Where is MAURA MURRAY

bring it, guys.
all the meanie faces! ;-(
peanuts
and clueness-esses you can muster.
i'm feelin' sassy today....well, like most days.

thumbs up to "neutral" and "eames".
this 'ole owl ain't alone sittin' on a tree branch somewhere in MA.

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Anne, Why aren't you posting under your own name?

Oh shit, here we go again....

well, peri...you've hit on the heart of the matter...determining fact from fiction without having access to key information; information that properly belongs to the formal investigation...my point from the day i stepped over here.

so we turn on one another after beating and kicking the dead horse.

no one should be falsely and publicly accused, IMO...that's where i draw the line. always have.

presumably, LE and family have the most information to bring forth a result...finding Maura...and since that hasn't happened in over 5 years, then the circle of frustration is complete.

i still trust that the answers will be revealed...in the right timeframe...and by the grace of all good hearts and minds. nothing has been wasted.

please remember...no one should be falsely accused.

Good morning everyone,

Pardon the interruption, but does anyone know if the family got a copy of Maura's computer hard drive before the police took it? I thought I remembered reading that, but would like to know for sure.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
So wait. It's still ok for people with different views to post here? Or only different views that agree with yours?
This is the part of the logic puzzle no one on this forum ever seems to understand. In order to allow everyone to post their views, you have to allow people who disagree with you to post their views. Shack has just as much of a right to post her views as Suzanne does. Peri has just as much of a right to post her views as White Wash does. And vice versa.
But then, good fences make good neighbours, I suppose. You've clearly erected one that's much more to your liking than the one you perceived Helena Murray as erecting.

Miss manners,

You need to re-read your response to my comment about hoping certain people that are talking about leaving the forum, don't. You turned my very polite, short comment into a who should/shouldn't be allowed to post. Then you tossed in a bizarre comment about Helena Murray and this imaginary fence I erected?

Then you try to fluff it over with, "I *AM* cranky" but it has nothing to do with the forum.

So it had nothing to do with me, but because you were cranky, you can say whatever the hek you want?

Sara wrote:

Good morning everyone,
Pardon the interruption, but does anyone know if the family got a copy of Maura's computer hard drive before the police took it? I thought I remembered reading that, but would like to know for sure.

No, they didn't. It wasn't until after the took it, that there was an interest in it, I believe.

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
So I said to myself well she wants me to know just exactly who she is. So. I say to myself N said some pretty harsh stuff about you using the forum of a missing person as a lonely hearts forum for finding a man. N's word - flirting, scaring away an eligible bachelor, 3 pages devoted to flirting.
I ignored these accusations of you but then you tell me "if only you knew who I am"! So I Apple F'd Alexandria (John is too common a name for search) and I went back and back and back. And It turns out Neutral wasn't kidding! Shame on you FC. I found it, just as Neutral said. And you hold yourself up above all the other posters on this forum, always above the fray. I won't reveal the page numbers because I don't want to embarrass you. But you should know that forums exist for singles searching for a significant other and the forum of a missing person is not the right place for flirting and trying to get a date. That's certainly NOT why John left though. He was perfectly capable of fending you off without leaving this forum.

There you go, making assumptions again. Lonely, single, and searching for a significant other aren't words to describe me. I have a fulfilling life, and a fulfilling long-term relationship. Once again your inability to see past what you want to see--what people point you in the direction of seeing--is abundantly clear.

I can't believe I even bothered to respond to this ridiculous post. What's more, I can't believe you took the time to search for something as petty and frivolous as that, yet you can't take the same time to search for something that ACTUALLY HAS TO DO WITH MAURA.

I've yet to see you post about the case. At all. Ever.

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
No, they didn't. It wasn't until after the took it, that there was an interest in it, I believe.

Thank you ooOOoo.

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
Miss manners,
You need to re-read your response to my comment about hoping certain people that are talking about leaving the forum, don't. You turned my very polite, short comment into a who should/shouldn't be allowed to post. Then you tossed in a bizarre comment about Helena Murray and this imaginary fence I erected?
Then you try to fluff it over with, "I *AM* cranky" but it has nothing to do with the forum.
So it had nothing to do with me, but because you were cranky, you can say whatever the hek you want?

Actually, I wasn't cranky at the time I wrote the post, but I was later on in the day when I read what I thought was your compassionate comment (little did I realize it was the set-up to an attack.)

I apologize, because it seems you think this whole conversation was directed at you specifically. It was, indeed, more of a generalized comment about some of the posters who decry the MMM forum because they say they were "not allowed" to post things that "didn't fit" the alleged party line.

I see now that I'm guilty of continuing to group people into opposing camps where they perhaps do not belong. You are not necessarily one of the primary people to whom the post was addressed, and if you took offence--which you clearly did--I am sorry. I oughtn't to have made an example of you when you are actually not one of the prime examples I had in mind.

Because you're right. ANYONE should be allowed to post their ideas and theories about what happened to Maura. No matter what they be.

(Of course--and this, again, is NOT directed at you--if people have nothing better to do than speculate on my love life and want to waste their time doing that, they're also presumably welcome to. I just can't see how it moves the ball forward for anyone or anything, except their petty arguments and character judgments.)

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
No, they didn't. It wasn't until after the took it, that there was an interest in it, I believe.

This seems to be the case, yes, and I seem to recall citigirl confirming that Kathleen and her husband didn't make a copy of the hard drive. I don't know that I would have, either, if the police gave me evidence back and said they were done with it, frankly.(how long was the computer with the police the first time? I cannot recall. Anyone know off the top of their head?) This is another one of those things that we can only judge in hindsight......

Sara wrote:

Good morning everyone,
Pardon the interruption, but does anyone know if the family got a copy of Maura's computer hard drive before the police took it? I thought I remembered reading that, but would like to know for sure.

Sara, the interruption was more than welcome, given that your interruption actually has to do WITH THE CASE.:)

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
. I, once a long time ago mentioned the word publish and you went ballistic and you've had it in for me ever since.

I'm sorry if answering a direction question ("have you ever been published?" which I don't remember the specific phrasing of context of) in the affirmative ("yes, actually, I have" which I *do* remember the specific phrasing and context of, since I said it) fulfills your definition of "ballistic." Next time I'll simply ignore you, and perhaps that will not be misunderstood or misconstrued. When I do so, it will not be rudeness, it will simply be an attempt to not have my words misunderstood so gravely.

I've never had it in for you, Suzanne. I'm not by nature a vindictive, bitter, or even angry person. And, for another thing, though this may come as a disappointment to you, you've never mattered enough to me one way or the other to be someone I'd "have it in for". Sorry to ruin your martyred image....wait, isn't that the second time I've used that phrase on this board recently?

Snowy White wrote:

well, peri...you've hit on the heart of the matter...determining fact from fiction without having access to key information; information that properly belongs to the formal investigation...my point from the day i stepped over here.
so we turn on one another after beating and kicking the dead horse.
no one should be falsely and publicly accused, IMO...that's where i draw the line. always have.
presumably, LE and family have the most information to bring forth a result...finding Maura...and since that hasn't happened in over 5 years, then the circle of frustration is complete.
i still trust that the answers will be revealed...in the right timeframe...and by the grace of all good hearts and minds. nothing has been wasted.
please remember...no one should be falsely accused.

Ain't this the damned shame of the truth. Without blame, there it is folks.

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
question of the day is....WHO will be writing a book?
i know your position on this, EWB...and it's not something being encouraged...but i'm beginning to wonder. hmmmm. several have, are in process, and claim to have previously published.

Certainly not about Maura. Not my genre, by a long shot. I also find the idea personally distasteful.

I know Mason said his isn't, though I can't recall the specifics of the topic, I know he talked about it briefly.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, I wasn't cranky at the time I wrote the post, but I was later on in the day when I read what I thought was your compassionate comment (little did I realize it was the set-up to an attack.)

It wasn't a set up at all. I was sincerely stating that I hope certain people don't leave. Nor did I ask anyone to go away. And I certainly wasn't expecting a reply.

Apology excepted. Let's drop it.

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
It wasn't a set up at all. I was sincerely stating that I hope certain people don't leave. Nor did I ask anyone to go away. And I certainly wasn't expecting a reply.
Apology excepted. Let's drop it.

Works for me.(and I would like to close by saying I'm reminded of that Law and Order episode where the ME says "doing autopsies on babies makes me cranky" and Briscoe says, "how can we tell the difference?" "That's why I make the announcement.")

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Ain't this the damned shame of the truth. Without blame, there it is folks.

OMG. agreement. 100%? 80%?
in general, my sense is you steer toward the middle with some definite partiality to one side.

i steer sharply away from the 'founding mothers'(for lack of a better term)...and definitely toward NH residents; and have faith in LE.

so, i'm often comfortable in your telling it like it is, as we always do...and delighted to find some common ground.

Sad.......... wow.......... speechless for once.

two words:
Maura Murray

one word:
Missing

three words:
Bring Maura home.......

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
OMG. agreement. 100%? 80%?
in general, my sense is you steer toward the middle with some definite partiality to one side.
i steer sharply away from the 'founding mothers'(for lack of a better term)...and definitely toward NH residents; and have faith in LE.
so, i'm often comfortable in your telling it like it is, as we always do...and delighted to find some common ground.

Hahaha, I know. Maybe we should start looking for those 4 horsemen, or something.:)

Actually, much of what you say here makes perfect logical sense as a possibility....and the truth of the matter is, I *do* have partiality to one side, in terms of having strong personal and emotional connections to some of the family members. That's a bias that, alas, cannot be entirely avoided.

I've specifically tried to avoid saying anything about NH residents, because the bottom line is I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED OR WHO DID IT.(if anything, indeed, was "done." and there you have it, as close to what I think happened as I'll probably ever come right out and say.)

Whatever happened to Maura, if we can assume it was indeed she who was driving and spoke with SBD, happened in NH. Does that mean I think it was necessarily someone from that community? No--why should it? Maura wasn't from that community, and yet she was there that night. Why couldn't someone else from another area just as easily have been there?

Do I think Maura was the victim of a serial killer? I have no (freakin) clue. If she was, does that mean I think the serial killer was local? Heck no. I've periodically mentioned that the FBI well knows--and has for a while--that interstate corridors make for handy travel routes for serial killers posing as (or actually being) truckers. Haverhill isn't all that far off the interstate, in the grand scheme of things.

I try to steer toward the middle SPECIFICALLY because I want to remain open to any and all reasonable possibilities. Could she have run away and started a new life? Yes. Could she have killed herself? Yes. Could she have run away intending to start a new life and then run into trouble elsewhere? Yes. Do I think any of these are what happened? It's not what my instinct says, but my instinct has been wrong before.

Do I trust LE? Not totally, because they've done some pretty weird and/or questionable things, but I don't necessarily think they have odious intentions either. I really don't have enough specific facts on that aspect of it one way or the other.

One of the things that I am MOST INTRIGUED about, I will say, is that there are huge chunks of police dispatch log that are considered evidentiary and that Jeffrey Strelzin refuses to release them. THAT'S something that makes me go hmmmmm in a really big way.

Julie wrote:

<quoted text>
Look Oh my, as if we all didnt think you were crazy before, naming all these names, i know you have had some type of relationships with some of the above you have named, we all know who you are, so not sure how wise it is of you to just compile a list of people, i believe it is called slander..rumor has it, since your sons motorcyle accident u have not been normal. I know you are under some delusion that you have all this information, but the problem is, you cant keep your stories straight. This whole town is laughing at you oh my.

I am currently looking for this person OH MY. They have defaced my family, and friends and would like to know who they are so that the authorities can be informed of who they are. I am also pushing for a lawsuit as defamation of charcter has been commited by this person towards MANY other people on here as well. Just look back at post#568 from May 30th 2008. That is just one post of the many they wrote accusing people on here. Thank you for any help.