snags, however. usually a higher reality content than the high bouncin' BS found on Topix. a contributor.

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
are you going to post about the facts and science I argued about or did you forget that? I know I asked Bill but you are so similar that You can answer it as well.

Most of what you post is so full of nonsense it's not worth my effort. Your posts are made up of statements such as "Maura would have been found" or "Maura wouldn't have done that" or posts about sneakers in the snow..... All without any basis in fact or personal or professional experience, just because you feel it so it must be so.

I have no idea what "facts" and "science" you are even refering to, and frankly your posts really aren't even worth me clicking the back button on my internet browser.

As far as my 'ego', let me just say that sometimes the best way to fight fire is with fire. Several people on this forum have continuously argued nonsense and lies to the point of being rude and ignorant. Many here feel the best way to make a point is to continually yell it at the top of their lungs until it becomes true.

Not naming names, but lets just say you get what you give.

I certainly have gotten your attention though, haven't I?

If you have no experience or background in searches or investigations but continually feel that despite that, you are right because you saw it on TV, you will be called on it.

I see several people here don't like having to provide any supporting facts for their statements. They just want to be able to say what ever they feel, no matter how absurd it is and how completely unqualified they are to make such statements.

Some housewife sitting in her living room who has never ever even been to the White Moutains, has never been on or conducted a wilderness search and rescue, who has never been any closer to a real criminal investigation than the TV remote switching to CSI Miami has no business making baseless opinions.

If you have an opinion thats cool, but qualify it with "I have never been on a search and rescue, but I feel that she should have been found by now, right?" Thats cool, but when someone who has conducted dozens of such searches responds and says, for instance, "well I understand, however in an area as large as this, it is quite likely that they would not have discovered anything..."

And when someone provides facts to support his statement, such as the woman who was lost in Waterville Valley for 7 weeks despite a massive search effort and despite searchers walking within several hundred feet of where she was found, perhaps it makes more sense to consider that you have absolutely no experience and no qualifications to make such absurd statements instead of arguing like a ignorant know it all?

Just a thought.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Most of what you post is so full of nonsense it's not worth my effort. Your posts are made up of statements such as "Maura would have been found" or "Maura wouldn't have done that" or posts about sneakers in the snow..... All without any basis in fact or personal or professional experience, just because you feel it so it must be so.
I have no idea what "facts" and "science" you are even refering to, and frankly your posts really aren't even worth me clicking the back button on my internet browser.
As far as my 'ego', let me just say that sometimes the best way to fight fire is with fire. Several people on this forum have continuously argued nonsense and lies to the point of being rude and ignorant. Many here feel the best way to make a point is to continually yell it at the top of their lungs until it becomes true.
Not naming names, but lets just say you get what you give.
I certainly have gotten your attention though, haven't I?

you can't answer the question because it was a big turd thrown out. Your a big fraud

Det Columbo wrote:

Maura |being found by now......Explanation
What I was trying to say was:
It is more likely Maura would have been found by now if Her body was in the accident area and the areas that have been searched locally....Rather than being found a distance from the scene or even another state away.
I am sorry If I did not make Myself clear.
John

Thank you for replying. Can you elaborate then, based on the possible area that Maura could have reached on her own in the amount of time she had, do you think that "she would have been found by now?"

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
you can't answer the question because it was a big turd thrown out. Your a big fraud

Have no idea what this even means, except that you are trying to deflect from the facts by making obscene comments? Thats cool, you're a peach.

I guess being a 'big fraud' means that I have 22 years of experience as a cop and countless incidents to base my opinions on, as opposed to you spewing crap out and hoping it will stick if you throw hard enough.

If so I guess I am a big fraud.

FrmLE wrote:

If you have no experience or background in searches or investigations but continually feel that despite that, you are right because you saw it on TV, you will be called on it.
I see several people here don't like having to provide any supporting facts for their statements. They just want to be able to say what ever they feel, no matter how absurd it is and how completely unqualified they are to make such statements.
Some housewife sitting in her living room who has never ever even been to the White Moutains, has never been on or conducted a wilderness search and rescue, who has never been any closer to a real criminal investigation than the TV remote switching to CSI Miami has no business making baseless opinions.
If you have an opinion thats cool, but qualify it with "I have never been on a search and rescue, but I feel that she should have been found by now, right?" Thats cool, but when someone who has conducted dozens of such searches responds and says, for instance, "well I understand, however in an area as large as this, it is quite likely that they would not have discovered anything..."
And when someone provides facts to support his statement, such as the woman who was lost in Waterville Valley for 7 weeks despite a massive search effort and despite searchers walking within several hundred feet of where she was found, perhaps it makes more sense to consider that you have absolutely no experience and no qualifications to make such absurd statements instead of arguing like a ignorant know it all?
Just a thought.

welcome to the Topix MM thread; you, too, will be charged with instructing the masses on correctly qualifying their statements as facts or fictional speculation. it's a daily grind. and they'll persist. ignorance? or stupidity?

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
welcome to the Topix MM thread; you, too, will be charged with instructing the masses on correctly qualifying their statements as facts or fictional speculation. it's a daily grind. and they'll persist. ignorance? or stupidity?

Hahah, no snowy I just had some time to kill today and had gotten a little nauseaus from all of the arm chair detectives playing dress up like they have a clue.

Like that petchulant puppy that gets a little obnoxious and needs a firm slap on the nose after crapping on the carpet, so do these wananbees need a swift smack on the nose to put them back in their place.

Todays smack on the nose brought to you by a hasty business trip, Logan Airport, and JetBlue Airlines.

Have a nice day.:)