Maura Murray

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
I was referring to the consistent posting pattern of a certain contributor who, with great regularity, feels the need to create bicoastal and even European cyber alter-egos to support his proffered analysis... even though he has frequently stated that he doesn't give a toss what others think. The entire charade is amusing to say the least.
(snipped)

Frostman, you were a self-admitted multiple poster after forgetting to change your moniker back to Frostman. Remember Fireweed?? I find it annoying as well, but for you to criticize is ridiculous. If he shared the same opinion as you, would you still label it as a charade? At the end of the day, these are all just opinions, we don't have to agree to them.

Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
My understanding is that the info on the underpants came from the family, but it was posted on my old forum (the first one, that is still showing up online) by Lady Gray in December 2008. She thought it might have some relevance with respect to items that were left in the Saturn, and she requested and received permission to post the information.
And it's okay to disagree! Where would the human race be if the Early Ones had all agreed that fire was a bad thing and we should not make it?

So how's that SpyPig thing working out for you? You like using that? Pretty good when it says its purpose is to see if your email has been received, but then the SpyPig website goes on to say...

"SpyPig can tell you where your recipient is located geographically when he/she opens your email. The accuracy is approximately 98% on the country level and 70% on the city level for US cities. The accuracy for non-US cities varies. This database is updated constantly to improve or maintain accuracy. The location information is based on the recipient's computer IP address. Some computer users might hide their true IP address and use a different address to appear as if they're located in a different city or even country!"

No wonder they call it SpyPig. Kind of a dual-use thing, I guess? Jenkins know about SpyPig?

http://www.spypig.com/requirements.php

Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
My understanding is that the info on the underpants came from the family, but it was posted on my old forum (the first one, that is still showing up online) by Lady Gray in December 2008. She thought it might have some relevance with respect to items that were left in the Saturn, and she requested and received permission to post the information.
And it's okay to disagree! Where would the human race be if the Early Ones had all agreed that fire was a bad thing and we should not make it?

I would think the simplest explanation to the underwear thing would be that maybe she forgot to pack them. Underwear and a toothbrush are the two things I usually forget to pack in a hurry, and that is when I am planning a trip without the stress of whatever was going on in Maura's mind when she left UMass. All of her behavior - printing off directions to various places, doing searches late at night, calling condos at the last minute - indicate to me that she wasn't thinking all too clearly.

But yes, I have no problem with disagreement... or with admitting I am wrong later if it turns out that I am.:-)

amy researches wrote:

Do any of you who live locally in NH have photographs or video of what this 10 mile stretch of road from the WB, to 10 miles or so east, looks like?
I have seen a video of Maura's supposed last route, but that video ends at the crash site. I am interested in what her route might have looked like if she ran east for five or ten miles.

Amy, there are several YouTube videos of the Kancamagus Highway (Route 112) that show different areas of it. I picked one that I think starts out somewhere east of the accident site and heads toward Lincoln:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

It at least shows the type of terrain and gives a feel of the uphill slope, I think. If you search YouTube for Kancamagus, or maybe also Wild Ammonoosuc Road, or possibly something like Haverhill to Lincoln you may come up with other useful vids.

Phoebe Prince wrote:

<quoted text>
So how's that SpyPig thing working out for you? You like using that? Pretty good when it says its purpose is to see if your email has been received, but then the SpyPig website goes on to say...
"SpyPig can tell you where your recipient is located geographically when he/she opens your email. The accuracy is approximately 98% on the country level and 70% on the city level for US cities. The accuracy for non-US cities varies. This database is updated constantly to improve or maintain accuracy. The location information is based on the recipient's computer IP address. Some computer users might hide their true IP address and use a different address to appear as if they're located in a different city or even country!"
No wonder they call it SpyPig. Kind of a dual-use thing, I guess? Jenkins know about SpyPig?

It did work fine the one time I used it. In that instance I was not sure if I had a valid working email address, and wanted to know whether or not my email was received. Nothing more, don't care where the individual lives. Never shared the info with anyone ... if Jenkins didn't know about it before, he does now with your post.

Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
Amy, there are several YouTube videos of the Kancamagus Highway (Route 112) that show different areas of it. I picked one that I think starts out somewhere east of the accident site and heads toward Lincoln:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
It at least shows the type of terrain and gives a feel of the uphill slope, I think. If you search YouTube for Kancamagus, or maybe also Wild Ammonoosuc Road, or possibly something like Haverhill to Lincoln you may come up with other useful vids.

Oh, thank you! I didn't even think to try youtube.

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>Frostman, you were a self-admitted multiple poster after forgetting to change your moniker back to Frostman. Remember Fireweed?? I find it annoying as well, but for you to criticize is ridiculous. If he shared the same opinion as you, would you still label it as a charade? At the end of the day, these are all just opinions, we don't have to agree to them.

I absolutely agree with that stellar poster Fireweed and the repostings from Helena's forum.

Most of us, however, aren't purporting to be ex-coppers whilst calling other contributors "vomit swallowers". Let's agree to disagree, shall we?

Phoebe Prince wrote:

<quoted text>
So how's that SpyPig thing working out for you? You like using that? Pretty good when it says its purpose is to see if your email has been received, but then the SpyPig website goes on to say...
"SpyPig can tell you where your recipient is located geographically when he/she opens your email. The accuracy is approximately 98% on the country level and 70% on the city level for US cities. The accuracy for non-US cities varies. This database is updated constantly to improve or maintain accuracy. The location information is based on the recipient's computer IP address. Some computer users might hide their true IP address and use a different address to appear as if they're located in a different city or even country!"
No wonder they call it SpyPig. Kind of a dual-use thing, I guess? Jenkins know about SpyPig?
http://www.spypig.com/requirements.php

Not to encourage you to go to places you don't feel are comfortable or safe, but WTH is really going on here? The YouTube vid with everyone's screen name is a puzzle to me. I trust you can recognize and "read" the posters that are honest, without an agenda, and not connected at some other level. For the record, count me out of any sub-plots. What you see is what you get.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
That's a really good point. Not only did LE feel a crime occurred, a judge agreed.
A judge got do review the entire case file and even ask questions in in-camera review.
And he came to the conclusion that a crime
Most likely occurred as evident by his agreeing with the states case.
If he looked at the case file and thought that she simply got lost in the woods and LE got it wrong, then there would be no need for the case file to remain sealed.
Very interesting that every professional who's ever reviewed the case file has come to the same conclusion, that foul play is most likely involved. How is it that someone like frmLE is so much smarter than all the pros who've reviewed the case? How is it that all of them have it wrong?
That was the whole point of the court case, that LE can't just say they think a crime was committed, they have to show a compelling reason that they think so. & they most certainly did that, shown by the judge supporting the states side

So many of your assumptive statements in this post are just not correct. You are very prone to extreme embellishment and spin.

Understand, that no one knows what happened to Maura, so for you to make statements such as "Not only did LE feel a crime occurred, a judge agreed." it is just not accurate.

I have tried many times to explain that there was much more to the court case than you are aware, but honestly since you have no background in the system it is hard to convey those points to you.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Very interesting that every professional who's ever reviewed the case file has come to the same conclusion, that foul play is most likely involved.

For instance, this is just not true, I think you lose credibility when you try to force your point. Not every professional who has reviewed the case feels that foul play is involved. Not by a long shot, in fact I will say the opposite is true.

It is just not true at all. You lose credibility when you force facts and over spin, I suggest you stick to stating your opinion and leave it to that, because no one knows what really happened.

And for the record, yes I am smarter than most 'pros' who worked the case. lol, way smarter.:)

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
So many of your assumptive statements in this post are just not correct. You are very prone to extreme embellishment and spin.
Understand, that no one knows what happened to Maura, so for you to make statements such as "Not only did LE feel a crime occurred, a judge agreed." it is just not accurate.
I have tried many times to explain that there was much more to the court case than you are aware, but honestly since you have no background in the system it is hard to convey those points to you.
<quoted text>
For instance, this is just not true, I think you lose credibility when you try to force your point. Not every professional who has reviewed the case feels that foul play is involved. Not by a long shot, in fact I will say the opposite is true.
It is just not true at all. You lose credibility when you force facts and over spin, I suggest you stick to stating your opinion and leave it to that, because no one knows what really happened.
And for the record, yes I am smarter than most 'pros' who worked the case. lol, way smarter.:)

Good points. We ever talk?

Frostman wrote:

<quoted text>
I absolutely agree with that stellar poster Fireweed and the repostings from Helena's forum.
Most of us, however, aren't purporting to be ex-coppers whilst calling other contributors "vomit swallowers". Let's agree to disagree, shall we?

While he is claiming to be an "x-copper" he also re-iterates that his posts are only his opinion. Where as others who claim to be, play guessing games, riddles, update us on great places to eat.

Just sayin'. I have no beef with you, just pointing out the hypocrisy in my view.

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
While he is claiming to be an "x-copper" he also re-iterates that his posts are only his opinion. Where as others who claim to be, play guessing games, riddles, update us on great places to eat.
Just sayin'. I have no beef with you, just pointing out the hypocrisy in my view.

Sad, but so true. Impossible to know who online is trustworthy and who's not, what claims are true and what ones are not. Simply a limitation of the internet. Anyone can be anyone. Takes a really, really smart person to distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys. Used to get all kinds of messages and online talk about me, but not so much any more. See where I'm coming from?

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
Not to encourage you to go to places you don't feel are comfortable or safe, but WTH is really going on here? The YouTube vid with everyone's screen name is a puzzle to me. I trust you can recognize and "read" the posters that are honest, without an agenda, and not connected at some other level. For the record, count me out of any sub-plots. What you see is what you get.

I'd be interested to know what this is all about, too.

Topix doesn't pay me to post here either. If I got paid to post here, I could probably afford to buy one of Bill's three or four houses.

LOL

Haha frmLE, I'm sure you are.

I wasn't trying to spin, I wouldn't call that a fair assessment but maybe my language was a little too strong because in reality I don't know about EVERY person who has reviewed the case file.
I should have said everyone who's reviewed that spoke publicly about it says they believe foul play to be involved. Obviously idk what the people who haven't spoke publicly think about it.

I think your totally wrong about the courts decision.
It is clearly stated that LE can't just withhold information from the public, the state had to show a compelling reason to do so. The judge clearly agreed that there was a compelling reason.
If the judge reviewed the file and thought that she most likely got lost in the woods, he would've had to release the file, in theory.

There must've been some compelling facts in the file and found during in camera review to make the judge agree that a crime most likely occurred and they are legitimately investigating a crime.

Obviously the judge did not agree with your assessment of the case frmLE, if he did the case file would've been released.

Remember that if she was most likely in the woods then that means no crime was committed, if no crime was believed to have occurred then there no reason to keep the file sealed.
Also remember what the judge said about the state needing to show him a real reason to keep the file sealed, they can't just say she's lost in the woods but we want to keep the file sealed just in case there was a crime committed.

It's obvious that the court felt that a crime was committed against Maura and that LE was legitimately investigating said crime

So hit me up. No roaming charges apply.

Phoebe Prince wrote:

<quoted text>
Sad, but so true. Impossible to know who online is trustworthy and who's not, what claims are true and what ones are not. Simply a limitation of the internet. Anyone can be anyone. Takes a really, really smart person to distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys. Used to get all kinds of messages and online talk about me, but not so much any more. See where I'm coming from?

I agree with you. It's impossible to know for sure who is lying and who is really who they say they are. Even after I gave people my identity and a means to verify who I am, I was still asked if I am Beagle's lawyer. Then some psycho started calling me. So I give up.

I think we all have to be nuts on some level to even bother posting here.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I'd be interested to know what this is all about, too.
Topix doesn't pay me to post here either. If I got paid to post here, I could probably afford to buy one of Bill's three or four houses.
LOL

now that you've enlightened me about how the jump happened from taking reponsibility she "deserved" her fate, at least i know what i'm dealing with.
of course, we've got another one repeatedly commenting on MM's "hotness", so the discussion is all over the place.
go figure.

Jenkins wrote:

I wasn't trying to spin...

Come on, Jenkins, don't be modest. You're a natural. Everyone knows how good you are on the dance floor.

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
now that you've enlightened me about how the jump happened from taking reponsibility she "deserved" her fate, at least i know what i'm dealing with.
of course, we've got another one repeatedly commenting on MM's "hotness", so the discussion is all over the place.
go figure.

edit:

...how the jump happened from taking responsibility TO she "deserved her fate"

Phoebe Prince wrote:

<quoted text>
Takes a really, really smart person to distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys.

(snipped)

Not really.