Maura Murray

Judged:

1

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>

why would this unrelated individuals profess to have this information and speak out/defend him on topix?
i surely hope LE has the answers.

Judged:

1

1

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
OMG - i just wrote "bingo" at the same time.
i don't see my post.
anyway, Mason/Fred Leatherman left off at the same place. he suspected the father, and challenged FM to prove his 'alibi'.
needless to say, Mason's theory/conclusions were unpopular and upset a few folks.

Judged:

1

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
it's not an obscene link. i, too, am conservative.

Judged:

1

1

1

Emmett Dove wrote:

<quoted text>
OMFG!! It's like some Norman Bates / Waxworks / Perfect Host stuff!! Wow!! Was this also in like real life?? WTF!
Good way to find out clues.. & im a "hillbilly"?? Thats like some wrongturn backwords redneck stuff rightchonder!! Seriously grown people in a tot tent with virtual drinks?
Did they have a virtual psycologist also?

Judged:

5

5

3

Jenkins wrote:

Maybe Fred suggesting the FBI being called is all an act too, He knows the FBI isn't going to take over this case.
The FBI jas specific guidelines for their cases and this case does not meet them.
The only reason they would come in is if Nh specifically asked them to, which je knows they won't do. There's no need for it, the nhsp has enough resources to investigate this case. There is no federal crime being broken here, this is a local missing persons case.
If Fred is responsible what a great idea, suggest bringing in the FBI so u dont look guilty to the public while knowing full well that the FBI is ne'er going to be in charge of this case, that's just ridiculous.
So no, he didn't "call the FBI on himself", that's impossible. He told the media that the FBI should be brought in, big difference.
This was all durin the time that je wouldn't sit down for a formal interview w LE. So u won't even do a real interrogation w LE but u want the FBI brought in? Come on

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
I say GET HIS WORK RECORDS!(but surely they must have?)

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
just finished listening to parts 2+3. i was unimpressed that the judge considered it a burden to do an in-camera review of all the documents, if necessary, to determine which to release.
nancy smith was not as persuasive, imo, as was the atty. for fred murray. they recessed at the end of part 3 without presenting a final judgment. is that what you heard, a well?

Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
Just as an aside -- that setup they did re the TOT and bartender serving "virtual drinks" ... this was like a spin-off of a type of chat forum that was popular online in the 1990's. I can't remember what the format was called, but people could join the chat room and it was live chat -- what you typed showed up under the name you were using and the discussion/s scrolled up the screen constantly. That type of format had a number of "social" options available, such that participants could give each other a beer or coffee or whatnot, give a hug, slap someone with a fish, and so on. It was quite the thing for a while, don't know if they exist anymore. But the MMM forum more or less picked up on that type of social behavior for forums, and it carried forward to the earlier Topix threads on Maura.
Now to the present: as you were.

Judged:

2

2

1

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I have seen parents come unhinged when they lose a child, or when someone harms their child. I have also seen parents of true criminals, not the minor stuff Maura did, in complete and total denial. It's impossible to say how a person will react to losing their child, as there is no "normal". This is just my opinion, but my heart says he is a grieving dad who is angry that he can't get answers. But like I said, anything is possible.

Judged:

2

2

1

Brilliant Brian wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah. Gee, I wonder why he went underground after that? Probably realized he was completely off-base.

Judged:

1

1

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Fully agree that there is no "normal". I'm going off what I've seen in other case and something about him just strikes me as odd and different than other grieving Parents I've seen. I just can't shake the feeling that he's playing up the grieving father part.
I find it very telling that LE had never come out and said that they've eliminated him as a suspect, which they generally do. Generally when someone in the family is eliminated they let the public know be use by default the family is the prime suspect.
I believe that LE thinks he is the suspect but without the body or any physical evidence they can't bring a case to court. Notice they've never even said whether they can confirm his work records, why not?? Seems odd.
& there's also the fact that he told Maura to call him but then he wasn't available for LE when they called? Why not?? Huge red flag IMO.
Then u got renner pulling high school year book photos from a porno in the back of his house?? Wtf is that?! I'm sorry but yearbook pics don't get into pornos in accident, that's some sick, disgusting shit right there and the implications freak me out.
Unless we believe renner is lying here then that's some seriously weird shit and about as big of a red flag I can think of. Also where would renner get old yearbook photos o these girls anyways?
Something is wrong here and I think we can see why fred was so adamant about her prior life not mattering and not wanting someone like renner looking around. Who wouldn't want an investigative journalist putting in serious effort I to finding his daughter unless he had some serious things to hide?

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
you were here when Mason/FL made the same request/appeal directly to Fred Murray, correct?

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Fully agree that there is no "normal". I'm going off what I've seen in other case and something about him just strikes me as odd and different than other grieving Parents I've seen. I just can't shake the feeling that he's playing up the grieving father part.
I find it very telling that LE had never come out and said that they've eliminated him as a suspect, which they generally do. Generally when someone in the family is eliminated they let the public know be use by default the family is the prime suspect.
I believe that LE thinks he is the suspect but without the body or any physical evidence they can't bring a case to court. Notice they've never even said whether they can confirm his work records, why not?? Seems odd.
& there's also the fact that he told Maura to call him but then he wasn't available for LE when they called? Why not?? Huge red flag IMO.
Then u got renner pulling high school year book photos from a porno in the back of his house?? Wtf is that?! I'm sorry but yearbook pics don't get into pornos in accident, that's some sick, disgusting shit right there and the implications freak me out.
Unless we believe renner is lying here then that's some seriously weird shit and about as big of a red flag I can think of. Also where would renner get old yearbook photos o these girls anyways?
Something is wrong here and I think we can see why fred was so adamant about her prior life not mattering and not wanting someone like renner looking around. Who wouldn't want an investigative journalist putting in serious effort I to finding his daughter unless he had some serious things to hide?

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Not to butt in, since you weren't talking to me. But here's the opinion, if you wanted to read it:
Murray v. NH Div. of State Police, 913 A. 2d 737 - NH: Supreme Court 2006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case...
Renner posted briefly about what happened after it was remanded back to Superior Court:
http://mauramurray.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-...

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
my overall impression is that these 'rituals' were inappropriate and unusual. they were apparently used to shape and reinforce groupthink, and also to selectively punish and remove posters from the conversation to prevent honest inquiry.
WTH, right?
who would think this stuff up?

Jenkins wrote:

Hey does anyone have links to the posts by mason? I'd love to read them.

Judged:

3

1

1

Brilliant Brian wrote:

<quoted text>
Most of this is complete BS. FBI said they would had NHSP asked them to, It doesn't have to be proven to be a "federal" crime. Being over the state lines would probably qualify if so.

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
I know at Websleuths, a (major) TOS violation results in a Time Out (suspension of posting privileges. But to 'selectively punish' as you put it is inherently wrong and would inspire theories about WHY such things would occur (i.e., only draw further attention to the censorship.)

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
I know at Websleuths, a (major) TOS violation results in a Time Out (suspension of posting privileges. But to 'selectively punish' as you put it is inherently wrong and would inspire theories about WHY such things would occur (i.e., only draw further attention to the censorship.)