Where is MAURA MURRAY

FireCat wrote:

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

So, what?

sophie bean wrote:

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.

You absolutely crack me up sometimes, Sophie. This is one of those times.

Beagle said it best.

Who is Karma?

You're one step ahead of me, Snowy.

Keeping in mind that if Mr. Murray was at work, he would have an alibi and this line of questioning would be over without the necessity of him having to answer a single question, the next question is where was he and what was he doing?

Perhaps, he has an innocent explanation for that and a witness to back it up?

I doubt it, but I could be wrong.

Perhaps he was playing golf prodigiously belting some 3-irons back and forth across the Connecticut River.

OK, got stuff to do.

I'll check back later.

Fred

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

while i am not a legal-Beagle, one could counter that your assumptions about Fred Murray's posting here yesterday, or on any day, are unfounded.
reasonably, no one is able to discern the identity of posters here without a deeper investigation to authenticate.
common sense and fair play trump assumption.

Mason wrote:

You're one step ahead of me, Snowy.
Keeping in mind that if Mr. Murray was at work, he would have an alibi and this line of questioning would be over without the necessity of him having to answer a single question, the next question is where was he and what was he doing?
Perhaps, he has an innocent explanation for that and a witness to back it up?
I doubt it, but I could be wrong.
Perhaps he was playing golf prodigiously belting some 3-irons back and forth across the Connecticut River.

of course. i know that is the purpose of your questioning his whereabouts.
any answer provided by Fred Murray outside of the formal investigation might put him in legal jeopardy.

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

If I"m the judge, yes. They are.

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

You're assuming incorrectly.

As it happens, I just spoke to Helena a moment ago; she called me after lunch. She asked me to remind you that she does have the phone number you posted online, and if there is a need to contact you, she has the means to do so.

FC - i thought you were running the marathon?
i, of course, am not.

...not Boston?

Dawn wrote:

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

.... huh?

sophie bean wrote:

<quoted text>
O wonderful poster, to so 'stonish another poster!

Sophie
I never understand where your rage/anger comes from. I am not throwing stones. just surprised after apple and lots of other "posters' have calld you out and said bad things about you.. then you replied to him.. just fueling the fire. was trying to help you.. i hope you have a good day.. not sure why everyone see's so much anger /rage from your posts. take care.

Would love to have a psychologist do some analysis about the posts above. Very obvious - self projection is ringing LOUD and CLEAR.

Mason has always admitted when he has been wrong. If he was wrong - I have no doubt he would apolgoise and move on to the next theory.

It is really a simple request that would move things ahead .......... Again, having a nationally recognized person who could take this case to the next level - is right here with us now. Not hiding behind a computer with a alias moniker. Although people who remain anonomous - want to be mean with rage towards Mason. Interesting..... and how does that help find Maura.

Not only do I question what Mason is saying in the above post.

I question why someone who doesn't even know Maura - woudl be against further investigation. When we ALL know ( excpet Peri) that the family is in the first line of questioning - in a murder, missing person case etc.......... LE HAS to question them - facts show this to be true.

Where is Snowy or Ben or WTF .??

Even thoug I have had my disagreements with both. They always come in with an objective, sound and with good reason reply.

Dawn, I hope that my post to Mason is not considered as "mean". That was not my intent. I like Mason.

Dawn wrote:

Where is Snowy or Ben or WTF .??
Even thoug I have had my disagreements with both. They always come in with an objective, sound and with good reason reply.

The day after the tax crunch ended, I traveled out of town where I had very limited access to the Internet. I arrived back last night and am at work now - and will probably be more able to participate tonight if not in the upcoming days.

hi, Dawn ~ back from the dentist...not avoiding the conversation.
i am both outspoken and cautious by life
experiences, and highly compassionate by nature. however, i, like others, resent very much being used/fooled/or misrepresented.
with multi-media affording us the opportunity to merge pieces of information, more often than not, the profile we may develop about an individual, especially on a forum, may be inaccurate....and could easily misrepresent the truth about someone's character and reputation.
here are Fred Murray, SBD, and CW...all have been accused on these forums.
here is Maura, for that matter; also accused, from time to time, in her own disappearance.
we don't know these people. these are just opinions. sometimes damaging opinions.
Mason has probably been suspicious of FM all along, but he sort of kept a lid on it until now.
i don't mind the questions being asked and answers given, but i wouldn't expect to be interrogated, accused, and have to provide proof...on a forum...if i were Fred Murray.
what are the limits of right and wrong? how far is too far?
why is anyone here, at all, if the trail is circular and the players are deceptive; or, at least, everyone is suspicious of the motives of each other.
it's a no-win.
i guess it's Mason's move.

gvmeabrk wrote:

Dawn, I hope that my post to Mason is not considered as "mean". That was not my intent. I like Mason.

You are good to go gvmeabrk...:-)

5 years is tooooooooooooooooooooo long to not have the answers. I really want closure for the family. I think what has been asked - is easy to do - just verifying a statement already made. Just making a solid fact. It would remove and suspicion what so ever - I want that so bad for the Murrays. I think it is a horrible thought. This is not invading someone's privacy AT ALL. They already made a statement that is where they were - this just validates what they said was true. If that is the case - maybe like I have been saying - if we all got behind mr m and wrote letters to gov - AG - heck lets write one to Obama!!!! Actually a good idea. Anyway .. that clearly shows - he has been wronged by LE - if he has cleared the air ..

Sophie Bean
Do you have an objection to that post as well ? I think it is quite rational.