Where is MAURA MURRAY

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>maybe the church got sick of the phone calls.

Yeah, so annoying that so many phone calls are made in an effort to find Maura Murray.

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>those are the clinical affiliations for ALL campuses

What makes you say that? This web site is not for UMass Boston or any other UMass campus. It is for UMass Amherst.

UMass Boston, for example, has its own website, its own school of nursing and health studies, and its own clinical requirements; to wit, from the UMass Boston College of Nursing and Health Sciences handbook (http://www.CNHS.umb.edu/current/handbooks/doc... )

General Statement Regarding Clinical Policies and Procedures:

Nursing students are introduced to patient care, the health care system, and the nursing and health care professions through clinical experiences. CNHS offers clinical experiences in a variety of settings including Boston area hospitals, community organizations, and other health care agencies.
The CNHS maintains contractual agreements for clinical experiences with numerous agencies.

I hope this clears up any questions, moose.

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you citigirl for confirming there's something wrong.
I've only been there twice over a week ago and haven't been there since. For each time I was there my spyware program displayed the name of the forum and said it was a low threat tracking cookie. I deleted it along with the other spyware that was found so I have nothing to show as proof as Ben wanted. I know there are many sites that have tracking cookies but this is the first time I've seen a named forum be the actual threat. Hope that makes sense.

The new web site does track a poster's ISP. That is for the FORUM's safety, and the safety of its members. It's not malicious spyware. Many forums and message boards do that.

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, so annoying that so many phone calls are made in an effort to find Maura Murray.

this has already been checked out and Raykel is not Maura.

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>So the person who drove Maura was the one who gave the information? So despite multiple people asking where exactly the clinicals were, and not getting a response, it was known. That's just ........ Do you not see how that information could be useful?

I don't understand this. I honestly don't. Every time it was asked (usually by Philip, actually) it was ANSWERED. Answered answered answered, except when I and others got tired of answering it. Yet every time it was answered, the rejoinder was that it was impossible. It's not impossible. It's A FACT.

Go back and reread the earlier pages of Topix. Those of you who apparently have some pages of the MMM forum archived--of whom Philip is one--go back and see. Helena answered this the first time it was asked. And many subsequent times. I answered it myself a number of times in the past four or five months--that it was KNOWN. I'm not the only person who answered, either, because I couldn't remember the name of the location--someone else answered "norwood."

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>it had already been stated long ago that Maura's clinicals were at Holyoke and Norwood.

Oh thank you. I'm starting to feel a bit like Alden, railing away here to no one in the middle of the night.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>this has already been checked out and Raykel is not Maura.

If you read the post, that was not the question. The question was IF this person did NOT sign the book at the church, WHY is it said that she spells her name "RAYKEL" IF SHE DID NOT SIGN THE BOOK HOW DO WE KNOW THE SPELLING OF HER NAME!

Citigirl, why are you so fresh? Everyone here is trying to help. Well..almost everyone.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>this has already been checked out and Raykel is not Maura.

Yet another answer that people cannot seem to accept. Why is that? Because it's not melodramatic enough for them? Because there's no conspiracy?

Right now I'm really having a hard time understanding a lot of what's going on with people on either of these boards. I really am. Very frustrating.

Why should someone have to spend 30 minutes to research and explain the clinicals procedures of two different independent universities within a state university system to prove a point that should have been understood months ago--when someone could have been using that 30 minutes of searching productively, perhaps searching for something that matters?

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
If you read the post, that was not the question. The question was IF this person did NOT sign the book at the church, WHY is it said that she spells her name "RAYKEL" IF SHE DID NOT SIGN THE BOOK HOW DO WE KNOW THE SPELLING OF HER NAME!
Citigirl, why are you so fresh? Everyone here is trying to help. Well..almost everyone.

Actually, over and over again, that IS Euro's question. She wasn't being fresh. She was answering the underlying question.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Yet another answer that people cannot seem to accept. Why is that? Because it's not melodramatic enough for them? Because there's no conspiracy?
Right now I'm really having a hard time understanding a lot of what's going on with people on either of these boards. I really am. Very frustrating.
Why should someone have to spend 30 minutes to research and explain the clinicals procedures of two different independent universities within a state university system to prove a point that should have been understood months ago--when someone could have been using that 30 minutes of searching productively, perhaps searching for something that matters?

What took you so long to answer Firecat? All of a sudden Whistons questions, that he has been asking, and has been ignored, there is suddenly an answer?

Eurobserver wrote:

IIRC there was quite an effort being made on this forum some time in 2008 to contact the Barton, VT, church directly in order to verify whether the guestbook had been signed or not by "Raykel".
IIRC a kind contributor to this forum took it upon herself to call the church directly. Her interest in the matter apparently caused the church to contact LE.
The matter is apparently being treated very seriously indeed, despite this sighting having been officially discounted as being not of interest.
I find this very strange indeed.

I find it very normal, actually. It sounds to me like a church being put in an unusual position and doing what any reasonable church office would do.

SCENARIO:

You're a church. You're minding your own churchy business. Investigators--whether they were private investigators or police officers, for these purposes it doesn't matter--come to the church to question you about a young woman sighted there who resembles someone missing.

You, being a church, are--let's say--helpful. Or you're not. Whichever. Regardless, the investigators investigate, and decide that this young woman is not the one for whom they are looking.

Probably, as they are leaving, they tell you to forward any information they might learn. Or, even if they don't, they almost certainly leave you a business card.

Life continues apace. You continue on your churchy way. They continue on their investigative way.

Then someone ELSE calls, wanting to know about this same woman. A citizen, not an investigator or law enforcement official.

Wouldn't you, as a church who has been in all likelihood specifically told to to refer anyone to them or pass on any information, tell this anonymous citizen to call the police? That is, after all, probably what you were told to do. And even if it wasn't, you really have no idea what to do. The professionals were here; they decided it wasn't her.

Furthermore, you remember that you are a church. Had it not been law enforcement investigating a missing person, you might well have chosen to protect the (oh no--wait for it, you naysayers!) privacy of the young woman who sought refuge in your walls for a day.

Churches are, after all, notoriously compassionate.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, over and over again, that IS Euro's question. She wasn't being fresh. She was answering the underlying question.

The question was actually not to Citigirl. The question was to Euro. & where he got the spelling to the claim of "Raykel" if she never signed the book. That's all. I never mentioned Maura being Raykel.

Benjamin Franklyne wrote:

Snowy White has some information, can't tell us what it is, but believes its not relevant to the case - and although we thought it might be, I think it isn't either now - whatever it is - I don't know or want to know.
This whole thing is unsolvable and therefore unproductive - and a roll playing paranoia parade to boot.
So yes Tampa - time is better spent elsewhere. For that I do thank you.

Ben Franklyne ~

I've been a mere observer for much less than the standard 5 years; and while I do not hold any new information, I've been content to freely express my opinions, and to communicate to the best of my ability.

While agreeing with some of Tampa's thoughts about Maura...I hope you understand I definitely don't condone the undeserved anger, targeting and insults he directed at you.

The challenge may very well be unsolvable, and the arguments do seem unproductive.

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
What took you so long to answer Firecat? All of a sudden Whistons questions, that he has been asking, and has been ignored, there is suddenly an answer?

May I refer you to the above post #12186, where I said the following:

"I don't understand this. I honestly don't. Every time it was asked (usually by Philip, actually) it was ANSWERED. Answered answered answered, except when I and others got tired of answering it. Yet every time it was answered, the rejoinder was that it was impossible. It's not impossible. It's A FACT.

Go back and reread the earlier pages of Topix. Those of you who apparently have some pages of the MMM forum archived--of whom Philip is one--go back and see. Helena answered this the first time it was asked. And many subsequent times. I answered it myself a number of times in the past four or five months--that it was KNOWN. I'm not the only person who answered, either, because I couldn't remember the name of the location--someone else answered 'norwood.'"

Philip has not been answered RECENTLY because answering him has proven fruitless. The answer either gets ignored or called a lie.

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
The question was actually not to Citigirl. The question was to Euro. & where he got the spelling to the claim of "Raykel" if she never signed the book. That's all. I never mentioned Maura being Raykel.

That was how someone (Helena?) spelled it originally when it was discussed on MMM.

And I totally misunderstood what you were asking, and to whom you were asking....misled by the question that followed that WAS to citigirl, and the fact that you'd quoted her.

Firecat,

Your comment in which you said, "Churches are, after all, notoriously compassionate."

Where in the hell did you get that idea?

I don't think you know very much about The Assembly of God.

They are a stark raving mad fundy cult into all kinds of bizarre craziness.

Compassion is not in their vocabulary.

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
If you read the post, that was not the question. The question was IF this person did NOT sign the book at the church, WHY is it said that she spells her name "RAYKEL" IF SHE DID NOT SIGN THE BOOK HOW DO WE KNOW THE SPELLING OF HER NAME!
Citigirl, why are you so fresh? Everyone here is trying to help. Well..almost everyone.

If I recall correctly (and maybe I don't) I think the person said that the girl pronounced her name as if it were spelled that way.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
That was how someone (Helena?) spelled it originally when it was discussed on MMM.
And I totally misunderstood what you were asking, and to whom you were asking....misled by the question that followed that WAS to citigirl, and the fact that you'd quoted her.

So maybe you should not reply for people & let them reply themselves? Is that what you are trying to say? If so I agree!

Excerpt from Hanson Whitman Express:

"A Vermont man believes he saw Maura two years ago on Father's Day weekend. David Stone was attending services at the Solid Rock Assembly of God Church in Barton, Vt., 50 miles north of Woodsville, when a blonde female with tight curls walked into the church. Stone shook hands with the woman who introduced herself as "Raykel." She appeared to be in her early twenties, wore white shorts, running shoes, and had unmistakable runner's legs, according to Stone. "Her hair was lighter, but otherwise she looked just like her pictures ... I'm 99 percent positive it was her," said Stone. She wore heavy foundation on her face, which Stone found strange since she was such a pretty girl with flawless skin. Raykel was quiet, slightly nervous and possibly sad. She said she was just visiting and nobody else in the church seemed to know her. She filled out a visitor's card but Stone was never able to read the card because once the minister of the church began speaking about fathers - a tribute to Father's Day --Raykel "took off in quite a hurry." Nobody from the church has seen her since.

Stone had not previously given information to police, but when he saw a recent photo of Maura with her dad, which happened to show her tight curls, he knew he had to speak up, "I've got two daughters of my own; I would want to know."

How could he tell she had flawless skin (on her face) if it was covered with heavy foundation?