Maura Murray

Judged:

2

1

1

FrmLE wrote:

The part that makes me sad is how inaccurate and unreliable the information is that many of you are using to from your opinions and theories.

Judged:

3

3

3

Laurieisgone wrote:

Where the HECK is my 'ignore Snoozy' button.. hold on I'll find it.

Judged:

1

1

1

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Ummm, what the hell r u talking about snowy? Your post makes no sense
Why do u come to this thread if not to out forth theories?
I see u out forth a lot of assumptions and statements but rarely have I ever seen u make a meaningful post supported by facts.
So now u think the red truck is just a flight of fancy? An imagined thing?
So r u saying RO made it up?
If your not saying that then how do u account for a vehicle w mass plates, who was clearly looking for someOne, in the exact same time and the exact same place as Maura?
That's just a coincidence?
What's your theory? That she went in the woods to die? Your from Nh right? How freakin far do u think she really could've gotten in those woods without even wearing boots? Not very far, she is not in the woods, at least not near that crash site.
Do u think she went and started a new life? I hope to god that's what happened but let's be realistic here...barely 2 months earlier she got busted ordering pizza w a stolen cc directly to her dorm room, not exactly frank abignale jr.. R we supposed to believe she went from the worst criminal in the world to some sort of mastermind criminal in the span of 2 months?
I just am having a hard time of understanding exactly why your here snowy. All you do is make weird comments talking shit but u never bring any facts to the table of why your right.
Like when u say suggesting McKay might've has something to do with it u say it's ludacris...well ok you might b right but why is it so ludacris? If it's such a crazy suggestion there's gotta b some reason why it's crazy.
I'm sorry bit just saying something is crazy doesn't make it crazy. If its so ridiculous it should b that much easier to disprove.
It's funny bc when several people made the point of saying that suggestion was insane, and nor one of them had anything resembling a reason why it was wrong, it actually makes me think I'm on to something.
That's the classic argument when someone is wrong but won't admit it, just sat it's "crazy".
It would suck if everyone just agreed.
I know that some of the theories I propose or support r wrong, they can't all b right.
So if something is so crazy, so stupid, then it should b super easy to dispove.
It would b great if someone who knows why something is crazy would tell us so we could atop considering it a theory.
It's funny cuz the more people who say it's crazy without any facts to support it, the more I think we might b onto something.
I don't wanna pick on u snowy, I just really don't understand what your saying in your post and now that I think about it why your even here.
Not that u aren't welcome, anybody should voice their opinion but do u even have an opinion or is your opinion just that everyone is wrong

Judged:

1

1

1

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>Maybe the truck has no bearing on the case. I just think le or tv shows would have made a bigger stink about the truck.

Judged:

2

2

2

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text> or downplayed it for a specific reason?

Judged:

4

4

4

FrmLE wrote:

No I am sure they are right, you just keep plugging along here, "Eliminating Theories" and working it all thru. Just like a real Detective, keep playing dress up and 'analyzing the clues.' lolol
Do you have a little plastic badge and blue hat you put on when you are at your computer pretending to look for clues?

Judged:

3

2

2

FrmLE wrote:

But hey, have fun anyway.

Judged:

3

2

2

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps Law Enforcement requested that the media side-step the Red Truck sighting in their television reports and newspaper articles, or downplayed it for a specific reason?

Judged:

1

1

1

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>Could be didn't think of that. But again if the truck had ma tags maybe it was a planned meeting. Rather than abduction. I don't someone would follow someone 130 miles to kidnap and then drive back to ma. That's a lot of time with a body and a lot of time to account for if an alibi is needed.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok I think I see what you're saying. Yes, some of the statements on the record do clearly say they are trying to protect people who have talked to them, such as this:
"Ms. Smith: You have indicated that revealing material that has been withheld could endanger people that have talked to you, by providing that information to persons of interest...
Sgt. Landry: Yes."
http://mauramurray.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-...
However, they clearly say persons of interest or person of interest many times. So I think we are talking about two separate things? Yes, they want to protect their sources. But also, yes they clearly do (or did) have persons of interest - meaning they do suspect a crime was committed.
Correct me if I am misunderstanding what you're saying.

Judged:

3

2

2

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
It is entertaining to watch though.
And who is it that doesn't know what "bump" means? Thinks it has to do with driving over someone?
bump def:
This word is posted to a topic tread if the poster wants to re-call attention to the thread.
Most regular forum users typically hit "new posts" to read new posts since their last visit, so an old topic will be lost to these readers. Bumping a topic is essentially "bumping" it back into view for most readers.
Bill

Judged:

3

3

3

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>And who is it that doesn't know what "bump" means? Thinks it has to do with driving over someone?bump def:This word is posted to a topic tread if the poster wants to re-call attention to the thread.Most regular forum users typically hit "new posts" to read new posts since their last visit, so an old topic will be lost to these readers. Bumping a topic is essentially "bumping" it back into view for most readers.Bill