Where is MAURA MURRAY

But Thanks Fire Cat, I appreciate your insight.

propaganda firetruck wrote:

<quoted text>
thanks for sharing, pal. just wanted to make sure you were saying what I thought you were saying. BTW, NOTHING should be considered self-explanatory on this forum, why you think it is, I don't know.

Basic grammar is ALWAYS self-explanatory.....

Pointer wrote:

But Thanks Fire Cat, I appreciate your insight.

Hey, I can only post what Weeper gives us. Sorry!:)

(PS, it's REALLY FREAKIN' HARD not having a search function here. Fortunately I was pretty sure of the general date. Ish.)

propaganda firetruck wrote:

<quoted text>
It "confirms" the "possible"??? Is this supposed to be self-explanatory too? Thanks for entertaining my questions.

As I just stated to Pointer, if you read what Weeper wrote, that's the only info I have too. How is it that I can read something and make total sense of it, and....no, never mind. Forget I asked that.

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
What does any of this info about Finneran have to do with Maura Murray, the SBD or anyone else involved or not involved with her disappearance?
Peri if you take the time to go back and read the past replies you will find that much of what you are questioning has already been gone over, many many times. IMHO this is what makes it so very confusing as the same stuff that's been studied over and over keeps being brought back up as if it is new, to be gone over and over and over some more.
This has come full circle and we are back to the same conversations and scenerios from almost 5 years ago. I just don't understand why some just want to stay fixated on one area and the same couple of people when it has brought absolutely no answers in 5 years.
I'm not saying to forget these people or this area but for heavens sake open your minds to new ideas, new scenerios and new people.

Wowzer: What it has to do with Finneran? Nothing, other than to point out the results of what happens when one lies; obstruction of justice is your just rewards.

Why are you asking me to move along, when there is evidence to bring forth a grand jury of possible obstuction of justice charges in the investigation of Maura's disappearance!

con't

con't answer to Wowxer's comments
I have not changed my stance in all this time, and joined the original forum at page 55, and was asked to join the forum because I write on another forum for missing people which I have neglected all this time looking for what happened to Maura, and frankly would be tired of it except that Maura and her family deserve so much better treatment than they have received from Law enforcement. No other reason....
I was one of the instagators of placing the persons OI under a microscope because they told untruths, admittedly perhaps unfair but when one lies they are the authors of their own misfortune and in 5 years they have had time to clear the slate, and that has not happened.
Originally, I could not believe it was Maura at the accident site, just doesn't fit, doesn't make sense, no evidence to place her there other than an individual who is not believeable, and no police photo line up was given to him, also, he vacillated as to her identity
From the get-go it was apparent this was beyond the family to find answers, we needed a PI to examine the case and stated so, and what a wonderful team came to the rescue and are still here, trying the best they can
stated we needed an autoreconstructionist to examine the vehicle as the damage to the staturn did not appear that it stuck a tree, we got one
vouched that there appeared to have been an earlier accident as pointed out by Anne,
and I and others have supported her, and the PI's have found witnesses that this might be so
found the behavior of the report of the red truck suspectt and the timing of this siting relevant and worthy of further investigation and harped that they come forward, and it happened R.O. came forward
Of course I was not alone, we were a team on the forum searching for answers...
When there is evidence to move my thoughts and impressions down the road, I'll go there
If you could lead me down another path, I'd gladly go, but so far I don't see one, unless it takes me to Valley Road, but that still does not exclude any evidence brought forward thus far...
My quest is for a grand jury to examine this matter, because I do not trust law enforcement given what they did and said, and what they have not done, their behavior towards the Murray family, and their lack of statements regarding this investigation. Hell why would I move forward, to where, when everything that is presently known still seems suspicious, even after we have a PI team on the case, an autoreconstructionist report, which have confirmed the doubts of myself and others.
That makes no sense to me what you are asking.
There is new information, the SBD did not make the call? So after 5 years I found out something I didn't know which is relevant.
I have thought outside the box, and reserached things until blue in the face, investigated as best I could anything and everything that was happening in the area that might have brought Maura to New Hampshire, I have said unspeakable things about Maura, possible pregancy, abortion, new boyfriend, Fred being a POI, Billy being a POI, but everything thus known takes me back to the accident site.
Sorry I am stuck at the accident scene. What else am I to think from my disadvantaged point of not being able to view the accident scene, not having answers as to why some of the witnesses lied, why the witnesses stories differ as to what the SBD said and did as well as police logs.
Why law enforcement has been unkosher to Fred makes one supicious, they treat him like a hostile witness.
Wowzer I mean no harm to anyone, however, law enforcement and a few of the neighbours to the accident site behaviors need to be examined more closely.

con't to Wowzer part 111

All of my suspicions maybe unfounded, but until there is evidence to clear up this misnomers and statements, I just can't leave the scene of the accident unless it is to the previous accident that Anne heard.
This is about the 5th time that you requested in one way or the other I move on, well that is for others, we still don't have answers, I wish you would respect that, I do not question your research and opinions other than to clarify.

c'est fini!

peripeteia Nova Scotia wrote:

<quoted text>
Wowzer: What it has to do with Finneran? Nothing, other than to point out the results of what happens when one lies; obstruction of justice is your just rewards.
Why are you asking me to move along, when there is evidence to bring forth a grand jury of possible obstuction of justice charges in the investigation of Maura's disappearance!
con't

Who obstructed justice? Do you have proof of this?When is a grand jury going to be brought forth? Wasn't it you that wanted the people in the immediate area all given lie detector tests even though there was no proof that a crime was even committed?
You can twist info around and change things to suit your ideas but you can't change my words. I in no way told you to move along. In fact I stated not to forget the people or this area but to just have an open mind. I guess that was asking too much. Maybe you can help more from CA because this local is getting tired of all the BS that comes around everytime I offer something I think might help to find Maura.

Pointer wrote:

And if both samples really were lost and never tested, more questions need to be asked.

Pointer,

I understand your increasing frustration with no answer to your reasonable question. You aren't the first person to be denied an answer. I was too. No one ever said "no." Instead, I was ignored just as you are being ignored.

I think you're going to have to read between the lines for your answer. I assume testing was done and nobody wants to talk about the results because menstrual blood does not indicate a dead body and they are embarrassed to have made such a big deal about nothing. It's a pride thing, and they threw away the sample because it has no evidentiary significance.

I could be wrong. I wish I didn't have to guess and I can't see a valid reason not to disclose the result.

Pointer wrote:

not saying anyone's wrong or being deceptive, etc.

Well, they are, but thanks for being polite.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Basic grammar is ALWAYS self-explanatory.....

No it isn't. I hope you don't go around making judgments on people because of their use of grammar. Many people CHOOSE not to follow the rules of basic grammar because it often limits our ability to convey meaning. I KNOW this for a FACT. Basic grammar is not ALWAYS self-explanatory, and I can't believe you would even think that it is. Get a grip.

propaganda firetruck wrote:

<quoted text>
No it isn't. I hope you don't go around making judgments on people because of their use of grammar. Many people CHOOSE not to follow the rules of basic grammar because it often limits our ability to convey meaning. I KNOW this for a FACT. Basic grammar is not ALWAYS self-explanatory, and I can't believe you would even think that it is. Get a grip.

Hahahahahaha! I didn't say ANY of that. I know better than to judge people on their usage of the English language. I'm an English professor, for god's sake!

The MECHANISMS of grammar, as an INANIMATE LINGUISTIC TOOL, are always self-explanatory. Or, to put it in the words of Gertrude Stein, "rose is a rose is a rose."

In terms specific to my comment, I used the adverb "directly" in reference to the object noun "Fred Murray." That will ALWAYS mean the same thing. Semantics is not the issue.

Reply to post #12026:

The "we", the "team" has the potential to become a lynch mob...if it isn't already. It is rooted and continues to grow from the fertile soil of citizen activists armed with their personal weapons...the keyboard.

You may draw your own conclusions, Peri, or place blame by waving a magic wand, but the state is not obligated to act at any time or in any manner in the way you deem to be correct and final.

I am glad you have openly spelled out the method and the madness that propels this intensely sustained activity that always demands argument and high drama at this site.

Some have also admitted to closely following and/or sleuthing other cases that are in the public view, which may suggest the need to fill an emotional gap by minding the intimate lives of others.

While several have claimed certainty, no one here definitively has the capacity to establish truth from fiction...and none has "found Maura", so far.

There is some outrage in observing such a process...a glimpse of today's growing, alternative media frenzy.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Hahahahahaha! I didn't say ANY of that. I know better than to judge people on their usage of the English language. I'm an English professor, for god's sake!
The MECHANISMS of grammar, as an INANIMATE LINGUISTIC TOOL, are always self-explanatory. Or, to put it in the words of Gertrude Stein, "rose is a rose is a rose."
In terms specific to my comment, I used the adverb "directly" in reference to the object noun "Fred Murray." That will ALWAYS mean the same thing. Semantics is not the issue.

In this cast of characters there is an obvious desire to display one's prowess in a particular realm. The role of the English professor is well represented here, amongst all of the distinguished others.

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
In this cast of characters there is an obvious desire to display one's prowess in a particular realm. The role of the English professor is well represented here, amongst all of the distinguished others.

Um, yeah, whatever. I was simply responding to a post by explaining what I meant.

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
In this cast of characters there is an obvious desire to display one's prowess in a particular realm. The role of the English professor is well represented here, amongst all of the distinguished others.

Speaking of words...

"Amongst?" Is that like "whilst?" lol

And why do at least three regular posters never use "who?" They always, always, always use "whom," which is a little archaic, even when correct. What do these posters have against the subjective case? Who do they think they are, anyway? Whomers spreading rumors? From Whomsville?

LOL, Dimo..."amongst" was usage influenced by my mother "whilst" I was a child. Relics.

Yes, the Who/Whom ladies...Attention! Language police here! ;-)

Seems there's a connection to the East Penn Traction Club. Hmmmm.....

Hahaha! "Amongst" is very much like "whilst." I tend to use the latter much more frequently though, for some reason. Probably all those Irish nuns who taught me. I tend to view "amongst" as archaic, but "whilst" as an Anglo-Irish colloquialism.

And I don't know TO WHOM you are referring, Alden. I don't know anyone WHO uses "whom" as the subjective case on this board. If they do, I've blessedly forgotten.

Since when is being grammatically correct archaic, though? "Whom" is by no means archaic. It is the ONLY grammatically correct OBJECTIVE usage. Meaning "by whom", "for whom" "whom do you seek" etc.

"Who" is SUBJECTIVE, as in "who is calling", "who the hell are you" and "Betty Lou Who".

It's the same thing as I/me, he/him, she/her.

You know....since you went there, and all.

Snowy White wrote:

LOL, Dimo..."amongst" was usage influenced by my mother "whilst" I was a child. Relics.
Yes, the Who/Whom ladies...Attention! Language police here! ;-)

See, my use of "amongst" is strictly limited to the Hail Mary. "Whilst" is definitely a particular relic, though.:)