Where is MAURA MURRAY

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks I just placed it on my tonight's Amazon book order list.

amazon can thank Quija for sustaining sales...i have a list of Quija-inspired titles to read! ;-)

I believe that it was far too painful for Kathleen to participate in an forum and logistically, she does not own a pc....

DAWN I do not do PMs but allow me to share this with you. I was born, bred and educated (mostly) in MA and (this is for those of us who believe Maura may have run away to start a new life) when MA young women run away either figuratively or literally to start a new life or for any other reason, we head west and we keep going until we hit the big water. We (my gang) all did our time in SF, LA, Seattle. The world has changed (as has the economy) so I don't think "runaways" (for lack of a better word) now restrict themselves to these 3 iconic cities but they do still head for the opposite coast, just common sense really when you are running you run as far as you can and then you stop. You have the advantage of being on the west coast I think it's the best place to start with the media, of course national is even better but no one has had much luck. I know this sounds stupid but it's important to get the former WP cadet thing in, the media loves that.

DAWN I said WP because the media needs a 'hook' (their term) and the WP thing is just that.

Dawn wrote:

To clear up the canada theory.
I own a home in Birch Bay WA - which is 5 minutes from the Canadian border. I think it is highly unlikely she was able to cross into Canada. After 9/11 everyone is photographed while going across -when in car - when you pull up a grey box right past the border agents booth. Walking same thing. There are cameras recording everything. They ask questions and she would have needed a passport or birth cert to cross and both are kept on record.

5 years ago you would not have needed a passport or birth certificate to cross onto CA. 5 years ago it was much easier to cross the border than it is today.

Dawn wrote:

Wowzer
Please read.......... I know you were very concerned about posting on public forums. I do NOT check on peoples IP addres. I did try to inform you that if big brother wants to know. He will! Just like if he wants to listen to your phone calls.......... He can. Even a judge can require topix to give up who their anon posters true identies.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/texas-ju...
carry on

We've been all thru this so why are you bringing it up again? I am NOT very concerned about posting on public forums. I've been posting on forums for more than 10 years. What I was concerned about was what you said.
Read it again Dawn since you've brought it up again for God knows what reason and look at it from a stranger's eyes.
***Dawn wrote:
Johnny
Please sign up on the other forum so private messages can be sent to you and you identity can be confirmed.
If this is a joke - this is a very sick joke and unfair to those that care about the Murrays or Maura.
It is not a funny joke.
If you are who you say you are - you can join the other forum where your IP can validate who you are.***

Dawn wrote:

I am A- OK if they check on me.. I have nothing to hide. I am damn lucky Fred didn't sue me for libel......... Read up on that - THANK YOU FRED>>> dang.. Sorry again. However, if Topix needs to know who I am - that is OK because I am just trying to get answers to help close this case.
Dawn
from the emerald city

Just curious Dawn. Did you ever go by the name Half Moon in the past?

Dawn wrote:

So.......... As I have said before ..........
Be careful
You just might end up in court room with Fred Murray.
I have said before if this was my sister I would have taken action.
Now you can see others do the same. Take Action.
I knew I wasn't that far off base. I am guilty myself. Education is brain power. Sorry again Fred.......... close call

Why should anyone have to be careful? Why would we end up in court with FM? Are you insinuating a lawsuit? You've mentioned lawsuits more than once in this forum. Why?

WASHINGTON (CNS)-- Pope John Paul II has accepted the resignation, for health reasons, of Bishop Thomas L. Dupre of Springfield, Mass. Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, papal nuncio to the United States, made the announcement in Washington Feb. 11. Bishop Dupre, 70, has been a bishop since 1990 and head of the Springfield Diocese since 1995. His successor was not named immediately. Diocesan spokesman Mark Dupont said Bishop Dupre left the diocese Feb. 10 for treatment at a medical facility. He declined to give details, citing concern for the bishop's privacy. Last May, in an interview with The Republican, Springfield daily newspaper, Bishop Dupre said he was considering retiring early because of his health. He has a heart condition and has had back problems.

above from: http://www.georgiabulletin.com/
world/2004/02/11/US-2/

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
i can't quote the language now...rushing off...but it was alarming TO ME.
and it's been resolved.
but the topic ties into internet regulations/threatened lawsuits/harassment...a current and active matter on Topix (you are not being accused, Dawn, by me or anyone else here).
there is and should be an awareness, however.
maybe Fred, if he is willing, will chime in to offer some commonsense 'advice'...not necessarily legal...to help move us forward.

Multiple Post Coming Up.

Dawn and I have resolved our disagreement and I believe both of us harbor no ill will toward the other. She did not believe I was the “real” Fred Leatherman I claimed to be and she challenged me to prove it. I voluntarily provided personal information that no one could have forced me to provide to resolve the issue. Resolving my identity turned out to be more complicated than I thought it would be and I got pretty frustrated when people continued to believe that I was an incredibly devious pretender. Fortunately, the matter has been resolved and I want everyone to know that (1) I was not coerced by anyone to reveal my personal information,(2) I invited people to attempt to verify my identity, and (3) I have no regrets that I made those decisions and I would make the same decisions again, if I had an opportunity to do so.
Why did I choose to disclose my true identity and should others do the same?
Because of my unique background and experience, I believe I have expertise in many areas that other posters do not have. I started posting comments back in November after I found about Maura’s disappearance and read everything that I could find about it so that my comments would seamlessly blend into the discussion without provoking a tsunami of corrections and irritation. I wanted to demonstrate respect for those who have labored for so many years and I wanted to be of service to them rather than commandeer the discussions and impose my will on everyone. I began to participate without considering whether anyone might challenge my opinions. To the extent that I considered the possibility that someone might challenge me, I thought my opinions would stand or fall based on their content. I failed to consider the important role that credentials play when a person decides whether to accept or reject an expert opinion. Without disclosing my true identity, I described my background in general terms and offered my assistance.

Part 2

I eventually decided that people have a right to know the identity and credentials of anyone who presents himself as an expert in a subject matter that is relevant and material to the discussion in the forum. Since I was claiming to be an expert in (1) the proper procedures for police to follow in homicide investigations,(2) the proper method to collect and preserve evidence, including documenting the chain of custody,(3) deciding what evidence to submit to a crime laboratory for forensic analysis, including DNA testing,(4) legal procedures such as applying for search warrants, decisions to arrest, the charging procedure, elements of crimes, legal presumptions, the burden of proof, and proof problems, and (4) the rights of private citizens to obtain information in police investigation files, etc., I concluded that all of you have the right to know who I am, what I know, and how I know it so that you can decide whether to accept or reject what I say. This is how it works in a court of law and I believe it makes sense to apply the same principle here. Therefore, since I chose to assert that I knew what I was talking about and I expressed opinions regarding disputed matters, anyone is entitled to challenge my claim that I know what I am talking about. I believe that anyone who expresses an opinion regarding a disputed matter in an effort to convince others that his opinion should be accepted because he is an expert in that matter, reasonably should expect to be challenged and be willing to provide sufficient information, such as a current resume or curriculum vitae, that details his knowledge and experience. If the person refuses to provide that information and insists on remaining anonymous, then I believe forum members are entitled to reject and ignore the purported expert’s opinion. This procedure will not require anyone to give up their anonymity.
Several websites that I frequent feature special guests from time to time who appear on line and answer questions posted by forum participants for an hour or so. Often they are experts in a matter that is being debated and discussed in the forum, or they may be an author of recently published book. They appear as themselves to answer questions posed by anonymous bloggers. I like this procedure and I recommend we adopt it. For example, several people have mentioned profiling and Dr. Godwin’s name has been mentioned. Perhaps he would agree to appear as a guest and answer questions about the possibility that a serial rapist or killer may have abducted Maura Murray. I believe this idea is worth pursuing because we get to learn new stuff and apply it in our discussions. There are lots of qualified experts from which to choose on a wide variety of topics and there may even be some witnesses who might be willing to appear and answer our questions.

Part 3

Now I’m going to switch to a brief discussion of the law of defamation, which is a subject that I covered while teaching torts in law school during the spring semester, 2008.
As long as a person refrains from making a false statement about someone, they do not have to fear that they will be held liable for defamation. If I were to assert as fact that X abducted and murdered Maura Murray, X could sue me for libel. To prevail, however, he would have to prove that the statement is false. The best way to stay out of harm’s way and not defame others is to use hypotheticals. There is a big difference between saying,“If X killed Maura, then Y” or “Assuming X killed Maura, then Y” and asserting as fact “X killed Y.” The first two examples are hypotheticals that do not assert X killed Maura. The third example is a statement of fact and it is defamatory, if it’s false.
There is a lot more to say about the law of defamation, but I am going to stop here and keep it simple.
Do not assert as fact that someone is a murderer, or a rapist, or a child molester, or anything else that might damage that person’s reputation unless you know it’s true. Even then you should exercise caution because you may believe you are right and your belief may be mistaken. You may be held liable, even though you believed you were right, if you were negligent in forming your belief.

Fred

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
I never understood why Maura did not get the media attention she deserved

Me either.

And Suzanne, I also consider Sharon a "close family member" as well as Billy....but I didn't know what you meant by "nuclear family" so erred on the side of caution there. For once.

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
We've been all thru this so why are you bringing it up again?
***Dawn wrote:
Johnny
Please sign up on the other forum so private messages can be sent to you and you identity can be confirmed.

If you are who you say you are - you can join the other forum where your IP can validate who you are.***

**********
I was baited also.
Dawn why are you bringing it up again?

Why is it you will dig into someone's identity, but not do a simple google search to find out about a BOL? Then after several demands of asking about an update, you finally get your answer.. and when someone else asks YOU about it, you tell them to look it up, it's easy!!

You are a piece of work.

Suzanne wrote:

DAWN I do not do PMs but allow me to share this with you. I was born, bred and educated (mostly) in MA and (this is for those of us who believe Maura may have run away to start a new life) when MA young women run away either figuratively or literally to start a new life or for any other reason, we head west and we keep going until we hit the big water. We (my gang) all did our time in SF, LA, Seattle. The world has changed (as has the economy) so I don't think "runaways" (for lack of a better word) now restrict themselves to these 3 iconic cities but they do still head for the opposite coast, just common sense really when you are running you run as far as you can and then you stop. You have the advantage of being on the west coast I think it's the best place to start with the media, of course national is even better but no one has had much luck. I know this sounds stupid but it's important to get the former WP cadet thing in, the media loves that.

We do?? I'm born, bred and educated in MA and the females in my family have always gone north..can't think of even one who headed west.

Alice wrote:

<quoted text>
We do?? I'm born, bred and educated in MA and the females in my family have always gone north..can't think of even one who headed west.

Guess we travel in different circles.

Alice wrote:

<quoted text>
We do?? I'm born, bred and educated in MA and the females in my family have always gone north..can't think of even one who headed west.

I went west Alden. Never even stopped in Illinos.

or Missouri...

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Me either.
And Suzanne, I also consider Sharon a "close family member" as well as Billy....but I didn't know what you meant by "nuclear family" so erred on the side of caution there. For once.

It is Sharon who made Maura "real" to me with her anecdotes about Maura, for instance the one of Maura walking all over the vast WP grounds at Billy's graduation with huge blisters on her feet from her shoes and never once complaining or even mentioning the pain she must have been in. It revealed to me a certain personality type ie stoic, noncomplaining, a person given to suffering in silence.

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
It is Sharon who made Maura "real" to me with her anecdotes about Maura, for instance the one of Maura walking all over the vast WP grounds at Billy's graduation with huge blisters on her feet from her shoes and never once complaining or even mentioning the pain she must have been in. It revealed to me a certain personality type ie stoic, noncomplaining, a person given to suffering in silence.

Unlike moi who would be whimpering and whining non stop.