Maura Murray

Elphalba wrote:

<quoted ext> Kärlek måste vara i luften !

LOL, self-aggrandizing methinks.

FrmLE

Can I get a list of those big cases that F Troop has solved in say the past 30 yrs.

Then let's see a list to compare the ones they didn't solve.

How many were You involved in and in what capacity.?

Did You Know Dick Dow, William Sullivan, Mark Young.?

John

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
You can't create a tautology if you don't have knowledge to know if something is true or not. You cannot create a truth or a false without any knowledge of the topic.
If you want to attack his common sense I'm positive he can defend himself. That i am going to say is a universal truth.

I was told that I should have in depth knowledge. So I should have mentioned "in depth" or something to that effect in my post. I apologize for that oversight.

And no, you do not need in depth knowledge to recognize faulty logic. For example. One does need complete understanding of the workings of the Milky Way to know that somebody is in error when they tell you that the sun sets every third day of the month.

Or one does not need to know what the hell tautology means to come to the conclusion that we are on a completely different page when it comes to this particular subject matter.:)

If I were concerned about winning the topix popularity contest, I would simply parrot whatever the masses are spouting this week. Make it interesting, put lots of ? questions marks at the end of everything (right columbo?) and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

However I don't care. I'll go with logic, seems the conspiracy bus is pretty full anyway.

Enjoy yourselves! Tinfoil hats to the rear!

Who was it that said she fell down a well?

FrmLE...

I will give You the Half & Suzanne Zantop murders.

That was excellent work in solving a horrific crime.

John

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
This post makes more sense to me. There is a chance that Maura ran into the woods and died but there are other possible alternatives that might have happened so let's discuss those as well? Is that what your stating ?

As groundbreaking of a statement as that is (sarcasm), yep, that pretty much sums it up.

Det Columbo wrote:

FrmLE...
I will give You the Half & Suzanne Zantop murders.
That was excellent work in solving a horrific crime.
John

I saw that profiled on TV. Forgot which show. I thought that it was an outstanding piece of work. Very methodical, logical, following lead by lead eventually leading the the two people who I don't think most would have ever suspected. Absolutely no connection between the murderers and victims as I remember. Just a thrill kill.

Very good work.

Bill

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL, self-aggrandizing methinks.

Yes, yes. Love must be in the air.

I think that many don't realize that there are 30 to 50 people that visit this forum at any given time. Most times people don't judge. It appears that sometimes they do.

They like, what they like.

Bill

I knew the dartmouth murders would come up as a possible example.
Yea they solved it but how was that case difficult in any way?
They were 17 yr old kids who left all sorts of evidence at the scene, including the sheathe from the knife.
They found out who bought the knife and it was bought by one of the kids
So yea it's good they solved it, but that's hardly a whodunit kind of case
Pretty much any idiot that had access to the evidence couldve solved that case

I'm talking a difficult case

Jenkins wrote:

Problem is w what u and frmLE r saying is that u guys have never, ever, even come close to proving a hypothesis wring.

I really have gone over this a hundred times but I will do it one last time.

I DO NOT need to prove a hypothesis wrong. It is YOUR duty to provide supporting evidence to prove a hypothesis correct.

This is why this will never work, and is considered laughable, with people here like yourself. You assume that your hypothesis is correct and everyone else needs to prove it wrong. Your entire form of logic is backwards. It is based on reverse logic. No where in the scientific community is that form of logic used to "prove" a hypothesis. Anyone who tried to do it that way wouldn't even be laughed out of the community, they would just be ignored.

I am just imagining going in front of a jury stating this is my theory and it must be true because I thought it up, all on my own. No supporting evidence, but it is such a great story. Think the jury would convict?

Try using that standard of using evidence to support a theory. See if it changes the way you look at things. It's hard, sometimes you don't get answers. Sometimes you wind up with a fill in the blanks type of story and you need to wait before the blanks can be filled in. Very unsatisfying for people who grew up learning their sleuthing skills by watching CSI.

Bill

Where did You go FrmLE.?

John

Jenkins wrote:

I knew the dartmouth murders would come up as a possible example.
Yea they solved it but how was that case difficult in any way?
They were 17 yr old kids who left all sorts of evidence at the scene, including the sheathe from the knife.
They found out who bought the knife and it was bought by one of the kids
So yea it's good they solved it, but that's hardly a whodunit kind of case
Pretty much any idiot that had access to the evidence couldve solved that case
I'm talking a difficult case

So funny. It begs the question, how would you even know what an easy case or a hard case looks like? Based on all of your experience investigating crimes? On the great big interwebz?

Wait!! Let me guess, the easy cases fit into the one hour time slot on TV, whereas the tough cases need to have part 1 this week and part 2 next week? Just like CSI right?

lol, sure hero that's about how it works.

FrmLE....

Well answer My questions. I am having second thoughts about You being connected to LE at all.

Such a big talker....!

John

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
So funny. It begs the question, how would you even know what an easy case or a hard case looks like? Based on all of your experience investigating crimes? On the great big interwebz?
Wait!! Let me guess, the easy cases fit into the one hour time slot on TV, whereas the tough cases need to have part 1 this week and part 2 next week? Just like CSI right?
lol, sure hero that's about how it works.

Wow, u can't even name one case can u?

And dude for the record, I've never watched one episode of csi in it's entirety. I fkn hate that show, it's so damn fake it's ridiculous

Why don't u try disproving anything I'm saying here, should b wicked easy right?
or is it that your so damn wring that your now resorting to straight up making shit up?

And hey WTH, wtf r u talking about? Theories in a court of law?! Huh? Although I disagree w u on a lot of things I thought yur more intelligent than that.
Everything I sat I either back up w a fact or say it's my opinion.

I think Ibe proved fairly well that the Haverhill pd at least knew more that night than they r saying and that they've straight ip lied about at least a couple things.
I didn't just say that, I backed it up with known facts.
I would gladly admit I'm wrong if u had one shred of anything that shows that I am.
But know, you guys have both resorted to the arguments making things up an attacking the messenger. That's just weak
Dude your making absolutely no sense here

Yawn. Believe what you wish I care not a bit.

WELL....FrmLE are You not talking to Me tonight.?

Where are those big case You worked on.?

John

FrmLe, can you clear up the 75% chance of future charges statement? Something said to keep the docs from being released?

Here's my psychological analysis of frmLE:

This guy is an old retired cop who is majorly insecure w himself. Most likely bc he was an inept investigator that couldn't make a case to save his life. I'd b willing to bet this guy never once brought in a difficult whodunit Case in his life.
But he doesn't want to believe that he sucked at investigating even thought subconsciously deep down he knows it.
So he comes on here to talk shot to try to make himself feel better. He makes sure to try to make fin of everyone, notice that he calls everyone investigator even tho clearly we aren't?
It's called projection, he's projecting his own insecurities at everyOne on here in an attempt to make himself feel better.
He's the big bad investigator who's worked on the case and knows everythingtherw is to know, if only we'd listen.
In reality when he's making fun of our "investigation" he's really talking about himself.
Ever notice that someone who's huge liar is always accusing ebryone of lying?
Same thing here.
He's making excused for the nhsp, and in turn he's making excuses for himself subconsciously

It's pretty sad if u think about it.
Anybody who feels the need to come On a forum just to talk shut must be really really insecure about themselves.
Think about it, if your some great investigator why feel the need to try to make fun of people.
People who r truly good at something dOnt make fun of people who aren't.
People who r secure with themselves don't make fun of other people.

FrmLE I really hope your making yourself feel better bc u certainly aren't hurting anyone's feelings on here so I hope your getting something out of it & not just completely wasting your time.
Bc u aren't contributing to the conversation, thus much we know.

I truly feel bad for anyone who's so insecure they feel the need to come online to try to make fun of people. That must suck

Jenkins wrote:

Here's my psychological analysis of frmLE:
This guy is an old retired cop who is majorly insecure w himself. Most likely bc he was an inept investigator that couldn't make a case to save his life. I'd b willing to bet this guy never once brought in a difficult whodunit Case in his life.
But he doesn't want to believe that he sucked at investigating even thought subconsciously deep down he knows it.
So he comes on here to talk shot to try to make himself feel better. He makes sure to try to make fin of everyone, notice that he calls everyone investigator even tho clearly we aren't?
It's called projection, he's projecting his own insecurities at everyOne on here in an attempt to make himself feel better.
He's the big bad investigator who's worked on the case and knows everythingtherw is to know, if only we'd listen.
In reality when he's making fun of our "investigation" he's really talking about himself.
Ever notice that someone who's huge liar is always accusing ebryone of lying?
Same thing here.
He's making excused for the nhsp, and in turn he's making excuses for himself subconsciously
It's pretty sad if u think about it.
Anybody who feels the need to come On a forum just to talk shut must be really really insecure about themselves.
Think about it, if your some great investigator why feel the need to try to make fun of people.
People who r truly good at something dOnt make fun of people who aren't.
People who r secure with themselves don't make fun of other people.
FrmLE I really hope your making yourself feel better bc u certainly aren't hurting anyone's feelings on here so I hope your getting something out of it & not just completely wasting your time.
Bc u aren't contributing to the conversation, thus much we know.
I truly feel bad for anyone who's so insecure they feel the need to come online to try to make fun of people. That must suck

ooooh oooh do me.

I'm just curious. When you actually write your "analysis". Do u really write like this & right things like u r texting all the time. bc if u do. How does any 1 take u seriously as a professional?

Like I believe you have any degree in anything. Certainly not any science.

Bill

u make me laf.