Where is MAURA MURRAY

Judged:

1

1

1

sophie bean wrote:

Regarding
"Just to get Louise Chaput out of the way... "
I'd love to be able to regard that as "merely" a horribly poor choice of words.

Beagle wrote:

any reasonable person would readily and unmistakably understand.

Judged:

3

2

1

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
Neither she nor anyone else had ever even met Maura Murray.
There seem to be two definitions of "family." One is Maura Murray's immediate family. The other is an extended family of some kind.
Occassionally, someone will say that she is a close friend of the family, but this is a little hazy. What part of Maura Murray's family is she a close friend of? And for how long? A close friend since February 9, 2004?

Judged:

2

2

2

Christina wrote:

So much fruitless speculation re the MM case. So many questions. The original MMM forum was a hotbed of guesses, speculation, queries, leaps of logic. So many of the questions could be answered by Helena just picking up the phone and calling Fred. Never did she do this. Why was she so afraid to communicate with him? Instead it was just hash and rehash over and over again.

Judged:

2

2

1

Beagle wrote:

Just theoretically here...
If one person were (1) known to have frequented and been very familiar with and had access to the area where Bish's body was found at the time of her disappearance,(2) was known to be in Jackson, NH at the time Chaput was killed, and (3) resembles the "person of interest" in the sketch on the Bish website, would this person be worth a closer look?
Or is that an example of six degrees of separation?

Judged:

1

1

1

Beagle wrote:

Theorizing that there is a connection between the Bish and Murray disappearances should be regarded as potentially helpful, not diversionary.
To say a theory is diversionary is to strongly imply, if not actually state, that the diversionary theory is known to be false to its presenting poster and it represents a deliberate attempt to delay or otherwise interfere with the discovery of why Maura Murray disappeared. Or that it at least represents an attempt to knowingly and deliberately interfere with the expression of others on this thread.
So here's your chance to step up to the plate and spit it out in plain English.
State in clear, UNAMBIGUOUS terms what, EXACTLY AND FULLY, what you think the purpose of presenting a "diversionary" theory is. Why would a poster post such a "diversionary" theory?
Remember, no beating around the bush. No inside jokes or snide remarks. Just straight out answers that any reasonable person would readily and unmistakably understand.

Judged:

2

2

1

Anne wrote:

...when will you stop diverting this thread?

Beagle wrote:

But do you think Joe Early, Jr. would ever even think of naming, much less prosecuting, a company like Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Massachusetts if ACT were the beneficiary, knowingly or unknowingly, of the illegal acquisition of human eggs?
There is a very fine distinction between acquiring Human Growth Hormone from "donated" pituitary glands and acquiring human eggs.
A good hunter knows the interior body of his prey as well as he knows the exterior. A good deer hunter can tell you where all the deer's organs are, where all the tendons and various muscles are, where the good meat is and where all the other useful parts of the deer are.

Beagle wrote:

Do a little research:
Q: How many human eggs are required to successfully yield a cloned human emybryo?
A: Hundreds.
Q: How difficult is it to find these human eggs.
A: Very difficult.
Q: What bio-tech company was the first to announce the successful cloning of a human embryo?
A: Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) of Worcester, Massachusetts.
Q: What is one method ACT used to acquire those human eggs?
A: ACT hired an RV style vehicle to cruise the roads of central and western Massachusetts in search of egg donors.
Q: Where did Molly Bish live?
A: Warren, MA.
Q: How far is Warren, MA from Worcester, MA?
A: About 25 miles.