|
FrmLE
Vero Beach, FL
|
Brilliant Brian wrote: <quoted text>
Well, even Scarinza said he thought she got a ride, so I guess you hate cops. . . . Thank you! You sir, are proving my points perfectly. I mean, perfectly. Let's analyze what you just said. I will post your exact quote. . . . Brilliant Brian wrote: <quoted text>
Well, even Scarinza said he thought she got a ride,.... . . . Did he say that? Did he REALLY? You are making assumptions based on inaccurate information, quotes that were never said. Lt. Scarinza, ""My sense is that she might have gotten a ride." Yep, she might have gotten a ride, or she might not have gotten a ride. She might be alive, or she might not be alive. Maybe, Maybe not. That could not be a more ambiguous statement. You know why? Because he doesn't know. No one knows, that's why it is still an open case, because it has to be. I have known Lt. Scarinza for a long time, he is no dummy. He is not going to tell some reporter anything revealing, in fact it makes more sense to me that he would be intentionally misleading, simply because he doesn't know for sure. But to you, even though his statement is completely vague, ambiguous, you read it as "Scarinza thinks she got a ride". Thanks for proving my point, again. Stick around, I like you.
|
|
Snowy
Flushing, NY
|
Brilliant Brian wrote: <quoted text>
Well, even Scarinza said he thought she got a ride, so I guess you hate cops. He didn't state it as fact, just as a final hands thrown up in the air context. So his guess is as good as anyone else's.
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Cincinnati, OH
|
Please wait...
FrmLE wrote: <quoted text>
.
.
.
Thank you! You sir, are proving my points perfectly. I mean, perfectly.
Let's analyze what you just said. I will post your exact quote.
.
.
.
<quoted text>
.
.
.
Did he say that? Did he REALLY? You are making assumptions based on inaccurate information, quotes that were never said.
Lt. Scarinza, ""My sense is that she might have gotten a ride."
Yep, she might have gotten a ride, or she might not have gotten a ride. She might be alive, or she might not be alive. Maybe, Maybe not.
That could not be a more ambiguous statement. You know why? Because he doesn't know. No one knows, that's why it is still an open case, because it has to be.
I have known Lt. Scarinza for a long time, he is no dummy. He is not going to tell some reporter anything revealing, in fact it makes more sense to me that he would be intentionally misleading, simply because he doesn't know for sure.
But to you, even though his statement is completely vague, ambiguous, you read it as "Scarinza thinks she got a ride".
Thanks for proving my point, again. Stick around, I like you. He has no idea but he is going to be misleading but he might know something but he might not but he might just say anything but but but opposite contradict opposite contradict. The bottom line is, you are as useless as he is. I hope you both have fun in your retirements.
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Cincinnati, OH
|
Please wait...
Oh, by the way, my last two posts were sarcastic. So, no need to deconstruct them.
|
|
Jenkins
Astoria, NY
|
Scarinza also describes personally flying the in SP helicopter looking through the flir. He said he could see animal tracks on the snow, small animals, even hunting stands. He says that there was no indication that anybody entered the woods. He sounds very confident when he says that e feels she is not in the woods near the accident scene. How far into the woods could she have really gotten? There was 2 feet of snow on the ground and she disnt even have boots on. In addition to that the rive runs along the road for miles so that pretty mich eliminates one direction of travel. How do u explain how she could have gotten in the woods if they were unsble to find any indication anybody entered the woods? How do u feel about the Nh league of investigators findings? They're all former nhsp investigators. They came to the conclusion that there was 2 accidents that night and the scene we know about was most likely staged? How is it that all these guys r coming to these conclusions but "frmLE" knows better? Hey frmLE, you mention the thread about patric. I never saw u answer the question of how he could possibly have dirt in his open eyes if je died from hypothermia. & oh yea, how many difficult, whodunit cases have u personally solved? Or how about howany difficult cases has the nhsp ever solved? Can u even give me one?
|
|
Snowy
Flushing, NY
|
FrmLE wrote: <quoted text>
For what it's worth, my insights and opinions are right here. I know it is nearly impossible to sort through all the garbage to try to pull meaningful information out, but I have posted as much as I am 'ethically' able to post. My opinions are here at length, as is my theory.
The problem with my theory, the reason most here don't like it and won't accept it is because it is really not that sexy. It doesn't make them excited, it's not good Lifetime Movie Network material, therefore they ignore the facts and focus on what interests them.
I will offer you a perfect example. If I had a dime for every time someone posted the words, "If she were in the woods, she would have been found by now...." I would be a wealthy man.
So right here, this is a reason that SO MANY PEOPLE believe that she was either abducted and killed or she got in a car with someone she knew. This one premise, that if she were in the woods she would have been found by now, is the basis of so many people's theories.
The problem is........ Wait for it..... wait.....
IT IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE! In the area that she could have accessed, in the time frame she had, she could have gone so far into the woods that it is in fact most likely that she will never be found, ever.
I have posted a slew of evidence to support this very simple fact, over and over, as has WTH and others. I have conducted winderneYss searches in THESE VERY SAME WOODS, and I know how large the area is. That FACT is supported by anyone who has the knowledge and experience of searching for a small object in a very large area, they all agree that it is very unlikely she would be found.
However, despite all that, every day someone here forms an opinion that, "If she were in the woods, she would have been found by now...." Yep, a complete incorrect opinion based on untrue facts, yet people continue to say that very same thing.
Now, take that example, multiply by about a hundred, and compound that by a thousand, and that is an idea of why I no longer offer my insight. I, too, have uttered exactly those thoughts....however, when corrected, I believed two sources whom I questioned and respect...one was WTH/Bill. You are the third. Anyone claiming to be local should easily have this knowledge and understanding. Your take on FM surprises me. It will be interesting to see where JRenner lands on that one. Your take on Columbo doesn't surprise me.
|
|
Jenkins
Astoria, NY
|
I dont think theres really a "I hate cops crowd" There's definitely a I hate BAD cops crowd. Nobody hates cops, we all recognize that the majority of cops r good people. But when you have cops blatantly lying to the family(they claimed they thought fred was driving) You have a cops fill out a false accident report. You got wotnesses placing the chief of police's cruiser there, but they say he wasn't there. I could go on here, there is a real lot of inconsistencies in the Haverhill cops statements. How do u account for this "frmLE" What exactly Is your knowledge of the case? That Maura is most likely in the woods. How the hell did she get in the woods and how far do I really think she couldve gone? If it wasn't winter I'd say yea, she def could b in the woods but it is highly unlikely. It's not like she Couldve just hiked up into the woods a few miles in the middle of the night in february
|
|
FrmLE
Vero Beach, FL
|
Jenkins wrote: blah blah blah, I'm an ignorant know nothing who thinks it's ok to shoot cops in the back and drive over them until they are dead...... Why should I reply to any of your retarded questions? Fuckstick, I sincerely hope you get shot in the back and run over til dead.
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
FrmLE wrote: <quoted text>
For what it's worth, my insights and opinions are right here. I know it is nearly impossible to sort through all the garbage to try to pull meaningful information out, but I have posted as much as I am 'ethically' able to post. My opinions are here at length, as is my theory.
The problem with my theory, the reason most here don't like it and won't accept it is because it is really not that sexy. It doesn't make them excited, it's not good Lifetime Movie Network material, therefore they ignore the facts and focus on what interests them.
I will offer you a perfect example. If I had a dime for every time someone posted the words, "If she were in the woods, she would have been found by now...." I would be a wealthy man.
So right here, this is a reason that SO MANY PEOPLE believe that she was either abducted and killed or she got in a car with someone she knew. This one premise, that if she were in the woods she would have been found by now, is the basis of so many people's theories.
The problem is........ Wait for it..... wait.....
IT IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE! In the area that she could have accessed, in the time frame she had, she could have gone so far into the woods that it is in fact most likely that she will never be found, ever.
I have posted a slew of evidence to support this very simple fact, over and over, as has WTH and others. I have conducted winderness searches in THESE VERY SAME WOODS, and I know how large the area is. That FACT is supported by anyone who has the knowledge and experience of searching for a small object in a very large area, they all agree that it is very unlikely she would be found.
However, despite all that, every day someone here forms an opinion that, "If she were in the woods, she would have been found by now...." Yep, a complete incorrect opinion based on untrue facts, yet people continue to say that very same thing.
Now, take that example, multiply by about a hundred, and compound that by a thousand, and that is an idea of why I no longer offer my insight. I could accept the woods theory if you can tell me why the court says there would be a 75 percentage chance of bring someone up on charges. If you could explain that it would be helpful.
|
|
Snowy
Flushing, NY
|
Brilliant Brian wrote: <quoted text>
He has no idea but he is going to be misleading but he might know something but he might not but he might just say anything but but but opposite contradict opposite contradict.
The bottom line is, you are as useless as he is. I hope you both have fun in your retirements. Is there something essentially wrong with retirement? That you accept what you hear or read without critical thinking or questioning will always lead you to incorrect conclusions. Stupidity is believing, as fact, what you are unwilling and/or unable to verify yourself. And then repeating it.
|
|
Snowy
Flushing, NY
|
Lighthouse 101 wrote: <quoted text>
I could accept the woods theory if you can tell me why the court says there would be a 75 percentage chance of bring someone up on charges. If you could explain that it would be helpful. Quite reasonably, the public should expect official clarification or an update on that point of information
|
|
FrmLE
Vero Beach, FL
|
amy researches wrote: <quoted text>
Except for the court proceedings. They went to great length not to release those files, and gave enough information to make me believe that they are (or were at that time) following up on persons of interests. That, coupled with current CCU involvement, makes me think they suspect foul play. If I'm wrong about that, then I'm wrong. Do you think I'm wrong. You are forming an opinion based on what you percieve to be an unusual occurance, the court proceedings. When in fact, nothing about that is unusual at all. It is completely standard operating procedure for all Law Enforcement agencies to not release case files of cases that are considered to be "OPEN". What was unusual here is the lengths that Fred Murray went to try to obtain the files. What the State did was simply protect the integrity of the case, since there is no body it is considered open. There was a very real concern that this was a slippery slope, if the State lost this case then we would lose the ability to protect active case files from being released. That would be very bad for a million reasons. Do not read too much into those Court proceedings. As far as the CCU being involved, I will repeat, it is an open case. There is no body, we don't know what happened for sure, therefore it is still active. That's all.
|
|
“"CONFUSION CENTRAL"”
Since: Dec 11
Franconia NH
|
Please wait...
They have made an arrest in the Melissa Jenkins case. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/28/... John
|
|
Snowy
Flushing, NY
|
FrmLE wrote: <quoted text>
THAT is an excellent question. The reason I no longer 'share insight' is simply because no matter what I say it will not be considered by the majority here who want to believe there is more to this case than there is.
The way that most people here operate, is to form an opinion based on what most appeals to them on a personal level. Usually that is based on several factors such as:
* First and foremost, what is the most interesting and sensational theory. What titilates them, what is a good TV Movie on Lifetime. The more interesting the better.
*Second is usually based on a personal bias the person may have. If you hate local rednecks, you think SBD did it, or some other local dirtbag.
* If you hate cops, then that's always a good fall back, the 'rogue cop' did it, and of course it is being covered up by other cops. Because we all are ok with killing young women (or 11 year old boys) and have no problem covering these things up, naturally.
* Let's see, if you had an abusive relationship with your boyfriend, then the BF did it.
* If you hated your father, then of course Fred did it.
* If you have a boring miserable life and always wish you could run away, disappear with your secret love, well then thats where Maura is, living in Toronto with a 'hunky guy'.
And so on and so on, that is how the average person forms opinions. They do not look at the facts and follow those leads to form logical opinions, instead the form opinions and then look for the 'facts' that best support their favorite theory.
So when I post facts thats are in fact, TRUE, well they get dismissed because they don't jive with each persons 'personal theory'. And I end up going around and around in circles, wondering wtf and I doing?
I suggest you read the other thread that I had contributed to, the case of Patric McCarthy. Same as with this thread, both cases I have significant knowledge of, yet no matter how many facts I offer, when they do not jive with what the person WANTS TO BELIEVE, they will not accept those facts and instead go to absurd lengths to counter.
At some point, what's the point? Right?
So many things you are discussing are simply not accurate, not possible, or have been investigated at length. Many more issues that are discussed every day, over and over, are based on not facts but the posts of average, anonymous people on an internet forum years ago. I am sure that years from now, people will be referencing your posts, or Snowy or columbos posts and basing theories on what is nothing more than one informed person opinions.
That is what you are all doing now, I find it interesting/sad/depressing/fun ny/pathetic.
But hey, whatever makes you happy! For the record, I avoid theorizing. I also avoid personalizing the life experiences of the person, Maura Murray...unknown to me. Occasionally, I'll jump on some comment in agreement or disagreement...but I have always been a fan of the official investigation.
|
Since: Dec 11
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
FrmLE wrote: <quoted text>Why should I reply to any of your retarded questions? Fuckstick, I sincerely hope you get shot in the back and run over til dead. ? Did I read this correctly?
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
FrmLE wrote: <quoted text>
You are forming an opinion based on what you percieve to be an unusual occurance, the court proceedings. When in fact, nothing about that is unusual at all. It is completely standard operating procedure for all Law Enforcement agencies to not release case files of cases that are considered to be "OPEN".
What was unusual here is the lengths that Fred Murray went to try to obtain the files. What the State did was simply protect the integrity of the case, since there is no body it is considered open. There was a very real concern that this was a slippery slope, if the State lost this case then we would lose the ability to protect active case files from being released.
That would be very bad for a million reasons. Do not read too much into those Court proceedings.
As far as the CCU being involved, I will repeat, it is an open case. There is no body, we don't know what happened for sure, therefore it is still active.
That's all. Thank you very much.
|
|
Elphalba
Fresno, CA
|
amy researches wrote: <quoted text>
Respectfully, I don't understand how someone who worked on this case in an official capacity could ethically post about the case on a public forum. But I've seen you share insight about the case here before and believe you did work on the case. If you are able to say this much, why not just say which parts are wrong, which parts are lies? What harm would it do? I concur with this question. It is ridiculous to generally say that 80% of info is corrupt and yet offer no specific counters. Complaining about theories without refuting said theories just comes across as whining.
|
|
“"CONFUSION CENTRAL"”
Since: Dec 11
Franconia NH
|
Please wait...
Frostman wrote: <quoted text>
? Did I read this correctly? Yes this guy, FrmLE is a real class act. He must have been a real nice cop to get pulled over by. He also is not very smart...! John
|
|
FrmLE
Vero Beach, FL
|
Elphalba wrote: <quoted text>
I concur with this question. It is ridiculous to generally say that 80% of info is corrupt and yet offer no specific counters. Complaining about theories without refuting said theories just comes across as whining. For the record, I completely agree with your statement, it is one of my biggest pet peeves in fact. What you are missing is that I have in fact refuted these theories, many many many times. In detail, at length, ad nauseum. You just are new here, therefore what you read yesterday and today is your entire frame of reference, which is not really accurate. Now, if you are saying that I am not CONTINUALLY refuting said theories, on a daily basis, then youwould be correct. The reasons for this are in the several posts above, which you have probably read. However, I agree with your point as stated.
|
|
Since: Dec 11
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Det Columbo wrote: They have made an arrest in the Melissa Jenkins case. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/28/... John "Allen Prue, 30, told police he wanted to 'get a girl' on Sunday night, the court documents state, noting that in the past he had asked victim Melissa Jenkins out. Patricia Prue, 33, <his wife> allegedly called Jenkins on Sunday night and told her they needed help." A lure by a woman directly connected to the perpetrator. A seemingly benign request for help... a woman trusting the words of another woman. Was there a woman in the car with the Red Truck driver who was witnessed lurking about by RO at SSS?
|
|
|
Dating
