Maura Murray

And regarding Renner I don't doubt that he has done some things to further the case, but there is also a lot of SERIOUSLY speculative and unsubstantiated information that he has posted. This troubles me because some people interpret his word as gospel. I think that the whole Curves Toronto debacle, the Ireland connection, these serve as examples of flawed reporting at best. I think he has a tendency to draw connections between two unconnected things and correlates them to form an erroneous conclusion, making for some seriously convoluted reading. Now that's not a personal attack. I'm sure he cares deeply about the case and has put a lot of time into it, but it's sloppy "detective work" and it can lead to a seriously unsympathetic and confused/misinformed public. I take issue with that, and I don't think I'm alone. I do not fault him, and I give him credit for the work he has done to further the MM case or whatever myths he has helped dispel but I'm not about to ignore the fact that there are some troubling leaps made in his "reporting". And in bringing them up, should enough people do so, I think it would help to keep the public from just immediately taking his work as fact, and perhaps even lead him to put more effort into allowing his research to draw its own linear correlations, as oppose to playing connect-the-dots with unrelated data. How could some additional caution exercised both by him and the public be a bad thing?

(**Additionally, I'd like to add that I don't think that the public should be automatically sympathetic, but it troubles me when flawed conclusions result in the lack of sympathy.)

Simply caustic wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right. I don't think citigirl castigated anyone. I should have written, she's been accused of that by some posters...and continued to defend herself and applaud the locals she came into contact with, despite the frequent caustic posts directed to her.
I've been harping on Renners post about citigirl for days, because I think it was an unnecessary invasion of privacy. It's my opinion that no purpose was served.

setting the record straight -

citigirl has, only recently, made broad statements of appreciation to non-specific, local NH residents in a sudden and obvious effort to personally separate herself from the harm done to individuals in MM's name; in particular, to SBD, and others.

over many years, the self-identified PBB not only FAILED to intervene to STOP the accusations made on forums about local residents, but they have encouraged innuendo an character assassinations. they named and outed their very own "persons of interest" on their crusade to "find Maura Murray" OUTSIDE of the official investigation.

they can't have it both ways; they have encouraged these discussions and speculation, and have refused to take responsible action to advance facts and minimize rumor.

And that's ignoring the whole identifying of people that have not been proven to be connected issue. Which is a big one, but you guys have covered that one enough so I don't feel I need to get into it.

citigirl,

If you would like to set the records straight, my door is always open as it has been. Contact me at becarriedaway@hotmail.com and we'll set up a time to talk.

Simply caustic wrote:

<quoted text>
Can I get a "hell yes!" from the congregation?
Seriously though, I whole-heartedly agree. There was simply no reason to state her name.

James Renner might possibly want to clarify his reason(s) for stating her name, and also his policy about revealing sources going forward.

vanderhoven wrote:

<quoted text>
It's especially moronic. Is the facebook page essentially the same as this lack-lustre back and forth or was today's "crisis" exceptionally awful?
Mcsmom, could you elaborate? I haven't had my caffeine yet and I really don't want to have to re-read the past couple of pages. Please, spare me that fate!

just broadening your information base and the history of these forums, after you jumped from "lysoling" to "moronic".
we agree on moronic.

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
James Renner might possibly want to clarify his reason(s) for stating her name, and also his policy about revealing sources going forward.

That's an excellent idea, Snowy. I was very pro-Renner initially but am turned off by this whole citigirl issue (note: I support his Beagle posts, which may seem contradictory...but that's how I feel.)

I have no opinion on citigirls prior treatment of posters, because I've only been privy to her recent, apologetic and kind posts. I was a lurker on the old forums but I was more focused on the Mason/Ben franklyn/White Wash information at the time).

I wonder where a lot of the frequent posters stand on the Beagle issue? I know Hannah weighed in and I believe Snowy reserved judgment until more proof is supplied (that's IIRC, correct me if I am wrong). I wonder where bill and macs on stand?

Muttley wrote:

I'm curious about the photo on JR's new blog/video posting... what's the relevance of the numbers 1, 5, 8, and 27? Or maybe there is no relevance....?

I think the numbers are the only significant thing in the actual video. That and then the video winks at the end which is kind like a challenge. I wonder if you play around with the numbers as latitude and longitude to see if you get any places in New Hampshire

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
just broadening your information base and the history of these forums, after you jumped from "lysoling" to "moronic".
we agree on moronic.

Oh I wasn't inferring you meant moronic. I did. Glad we agree. Thanks for the history of the forums, feel free to fill me in at any time, whether you think I'm lacking the necessary background information to substantiate an assertion or you just think it would be helpful. I'm sure it would be.

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
James Renner might possibly want to clarify his reason(s) for stating her name, and also his policy about revealing sources going forward.

It's not a source. I think that's additionally troubling. If it was somebody who contacted him and made a statement and he revealed their name that would be one thing, however, he's identifying people who have posted on other sites and posting the names and identifying information that he has concluded fits them, often with dubious proof. Which isn't to say that they aren't the people he names them as being, simply that if he feels their names/contact info MUST be posted then he should use a more thorough/rigorous means of identifying them. That said, however junk the identifications may be, I do appreciate that he posted how he came to the conclusion that they were linked. I mean, had he just made the statement about citigirl and not mentioned the CPA stuff less of a deal would have been made about it, and it could have even gone unnoticed.

could the numbers on the video be an IP address?

Simply caustic wrote:

<quoted text>
I was a lurker on the old forums but I was more focused on the Mason/Ben franklyn/White Wash information at the time).
I wonder where a lot of the frequent posters stand on the Beagle issue?

Caustic, could you clarify this whole Mason/Ben thing? I wasn't around at the time, and if I have to I will read through the archives- but I'd really appreciate just a quick summary of what took place. Thanks.

As for the Beagle issue, I'm not really a frequent poster but I'll weigh in... I can see how the conclusion was made that it was him, and recent information certainly has tightened the knots that tie him to this youtube user but I don't know that it is him, and it seems to me if all of this information is there for Renner and others to access (which they are doing to tie him to the posts) it would have been there for whatever youtube user to access too... Which isn't to say that they did, or that this is some elaborate Beagle set up as I think that's unlikely- I just think that caution should be exercised... Now, considering the fact that there are comments on Renners blog suggesting that people be wary of employees at Beagle's place of employment I think that just goes to show that perhaps Mr. Renner should have exercised more caution before posting Beagle's info.

That said, I'm not opposed to the poster of the videos being identified, whether it's beagle or not. I think they probably deserve to be identified, I just which I trusted the means which Renner used to identify him- and that they were more measured and precise. He made have had to spend a little money and waited an extra week before identifying the person, and maybe he would have been scooped as a result, but it would have been accurate and verified and therefore held more credibility than the other places that might have beat him to the punch.

vanderhoven wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not a source. I think that's additionally troubling. If it was somebody who contacted him and made a statement and he revealed their name that would be one thing, however, he's identifying people who have posted on other sites and posting the names and identifying information that he has concluded fits them, often with dubious proof. Which isn't to say that they aren't the people he names them as being, simply that if he feels their names/contact info MUST be posted then he should use a more thorough/rigorous means of identifying them. That said, however junk the identifications may be, I do appreciate that he posted how he came to the conclusion that they were linked. I mean, had he just made the statement about citigirl and not mentioned the CPA stuff less of a deal would have been made about it, and it could have even gone unnoticed.

i am asking for clarification about his policies to maintain the privacy of individuals who may contact him to provide information.

in addition, an overview and/or clarification regarding his policies for revealing the specific "sources" he accesses in the course of his research/investigation will also be helpful.

for example, he did not reveal the name of the person who tipped him off about possible bank account activity, while a name associated with a CPA was mentioned.

Simply caustic wrote:

<quoted text>
I wonder where a lot of the frequent posters stand on the Beagle issue? I know Hannah weighed in and I believe Snowy reserved judgment until more proof is supplied (that's IIRC, correct me if I am wrong). I wonder where bill and macs on stand?

I'm not sure about the off-thread personal dynamics but it would appear that certain posters here have met up in real life. Someone asked "Det Columbo" a few days ago about his personal interaction with "Beagle" and he replied that they had only corresponded via private email. It appears that "Aftermath" knows "Beagle" from the post below. Or perhaps "Aftermath" is also "Beagle"?

On Dec 28, 2011 (Post #7087)

"Beagle" wrote to "Det Columbo":
Maybe "Aftermath" understands your post, but I have no idea what it means. Email me something more straightforward, less enigmatic. Thanks.

Det Columbo replied:
When You see "Aftermath" ask him about a present He gave Me. Then We can be on the same page.

Keep in mind that both "Aftermath" and "Beagle" are unregistered on Topix so anyone could have been using those names at any given time.

I'm not condoning the first 2 videos by "112dirtbag" but it might have been a joke in poor taste gone horribly wrong. While the third video by "mr112dirtbag" appears to bear the same dubious creative characteristics it could be a copycat. The third video is still up on YouTube whereas the first two were taken down very quickly after they were initially uploaded. Possibly different posters? Nobody had confirmed scientifically that an anonymous poster called "Beagle" is *** in real life or that the YouTube contributors are either one of them.

Topix Franconia, the forum that never sleeps...

vanderhoven wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh I wasn't inferring you meant moronic. I did. Glad we agree. Thanks for the history of the forums, feel free to fill me in at any time, whether you think I'm lacking the necessary background information to substantiate an assertion or you just think it would be helpful. I'm sure it would be.

the history and overview is complex, but relevant. i do my best to communicate, fairly, i hope, how destructive these forums have been to innocents. the process has been witnessed by many.
the advent and nature of social media, complete with its positive connectivity and its many abuses are evident in the discussions about MM.

forums have been the preferred tool to TAKE information from the public in the "family's" search to "find Maura Murray" and to accuse folks whom they target as potential perps, and yet they have resisted PROVIDING helpful background information to work on their appeal to find her.

there's a disconnect there; it doesn't work that way. an honest appeal would not be a manipulation of the public view.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Snowy I have never claimed to have inside information about Maura. I have always stated and it is fact that Amherst is unknown to me.

you, as Helena, have self-identified as "family".

"family" presumes some knowledge of the principals, i.e., other "family members", which in turn, predicates on some knowledge about the aforementioned principals.

otherwise, why self-identify as "family"?

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
What circumstances surround Mason, founder of the Innocence Project, to co-host a posse falsely implicating a family member?
Or was he fed some misleading info?
Follow that source.

Mason is not founder of the Innocence project. Barry Scheck is. Mason is founder of the Innocence project North West. And maybe he was fed some information that was NOT misleading!

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
you, as Helena, have self-identified as "family".
"family" presumes some knowledge of the principals, i.e., other "family members", which in turn, predicates on some knowledge about the aforementioned principals.
otherwise, why self-identify as "family"?

She "met" Maura once. And it was at a group function.

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not sure about the off-thread personal dynamics but it would appear that certain posters here have met up in real life. Someone asked "Det Columbo" a few days ago about his personal interaction with "Beagle" and he replied that they had only corresponded via private email. It appears that "Aftermath" knows "Beagle" from the post below. Or perhaps "Aftermath" is also "Beagle"?
On Dec 28, 2011 (Post #7087)
"Beagle" wrote to "Det Columbo":
Maybe "Aftermath" understands your post, but I have no idea what it means. Email me something more straightforward, less enigmatic. Thanks.
Det Columbo replied:
When You see "Aftermath" ask him about a present He gave Me. Then We can be on the same page.
Keep in mind that both "Aftermath" and "Beagle" are unregistered on Topix so anyone could have been using those names at any given time.
I'm not condoning the first 2 videos by "112dirtbag" but it might have been a joke in poor taste gone horribly wrong. While the third video by "mr112dirtbag" appears to bear the same dubious creative characteristics it could be a copycat. The third video is still up on YouTube whereas the first two were taken down very quickly after they were initially uploaded. Possibly different posters? Nobody had confirmed scientifically that an anonymous poster called "Beagle" is *** in real life or that the YouTube contributors are either one of them.
Topix Franconia, the forum that never sleeps...

Frosty - people of many monikers have fed the conversation about MM's disappearance for years across numerous forums.
some are attention-seekers, some like debate, some seek factual information, and some like to manipulate and obfuscate.
again, the history is rich and complex.
it is impossible to extract any given post, make sense of it, and/or attach meaning to the authenticity of the author and/or the veracity of information contained.
often, meaning and content will have been intentionally misrepresented by anonymous and multi-monikered authors.
'tis the nature of the beast.

add to that the fact that very little, if any, new information has been added to the pile, with the exception of JRenner's offerings over many years....and you can see why personal dynamics have sometimes trumped any meaningful conversation about the subject.

With respect to Citigirl -- is she (as a family member) supposed to police everything any member of the family may say? Is she somehow expected to force other family members -- possibly distant family members at that -- to go with her rules about what to say and how to say it regarding the locals et al.? Who made Citigirl the Murray Family Police? I think it is really unfair to expect her to make a point of disagreeing with other family members even though she may. They are adults, they can speak for themselves and take the flowers or the flak. I see her as speaking only for herself, which frankly is all any of us should be expected to do.