Maura Murray

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
i challenge you to list verified, documented "truths" that are not conflicting and that we can agree upon. the problem with forums/boards/blogs is that an active campaign was initiated from day 1 to present and often to misrepresent factual information about MM.
if someone questioned the veracity and/or logic of said information, they were tossed out of the discussion, which, of course, was controlled a person(s) representing the father.
and so the water is pretty muddy.
therein lies the problem.

Snowy Its nothing personal but your recent posts have been about the car crash days before her missing date. To quote an earlier post from four hours ago: "something happened in Amherst.
but what? with whom? "
I think she went missing in NH near her car. We are off by 150 miles in terms of miles from the accident and about three days from when she went missing.
You don't want truths you want a conspiracy and thats okay, but I can't play along with that. Please don't take this as me being rude. We already disagree on too much it would be a waste of time.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
or did you hear Mr. bobcat say he saw Mr. coyote eating her?

If you throw in a Johnny Chuck and a Sammy Jay we'll have a Burgess Bedtime Story a la Stephen King.

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
You can be a great detective for all we know who solved many cases, and if that is true thank you for your service. The way you are showing your logic and your theories on this forum shows that the closest you have ever come to LE is by having a friend who was a mall cop. Its what you do with the credentials that counts.

I don´t think throwing egg rolls in peoples faces is really worth putting in ones CV.

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
If you throw in a Johnny Chuck and a Sammy Jay we'll have a Burgess Bedtime Story a la Stephen King.

I hardly ever agree with you......but I still like you. Wicked sense of humor.

Bill

Det Columbo wrote:

Yes indeed....Still Ex LE and PI. I have no burden of proof to anyone on this site and I would be crazy to give out that info.
What do Ya think I am just gonna put My license #, address, phone, physical description or any other info on here that would identify Myself.
IF FrmLE would like to back up his credentials maybe I would think about it.
BUT....Occam says I should probably not do that.
John

Agreed - sheesh, talk about an opportunity for identity theft! FWIW, I am personally satisfied that John/Det Columbo is who he says he is and that he had involvement early on in Maura's case. This is based on communication with him when I was running a MM forum. Again, take it FWIW because I am not going to give out his personal information either.

Columbo is who he says he is.

Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed - sheesh, talk about an opportunity for identity theft! FWIW, I am personally satisfied that John/Det Columbo is who he says he is and that he had involvement early on in Maura's case. This is based on communication with him when I was running a MM forum. Again, take it FWIW because I am not going to give out his personal information either.

The only evidence we have of Det Columbo had involvement on the case was that MM wasn't found. The day DET COLUMBO was suppossed to interview the main POI Columbo thought it was too easy to ask the POI questions and book him for murder so he wandered into the woods to see Frosty the Snow Man saw anything. His boss told him there's no such thing of talking snowman and Det Columbo said "use your own head not Occam's and prove to me that the magic hat doesn't work" by the time a more capable LE went to speak to the POI he fled town already.

mcsmom wrote:

Columbo is who he says he is.

Very funny the joke has gone far enough we get it.

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
Snowy Its nothing personal but your recent posts have been about the car crash days before her missing date. To quote an earlier post from four hours ago: "something happened in Amherst.
but what? with whom? "
I think she went missing in NH near her car. We are off by 150 miles in terms of miles from the accident and about three days from when she went missing.
You don't want truths you want a conspiracy and thats okay, but I can't play along with that. Please don't take this as me being rude. We already disagree on too much it would be a waste of time.

correct. my recent posts lean to possibilities that exist on a continuum from prior to her leaving/running from/being taken from UMASS until the point where she was informally id'd by BA.
open-minded, never conspiratorial.
i have the benefit of some years here....do you?
feel free to disagree; and apologies for wasting your time. you seem to have a good amount of it to waste.

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
The only evidence we have of Det Columbo had involvement on the case was that MM wasn't found. The day DET COLUMBO was suppossed to interview the main POI Columbo thought it was too easy to ask the POI questions and book him for murder so he wandered into the woods to see Frosty the Snow Man saw anything. His boss told him there's no such thing of talking snowman and Det Columbo said "use your own head not Occam's and prove to me that the magic hat doesn't work" by the time a more capable LE went to speak to the POI he fled town already.

ah. there it is. solution. pure genius.

WOW...the tribes are restless today.

John

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
.....and book him .....for murder so he...... wandered into .....the woods to see.....

silence, blissful silence... thank you Lord and Gov. Cuomo for those tough anti-texting & driving laws in New York State and please let there be lotsa traffic on the Bronx RP tonight.:)

mcsmom wrote:

Columbo is who he says he is.

Well his history and recent statements shows him to be piss poor at who he says he is. And I'm really not sure how you became the arbiter of things true or not. We don't know what "proof" you seem to think you have. For all we know, you were fooled.

Bill

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
correct. my recent posts lean to possibilities that exist on a continuum from prior to her leaving/running from/being taken from UMASS until the point where she was informally id'd by BA.
open-minded, never conspiratorial.
i have the benefit of some years here....do you?
feel free to disagree; and apologies for wasting your time. you seem to have a good amount of it to waste.

Your changing a lot of Truths for your theory to go to conspiracy. Let me change one of the established Truths. Some say that Mr. Atwood didn't I.D. MM correctly. What if he did? But what if he misquoted her. What if she said to Mr. Atwood " Don't worry about calling the police my dad is right behind me"

You see one little change creates a new conspiracy.

At some point you have to accept certain details of the story as truths.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Well his history and recent statements shows him to be piss poor at who he says he is. And I'm really not sure how you became the arbiter of things true or not. We don't know what "proof" you seem to think you have. For all we know, you were fooled.
Bill

absolutely.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Well his history and recent statements shows him to be piss poor at who he says he is. And I'm really not sure how you became the arbiter of things true or not. We don't know what "proof" you seem to think you have. For all we know, you were fooled.
Bill

Fooled?

I usually don't venture into places that won't answer my 911 call without a verified back up in place.

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
Your changing a lot of Truths for your theory to go to conspiracy. Let me change one of the established Truths. Some say that Mr. Atwood didn't I.D. MM correctly. What if he did? But what if he misquoted her. What if she said to Mr. Atwood " Don't worry about calling the police my dad is right behind me"
You see one little change creates a new conspiracy.
At some point you have to accept certain details of the story as truths.

right; no one knows with absolute certainty the content of the conversation between BA and MM. and if he was attentive to a physical feature, hair-down, was he equally attentive to facial features in the dark?
i'm not so sure what we're arguing about. where are the abundance of "facts" to argue with?

who are the conspirators? i hope you can appreciate that i am raising questions about possibilities and circumstances, not naming names and pointing fingers like the PBB/aka ducks.

"Occam's razor, also known as Ockham's razor, and sometimes expressed in Latin as lex parsimoniae (the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness),
is a principle that generally recommends that, from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false."



1) The part that says "usually provides"

2) The part that says "until evidence"

Both of these give leeway to the factor of The Big IF. Well anyone on this forum has the right to post any theory whether it be totally plausible or to the far reaches of the universe. It is not anyone else's right to deny them of this. Everyone has their own theories and will continue to do so.

IF You keep choosing to bash people the way You do makes You no better than Me for what You call unprofessional.

My word....GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSES and put those over enlarged EGOS in tow. Again I raise the question of what kind of cop You must have been if You are so ARROGANT now. Looks like You saved some of Your arrogance for retirement and from what I can see You certainly know how to serve it up.

Protect and Serve.

John

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
Fooled?
I usually don't venture into places that won't answer my 911 call without a verified back up in place.

So what did he show you that has you convinced he is ex-LE and a private detective? Because again, judging from his history and current statements I am starting to have doubts. I can't say your current statement makes much sense to me either.

Bill

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
right; no one knows with absolute certainty the content of the conversation between BA and MM. and if he was attentive to a physical feature, hair-down, was he equally attentive to facial features in the dark?
i'm not so sure what we're arguing about. where are the abundance of "facts" to argue with?
who are the conspirators? i hope you can appreciate that i am raising questions about possibilities and circumstances, not naming names and pointing fingers like the PBB/aka ducks.

There are certain truths known in the case and most of them point to Mr. Murray. He is a very large player in this saga. The only player that was there in the begining and in the end. There is enough truth here to point to him about knowing about Maura's dissappearance.