Where is MAURA MURRAY

I'm surprised Sophie you replied to bacon. holy toledo........

Sophie,

I'm not trying to be mean. Maybe my use of the term "red herring" is causing confusion. Sometimes it means false information. Let's take a quick look at
the red pickup truck as an example.


The red pickup truck on BHR with the driver in the woods was parked beside the road one mile from the Rte 112 intersection. This is as far from the accident as the Stage Stop convenience store.

We do not know the name of the witness and we do not know if the witness saw the truck there on the same day Maura disappeared.

We have not been provided with the witness's description of the vehicle other than "red pickup truck."

Columbo is the source of this tip. He said he got it from reading a report prepared by one of the PIs. Therefore, the interview took place a long time after Maura disappeared. He doesn't even know if the red pickup was parked along BHR at the same time of day!

Disagree with me all you want, Sophie, but I don't see any connection between this red pickup truck and the truck RO saw with the small window in back and the wood slats. Therefore, I call it a red herring.

By "red herring," I mean it's irrelevant. How can it be relevant, unless you assume it was the same truck and it was parked there on the same day and time that Maura disappeared? Even then, it would have been a mile from the accident and the scent evidence indicates Maura got into a vehicle on Route 112.

Seriously, I'm not trying to pick on you. I'm asking you a simple question. Please explain why you think the red pickup truck parked on BHR has anything to do with Maura's disappearance.

Don't you have to assume a lot of things to conclude that it was the same truck RO saw and the driver abducted Maura? If Columbo didn't bother to check it out, why should we waste our time considering it. This is all the information we are ever going to have. I wasted hours chasing this thing. I asked Columbo for more information. He ignored me.

I honestly do not understand why you are so angry that I called this a red herring, or waste of our time to consider. I didn't create this false clue. I've directed my anger at Columbo because he inserted it into our discussions. Please explain why you think I have attacked anyone who is trying to figure out what happened to Maura by eliminating false clues and false information.

Do you now understand what I meant? Is anyone still confused? Let's settle this once and for all so that we can move on.

Red Herring = False Clue.

Mason wrote:

Sophie,
Apparently, you still think I'm Beagle. I'm not. The egg harvesting theory is his theory, not mine.
I've never said that I agree with it.
I'm not going to respond to anymore off topic swift boating efforts. I don't respect liars and dissemblers.
Stay on topic, or engage in conversations with yourselves.
Have a nice day.

Whatever. I don't care if you're Beagle or not, frankly. It is surely a sing of the apocalypse that you apologized for the email thing.

Or maybe not. Who, specifically, here right now, are you accusing of being a liar / dissembler?
Oh, I get it. How foolish of me. Because my questions don't line up with your questions, you're accusing me of being a liar and dissembler.
Go have a nice chat with "apple" - I'm sure that you'll "get along" well.

Dawn wrote:

you can't throw stones at this theory..

Really.?
Mason is quite happy to throw whole mountains at others' ideas, God forbid that we call them theories!
Oh, sorry, I meant that he's happy to throw whole mountains at other people, forget their ideas or theories.
Glass houses?

Dawn wrote:

I'm surprised Sophie you replied to bacon. holy toledo........

O wonderful poster, to so 'stonish another poster!

Mason, Yes, I said I have Mr. Murray's cell phone number. From a long time ago. I cannot give it out. I feel I would at least need permission. I would not want the MMM site to give my personal info to anyone!
There must be ways for YOU to get that info without asking others to help to invade his privacy.

sophie bean wrote:

<quoted text>You have, however, enthusisatically supported some completely alien "theories" as in the "Maura was abducted so that her eggs could be stolen" for which there is far less evidence than any theory that you have decried as a "red herring."

it it incorrect to state Mason has "...enthusiastically supported some completely 'alien' theories". instead, i'd say Mason has considered all theories, and has attempted to rule them in or out, partially or wholly, by supposition and by cautiously applying information to available evidence.
i do not have the impression that he embraced the "egg theory" any more or less than the other 17 red herrings.

Yes, Mason, i'm *sure* you "don't understand" why I'm angered by your use of the term "red herring"

definition: "Red herring (logical fallacy), a DELIBERATE [emphasis mine] attempt to change a subject or divert an argument"

In my every discussion of the red truck, I have said IF...IF...IF...

IF the red truck is the same one that spooked RO
AND IF
the red truck is the same one spotted up BHR (how long does it take a truck to go, by your reckoning, one mile?)
AND IF
the red truck is one of the ones stopped by LE that evening
THEN
it is quite a "coincidence" and it would be reasonable to wonder - NOT a "red herring" - IF (there's that word again) that red truck had something to do with Maura's disappearance
AS I HAVE SAID MANY, MANY MANY TIMES...
however that occured.

It MIGHT have been someone intending harm to Maura - I have, however, NEVER said that "it is my theory that the driver of one of the red trucks abducted Maura."
NEVER!

It MIGHT have been someone assisting Maura to leave the area, with her full knowledge and agreement

IT MIGHT have started as one thing and turned into another

BUT

It is foolishness at best to dismiss it as irrelevant. That you say that it is "false" holds no water with me whatsoever. I'm supposed to believe that because you say so? And that's different from the "red herring" in precisely what way?

AT WORST, it is something fishier.

And I see, "I'm not picking on you."
I'm fascinated by the propect of what it would look like if you felt compelled to "pick on me."
Could you possibly manage to sound any more like we're in kindergarten?

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
I will not do so without Helena's and/or Fred's permission, no.

Well why don't you please ask them for me?

I feel like I'm pulling teeth here.

I'm only asking for verification from his employer regarding the hours he worked on February 9, 2004 and February 10, 2004. I'm not asking for any other information. I don't want his SSN. I don't want to know his rate of pay. I'm not even asking to know what his work responsibilities were. I wouldn't even ask for his address and phone number except I want to send him the letter that I posted earlier.

Most important, if someone will provide me his address by PM on the other site, I won't even talk to him. He won't have to answer any questions.

Alternatively he could just authorize his employer to send me a certified copy of his hours on those dates with other information redacted. I'm trying to be reasonable here.

Or send them to a third party who will post them on the other site. Perhaps Advocate will agree to receive and post them. That takes me out of the loop entirely.

sophie bean wrote:

Yes, Mason, i'm *sure* you "don't understand" why I'm angered by your use of the term "red herring"
definition: "Red herring (logical fallacy), a DELIBERATE [emphasis mine] attempt to change a subject or divert an argument"
In my every discussion of the red truck, I have said IF...IF...IF...
IF the red truck is the same one that spooked RO
AND IF
the red truck is the same one spotted up BHR (how long does it take a truck to go, by your reckoning, one mile?)
AND IF
the red truck is one of the ones stopped by LE that evening
THEN
it is quite a "coincidence" and it would be reasonable to wonder - NOT a "red herring" - IF (there's that word again) that red truck had something to do with Maura's disappearance
AS I HAVE SAID MANY, MANY MANY TIMES...
however that occured.
It MIGHT have been someone intending harm to Maura - I have, however, NEVER said that "it is my theory that the driver of one of the red trucks abducted Maura."
NEVER!
It MIGHT have been someone assisting Maura to leave the area, with her full knowledge and agreement
IT MIGHT have started as one thing and turned into another
BUT
It is foolishness at best to dismiss it as irrelevant. That you say that it is "false" holds no water with me whatsoever. I'm supposed to believe that because you say so? And that's different from the "red herring" in precisely what way?
AT WORST, it is something fishier.
And I see, "I'm not picking on you."
I'm fascinated by the propect of what it would look like if you felt compelled to "pick on me."
Could you possibly manage to sound any more like we're in kindergarten?

OK, we agree. Basically, IF it's the same truck and IF the driver abducted and killed Maura, it's not a red herring.

If we assume an apple is an orange, the apple is an orange.

My point is that we have no factual basis to make those assumptions and we have all the facts we are ever going to have. Columbo could give us more facts, but he won't. Therefore, it's a red herring.

Aren't we in agreement?

Yeah, sure, you "win."

We can, no doubt, "agree" that Maura's case will not be solved by any *charming* internet posters or discussions.
Good luck with your quest.

I hope and pray that Maura is safe, and that those who truly care for her are comforted.

Karma will surely find the rest.

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
Well why don't you please ask them for me?
I feel like I'm pulling teeth here.
I'm only asking for verification from his employer regarding the hours he worked on February 9, 2004 and February 10, 2004. I'm not asking for any other information. I don't want his SSN. I don't want to know his rate of pay. I'm not even asking to know what his work responsibilities were. I wouldn't even ask for his address and phone number except I want to send him the letter that I posted earlier.
Most important, if someone will provide me his address by PM on the other site, I won't even talk to him. He won't have to answer any questions.
Alternatively he could just authorize his employer to send me a certified copy of his hours on those dates with other information redacted. I'm trying to be reasonable here.

looks like Mason may be on his own, and will need to take responsibility and action for locating the desired contact information for Fred Murray.
it seems highly unusual to me, and unprofessional, that an internet poster/assumed lawyer or not, would hope for compliance in requesting that Fred Murray would authorize his employer to forward a certified copy of employee related information to a stranger. again, there would seem to be no expectation for compliance on the part of Fred Murray.

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
Well why don't you please ask them for me?
I feel like I'm pulling teeth here.
I'm only asking for verification from his employer regarding the hours he worked on February 9, 2004 and February 10, 2004. I'm not asking for any other information. I don't want his SSN. I don't want to know his rate of pay. I'm not even asking to know what his work responsibilities were. I wouldn't even ask for his address and phone number except I want to send him the letter that I posted earlier.
Most important, if someone will provide me his address by PM on the other site, I won't even talk to him. He won't have to answer any questions.
Alternatively he could just authorize his employer to send me a certified copy of his hours on those dates with other information redacted. I'm trying to be reasonable here.

What makes you assume I have or haven't? We are not all hanging on our computers and cell phones, at your beck and call. We work for a living, Mason. You can rest assured that the next time I speak to Helena, I will bring the matter up.

Also? He doesn't have to answer any questions NOW. Not of you, anyway.

btw, I don't expect either of them to be forthcoming with this information, or willing to provide phone numbers, so don't sit with your head in a dry-cleaning bag waiting for the information. Just a guess.

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
Well why don't you please ask them for me?
I feel like I'm pulling teeth here.
I'm only asking for verification from his employer regarding the hours he worked on February 9, 2004 and February 10, 2004. I'm not asking for any other information. I don't want his SSN. I don't want to know his rate of pay. I'm not even asking to know what his work responsibilities were. I wouldn't even ask for his address and phone number except I want to send him the letter that I posted earlier.
Most important, if someone will provide me his address by PM on the other site, I won't even talk to him. He won't have to answer any questions.
Alternatively he could just authorize his employer to send me a certified copy of his hours on those dates with other information redacted. I'm trying to be reasonable here.

I am confused. Please tell me why Mr. Murray or his place of employment needs to, or should send YOU any information. Are you part of the official investigative team that is in place to solve Maura's disappearance?

Last I knew this is a forum where people trade thoughts, theories, opinions, and bits of information if they are so inclined.

The investigation is between him and the PROPER authorities, not wannabees who post on forums.

sophie bean wrote:

<quoted text>
Whatever. I don't care if you're Beagle or not, frankly. It is surely a sing of the apocalypse that you apologized for the email thing.
Or maybe not. Who, specifically, here right now, are you accusing of being a liar / dissembler?
Oh, I get it. How foolish of me. Because my questions don't line up with your questions, you're accusing me of being a liar and dissembler.
Go have a nice chat with "apple" - I'm sure that you'll "get along" well.

I'm certainly not accusing you of being a liar or a dissembler. I'm only accusing Fred Murray and Columbo of providing false and misleading information. I believe they did. That's my opinion and expressions of opinion BTW do not constitute defamation.

I want people to consider the evidence and the arguments and decide for themselves.

Some of the red herrings, like the Petrit Vasi hit and run incident for example, really happened. I think Beagle was the first person to post a message theorizing that Maura or someone driving her car hit Vasi and this is why she drove the Saturn into NH. I believe he posted that theory in good faith.

I believed it and posted various theories stemming from it. However, ultimately I rejected it because (1) I don't believe Maura would have risked being discovered absent from her job,(2) she had no reason to take the trip north to get rid of the Saturn, if someone else was driving,(3) the damage to the front end would have prevented driving at night and she drove most of the way in the dark, and (4) no charges were filed against her before the statute of limitations ran out and prosecutors do that even if the suspect's whereabouts are unknown so they can prosecute the suspect after the limitations period expires, if the suspect turns up.

Therefore, the Vasi hit and run is irrelevant, or a red herring in this case even though it happened and the effort to link it to Maura's disappearance was done in good faith.

We aren't going to agree on everything and we don't have to agree on anything. My theory is there are 18 red herrings that have distracted us from figuring out what happened to Maura. I invite everyone to examine each one and decide for themselves. Agree or disagree. As always each theory and argument must stand or fall based on its own merit.

LvsNH wrote:

<quoted text>
I am confused. Please tell me why Mr. Murray or his place of employment needs to, or should send YOU any information. Are you part of the official investigative team that is in place to solve Maura's disappearance?
Last I knew this is a forum where people trade thoughts, theories, opinions, and bits of information if they are so inclined.
The investigation is between him and the PROPER authorities, not wannabees who post on forums.

I do not agree. I'm here to figure out what happened to Maura and solve this case. I'm not interested in trading "thoughts, theories, opinions, and bits of information" with others just because it's something interesting to do.

What you refer to as the PROPER authorities haven't solved it. I'm hardly a "wannabee." I did this stuff for 30 years and I know the science of criminal investigation and the law pertaining to police investigations inside out, upside down, rightside up and everywhere in between.

Mr. Murray can cooperate or not as he chooses, but he will have to bear the consequences for the choices he makes in the Court of Public Opinion.

Sorry that upsets you, but that's the way it is.

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm certainly not accusing you of being a liar or a dissembler. I'm only accusing Fred Murray and Columbo of providing false and misleading information. I believe they did. That's my opinion and expressions of opinion BTW do not constitute defamation.
I want people to consider the evidence and the arguments and decide for themselves.
Some of the red herrings, like the Petrit Vasi hit and run incident for example, really happened. I think Beagle was the first person to post a message theorizing that Maura or someone driving her car hit Vasi and this is why she drove the Saturn into NH. I believe he posted that theory in good faith.
I believed it and posted various theories stemming from it. However, ultimately I rejected it because (1) I don't believe Maura would have risked being discovered absent from her job,(2) she had no reason to take the trip north to get rid of the Saturn, if someone else was driving,(3) the damage to the front end would have prevented driving at night and she drove most of the way in the dark, and (4) no charges were filed against her before the statute of limitations ran out and prosecutors do that even if the suspect's whereabouts are unknown so they can prosecute the suspect after the limitations period expires, if the suspect turns up.
Therefore, the Vasi hit and run is irrelevant, or a red herring in this case even though it happened and the effort to link it to Maura's disappearance was done in good faith.
We aren't going to agree on everything and we don't have to agree on anything. My theory is there are 18 red herrings that have distracted us from figuring out what happened to Maura. I invite everyone to examine each one and decide for themselves. Agree or disagree. As always each theory and argument must stand or fall based on its own merit.

the 18 possibilities, by your summary, have been exhaustively discussed.
it is your most recent "theory" about Fred Murray's involvement in the disappearance of his daughter that you are addressing by issuing an ultimatum...that is, to rule in or rule out FM's involvement according to his 'alibi'; i.e., verifying his attendance at his place of employment on a certain date and during a specific time period.

FireCat wrote:

btw, I don't expect either of them to be forthcoming with this information, or willing to provide phone numbers, so don't sit with your head in a dry-cleaning bag waiting for the information. Just a guess.

Well, like I said yesterday, I'm assuming Fred Murray is the person who posted yesterday using the moniker Defamation and I interpret his post as a refusal and an admission that he was not at work on February 9, 2004 and February 10 2004.

I shall now restate the question I asked in Message 18916 at page 939,

Are Mr Murray's actions consistent with those of an innocent father stricken with grief at the disappearance of his daughter?

You be the judge.