Where is MAURA MURRAY

John wrote:

<quoted text>
Beagle, please ... stop
Beagle, shut up.

Why should I shut up? Am I making you nervous? Do you have some problem with accomodating alternative theories? Some particular obsession with my theories that causes you to get desperate enough to tell me to shut up?

This is Topix. It's an open, relatively unmoderated discussion board (or thread). If you don't like what you're reading, then why spend so much time attacking it? Why not just ignore it? Can't ignore it? How come?

I have no plans to shut up until someone decides to make me shut me up permanently.

Anne wrote:

Could we return to any probable fact, such as accident in Haverhill, telephone call on Thrusday, Londonderry call, Saturn damage, or anything deemed relative to where Maura is.

Sure, I believe the Londonderry call may have been from a pharmacist because he has financial interests very consistent with those who take such a curious and intense interest in Maura's disappearance.

Beagle wrote:

BELOW FROM:
http://www.legalmomentum.org/assets/pdfs/cpcf...
CPCs [Crisis Pregnancy Centers], alternately referred to as Pregnancy Resource Centers, are anti-abortion centers run by groups with the goal of dissuading women from having abortions. CPCs often list themselves under the “abortion” or “abortion alternatives” heading in the telephone book and choose locations near schools, college campuses or in the immediate proximity of actual abortion clinics.2 But rather than providing women with honest advice and information, they use propaganda and intimidation to prevent women from accessing or even considering abortion.
CPCs first began appearing in the 1970s in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade as a new strategy to deter women from abortion. In 1984, Robert Pearson, an anti-abortion activist and early leader of the CPC movement, authored “How to Start and Operate Your Own Pro-Life Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center.” This widely used manual outlined the deceptive tactics that continue to
characterize CPCs, including how to falsely portray a CPC as an abortion provider and how to evade client questions on the telephone.9
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, CPCs continued to multiply and gain power with the support of
organizations such as Focus on the Family, the Christian Action Council (now known as Care Net)
and the National Institute of Family Life Advocates (NIFLA). CPCs have formed tight knowledge sharing and financial support networks through funding and franchise organizations such as
Birthright and Heartbeat International.

Who cares?

Why do you seem so insistent on polluting this discussion with irrelevant information? Do you have a motive in that?

Take one of the retired state police detectives involved. He repeatedly expressed frustration at not being recognized for all the rapes and murders he solved. He kept saying, "It doesn't matter how many rapes and murders you've solved, they don't care." But, naturally, he did find a way to supplement his retirement income. He had invited me to talk to him on the property of one of the leading financial backers of abortion opponents - an abortion opponent with a strong interest in, well, "natural" supplements.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
Why should I shut up? Am I making you nervous? Do you have some problem with accomodating alternative theories? Some particular obsession with my theories that causes you to get desperate enough to tell me to shut up?
This is Topix. It's an open, relatively unmoderated discussion board (or thread). If you don't like what you're reading, then why spend so much time attacking it? Why not just ignore it? Can't ignore it? How come?
I have no plans to shut up until someone decides to make me shut me up permanently.

YOu are right Beagle. I should just ignore your posts.

As for accommodating your so called alternative theories, I would relish the opportunity to consider alternative theories, but you don't have any. You simply continually make shrouded comments that might suggest to someone uninitiated that you have some kind of knowledge. Its as though you are fantasizing about being Weeper. Whenever you are asked a question or asked for specific informatoin about one of your ideas, you get angry, accusatory, vague and you try to dodge the topic.

You know you bs-ing everyone about those SEC documents. I KNOW something about SEC document. Now called out, you are trying to throw the scent off that topic because you don't want to look stupid.

Beagle, nobody is out to get you man.

John wrote:

<quoted text>
Who cares?
Why do you seem so insistent on polluting this discussion with irrelevant information? Do you have a motive in that?

So if YOU don't care, don't pay any attention.

John wrote:

<quoted text>

Beagle, nobody is out to get you man.

Not according to what I've been told.

http://www.secinfo.com/dsvRq.3U9.7.htm

Beagle wrote:

Take one of the retired state police detectives involved. He repeatedly expressed frustration at not being recognized for all the rapes and murders he solved. He kept saying, "It doesn't matter how many rapes and murders you've solved, they don't care." But, naturally, he did find a way to supplement his retirement income. He had invited me to talk to him on the property of one of the leading financial backers of abortion opponents - an abortion opponent with a strong interest in, well, "natural" supplements.

Beagle, who are you talking about?

BELOW FROM:

http://securities.stanford.edu/1023/ASCX02-01...

According to the docket, on July 10, 2002, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On October 3, 2002, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge James C. Cacheris granting the motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs had 10 days from the date of the Order to filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint but did not do so. The case is closed.

As previously reported by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended: March 31, 2002, on February 21, 2002, a complaint was filed in the

United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Virginia

against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The plaintiffs in this action purport to act on behalf of a class of other shareholders. The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company’s initial public offering and subsequent public statements. Thereafter, substantially similar complaints were filed in the same court. On May 10, 2002, the Court consolidated all the shareholder complaints against the Company and appointed several people to be the lead plaintiffs.

The original Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and misleading Prospectus and Registration Statement ("Prospectus") in connection with the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"), and that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between October 5, 2000 and February 12, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Advanced Switching securities. On October 5, 2000, Advanced Switching completed its IPO pursuant to a Prospectus in which it represented that it had signed a $24 million contract with Qwest Communications, Inc.("Qwest"), that its A-4000 product was being shipped and that its A-4500 product would be available in 2001. In fact, as alleged in the complaint, at the time of the IPO, the Prospectus concealed that Advanced Switching's largest customer was having significant problems with Advanced Switching products, another significant customer had informed the Company it was over-inventoried and that the agreement with Qwest was contingent on Advanced Switching complying with terms the Company could not complete. Moreover, the Company had not even started on the A-4500 such that it was impossible that this product would be available in 2001. Later, subsequent to the IPO, defendants issued statements which asserted that customers were deploying the A-4000, which, as alleged in the complaint, did not occur, and that Advanced Switching offered DS-O to OC-192 capability which, in fact, the Company had not been able to offer. On February 5, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing that it would be liquidated, which as alleged in the complaint, was essentially an admission that it had been a complete failure as a public company because the A-4500 had not been made available in 2001 and the Qwest contract had failed due to Advanced Switching's inability to meet the terms of the contract. Finally, on February 12, 2002, the Company announced that a major customer had asked for a $17 million refund due to a defective product being shipped.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>So if YOU don't care, don't pay any attention.

I have said it before and will say it again... you are a hoot. Really getting nervous about being called out on that SEC docment bs, aren't you?

Beagle wrote:

http://www.secinfo.com/dsvRq.3 U9.7.htm

Great, you have posted an exchange of letters for a company calles ASC to obtain advisory services from Morgan Stanley.

Now I will ask you what the connection to Maura Murray is and you will either equivocate, get angry and start calling me names, get vague and try to dodge to topic or imitate Weeper and say that you cannot come right out and say it but only lead us to the information.

You are a disgrace to Maura and her family for so willfully acting our your psychological needs in a forum of people of have at least some legitimate interest in her case.

I am going to continue to call you out at every juncture. You are a fraud.

John wrote:

<quoted text>
I have said it before and will say it again... you are a hoot. Really getting nervous about being called out on that SEC docment bs, aren't you?

Not nervous at all. In fact, the EPA document suffices. If you had any interest in finding out what happened to Maura Murray, you would regard the document as a starting point and you would contribute by seeing if it could go somewhere. But your objective is to bash it. That is your only objective. You have no intention of using your lawyer skills to actually make a POSITIVE contribution. You only bash.

Do you specialize in BASHING FOR MAURA?

If you have enough time to bash, then you have enough time to see if what I have to say is true. Or don't you think Maura Murray is worth it?

YOU HATE THE TRUTH.

Anne wrote:

Could we return to any probable fact, such as accident in Haverhill, telephone call on Thrusday, Londonderry call, Saturn damage, or anything deemed relative to where Maura is.

The Saturn was backed up parallel to the road so it would be in reverse, maybe drive then left in neutral. So finding it that way may be no big deal.
My idea of staging an accident/crime/what have you, is just having someone think/say they saw "Maura" in/at/around her car.
I agree with Ben and others that anyone similar could sit in on this gig. Do something wrong in one state, like say MA, travel without fear as though "Maura" all the way to NH, and Why not? Any access to her room, her unprotected PC, explaining a leave of absence, and ill intent goes a long way. If this is what happened, it was well thought out. Maura might have fallen for something too and didn't find out until some point. I don't think Maura would do herself away have no idea what happened to her. I know she did talk w/Billy for a minute on Monday, so I tend to think she was involved somehow in whatever happened. Yeah, maybe Rooney or someone like that happened by. People troll for victims like they do for fish and it works sometimes. So a team of sorts could have been in line, I guess........

Alot of Maura's things were possibly still in her car from the holidays. Maybe the jewelry even sat in there, hidden because it seemed a safer place than her room?
Another thing, campus police would have looked the cars over when Petrit was hit, wouldn't they? There were 3 days for them to drive/walk through and notice the Saturn had changed, if at all. It had no previous damage to the body and people said it was not driven.
I tend to agree that whoever was driving was stopped by the cock eyed headlights, maybe spinning out for real, backing up and then giving up, taking off..........

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>Not nervous at all. In fact, the EPA document suffices. If you had any interest in finding out what happened to Maura Murray, you would regard the document as a starting point and you would contribute by seeing if it could go somewhere. But your objective is to bash it. That is your only objective. You have no intention of using your lawyer skills to actually make a POSITIVE contribution. You only bash.
Do you specialize in BASHING FOR MAURA?
If you have enough time to bash, then you have enough time to see if what I have to say is true. Or don't you think Maura Murray is worth it?
YOU HATE THE TRUTH.

I would love to see if what you have to say is the truth. So say something. Say one or two sentences about the relevance of your SEC post.

John wrote:

<quoted text>
Great, you have posted an exchange of letters for a company calles ASC to obtain advisory services from Morgan Stanley.
Now I will ask you what the connection to Maura Murray is and you will either equivocate, get angry and start calling me names, get vague and try to dodge to topic or imitate Weeper and say that you cannot come right out and say it but only lead us to the information.
You are a disgrace to Maura and her family for so willfully acting our your psychological needs in a forum of people of have at least some legitimate interest in her case.
I am going to continue to call you out at every juncture. You are a fraud.

John, you are way out of the loop. Not everyone who reads what is posted here contributes posts of their own. If you are who you say you are, you are entirely too green to know the significance of the material you bash.

The post you reference was not contributed for YOUR benefit. YOU are not expected to understand it. There ARE other people in this world who read these posts beside you. And they happen to know a lot more than you do.

Beagle wrote:

Take one of the retired state police detectives involved. He repeatedly expressed frustration at not being recognized for all the rapes and murders he solved. He kept saying, "It doesn't matter how many rapes and murders you've solved, they don't care." But, naturally, he did find a way to supplement his retirement income. He had invited me to talk to him on the property of one of the leading financial backers of abortion opponents - an abortion opponent with a strong interest in, well, "natural" supplements.

okay, ignore me. i am positive that that isn't true anyway.

Oh, by the way I do not know Dawn. We have never emailed or anything. I was just wondering why my name was coming up so I asked her. I'm still wondering.

John, I have to thank you, my friend. I think I see your point. Maybe I should not be posting any of this information here. After all, you only TELL me to shut up.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
John, you are way out of the loop. Not everyone who reads what is posted here contributes posts of their own. If you are who you say you are, you are entirely too green to know the significance of the material you bash.
The post you reference was not contributed for YOUR benefit. YOU are not expected to understand it. There ARE other people in this world who read these posts beside you. And they happen to know a lot more than you do.

LOL... you posted it when I challenged that there were indeed any SEC documents by calling you out on the filing number. So you clearly did post it for my benefit you fraud. You really are a mess dude.