Where is MAURA MURRAY

“ Good B chillaxin - TY Scott”

Joined: Jun 12, 2008

Comments: 1128

Judged:

elsewherebriefly wrote:

Snowy,
You so enjoy quoting others, here's a quote for you.
"I hope you saw the shootout we had last night with the publisher of The New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper. If you missed it, please check out (fox news address) for details. My thesis is that most of the media in America will not help pass tough mandatory prison terms for predators who rape and molest children. I told The Union Leader guy his paper was not doing enough. He told me to stuff it."
Bill O'Reilly

thanx. i'm a fan of Fox.
i don't "enjoy" quoting...although substantiating statements by quoting can be informative and helpful.
while we're here, i fail to understand the big push about rape and molestation...your interest, vigilance and oversight may be of personal interest to you and others, but not necessarily a factor in Maura's disappearance.
Maura cannot be presumed to be a victim of rape or molestation by a known/unknown 'predator' with any certainty, IMO, although one of you has recently restated a belief that Lovie Riddle, Nickolau, etc. are still in the crosshairs of accusation...at least at the level of public opinion by several on two forums.
i won't bring up the quote; it's time-consuming for me, and irksome to you.
while you may keep their names on the table, i remain unconvinced of the involvement of any.

“ Good B chillaxin - TY Scott”

Joined: Jun 12, 2008

Comments: 1128

Judged:

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
How does that accuse Nancy West, specifically, of incompetence or unprofessionalism? That is a general comment about a person's opinion of the UL as a newspaper, and not a specific reporter.

we report. you decide.

elsewherebriefly

Shallotte, NC

Judged:

In 2004 Dr. Godwin reviewed the circumstances revolving around Maura's disappearance and provided his expert findings/opinion.

He believed Maura's was a crime of opportunity and the perpetrator was a stranger serial rapist who has done it before and will do it again. He also stated the perpetrator murdered Maura in an effort to do away with the evidence linking him to the crime.

Although other experts have stated the person(s) responsible for Maura's disappearance has done it before and will do it again they have not made their findings/opinions public.

This is what has prompted me to focus on sex offenders and the laws pertaining to sentencing and post release monitoring in NH/VT/MA.

In comparing the laws, sentencing, and post release monitoring of sex offenders against both adults and children in North Carolina to that of New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts I have found the current systems in the latter states to be inadequate, IMHO.

The fact that NHSP recently commissioned (3) of their 'seasoned' troopers on a full time basis to apprehend registered sex offenders in non-compliance conveys there is a problem with the system and they are doing their best to address it. I am pleased with their efforts.

Mason

Judged:

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>I'm not saying that he doesn't go there but when totalled, I spend about 25% of my time there and have never seen him searching the area or in the area, as so many say he does every weekend. As for her not leaving, I have no doubt she left Amherst, but I am saying it may not have been of her own free will--perhaps the crime initiates in Amherst and merely completes itself in Haverhill.

I think you've raised a very important question. How often did Mr. Murray search for Maura and how much time did he spend searching for her?

Is this another situation where we only have his word to rely on?

To the extent one considers his credibility to be questionable, one might naturally doubt any claim he's made not only about the case, but about his own efforts to find Maura.

“ Good B chillaxin - TY Scott”

Joined: Jun 12, 2008

Comments: 1128

Judged:

sophie bean wrote:

I would like to point out, here and now, and having not seen some posts which have been removed, that the fact that FireCat and myself, as well as others, have asked for general confirmation of the identity of someone who stridently demands respect if not obedience because of their claimed "expertise" - confirmation which is still not forthcoming - is nothing more or less than reasonable.
Others, including Dawn and BF, have vigorously challenged Mason's identity, and have not been threatened. I find this extremely odd.
It is, however, quite an effective tactic to silence differing voices and opinions "shut up or I'll sue." It serves the purpose of derailing and silencing lines of discussion in the most summary fashion possible.
The questions which FireCat and I asked still stand, unanswered.
They were met with a level of rage and contempt which I've never encountered before in any setting, period.
I disagree significantly with many here, but that does not mean that I want to in any way stifle or inhibit their pursuit of their theories and opinions. Far from it. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with pursuing ALL lines of inquiry which have not been conclusively excluded as possibilities - and by "conclusively excluded" I mean ONLY that LE has specificlly eliminated that person as a POI. It does not mean that any poster here, however "expert," however well-informed, however belligerent insisting that "you can't think that - you aren't allowed to think that because I'm telling you not to think that." The idea that adults of free will should allow themselves to be bullied and manhandled in this fashion by anyone astonishes me. The whole ridiculous idea of "groupthink" only serves the purpose of stifling real interaction. We are individuals, with individual opinions, nothing more or less.
I find myself wondering why an internet discussion of a case that's five years old would arouse such rage and contempt. To this day, no one in this forum has accused anyone of anything - no one, that is, except Mason, who has accused Fred Murray; Chris King, who has accused Gregory Floyd; and OH MY, who has accused everyone on the planet.

it's so important to take personal responsibility for our interactions and statements, while always understanding that conversation and confrontation are two-way streets.
provocation does not happen in isolation.
FL/Mason has been quite candid in revealing his identity; if it is not to your satisfaction, then so be it. others have chosen not to reveal their identities while sometimes making outrageous accusations and providing inaccurate information and commentary.
Mason has obviously returned to simplify...by removing the smokescreen of emotion and personal attack that is the trademark of these forums.
he offers observations, formulates questions and may sometimes offer opinions framed by his professional expertise acquired over many years.
a choice exists to take/or leave; accept/or reject.

Mason

Judged:

How many of you were struck by how odd it was for Mr. Murray to suddenly appear at the NHSP headquarters in Concord and announce to a gentleman sitting behind a glass window that he had a knife that was a probable murder weapon in a capital case?

Mr. Murray has stated that he obtained the knife from Claude Moulton’s brother, who told him that Claude might have used it to kill Maura at the A-Frame. Mr. Moulton’s brother is regrettably unavailable to confirm this story as he is dead. Oh, well!

Let us suppose that you were in Mr. Murray’s position and you were contacted by an individual who told you that he believed his brother killed your daughter and he had the murder weapon. What would you do?

a. Call the police investigating your daughter’s disappearance and tell them what happened;

b. Make an appointment to meet with the man, interview him, and collect the knife;

c. Make a To-Do list and remind yourself to make a decision about what to do a week later so you have time to think about it;

d. Honk your horn.

The correct answer is “a” because your daughter’s disappearance is a police matter.

If the answer is not self-evident, you need to re-enroll in junior high school.

Mason

Judged:

On January 26, 2005, almost one year after Maura disappeared, Staff Writer Dan O'Brien of the UMass Daily Collegian wrote,

"Murray said part of his search has included hanging out in local bars in hopes to overhear a conversation in which someone mentions something about Maura. Murray said he has been actively investigating his daughter's disappearance himself because he does not trust the police to conduct a proper investigation.

"These guys can't catch a cold," he said.

Murray said his main frustration is that police refuse to investigate "scenario number 4." [a dirt-bag got her] Lt. Scarniza told the Daily Collegian in August that the police investigation has led them to believe Maura "left on her own volition." This would lead one to believe Maura either ran away, committed suicide, or suffered from hypothermia. The Murrays disagreed and believe she was abducted.

Fred Murray believes the police do not want to admit there is a predator in their small, rural community.

"There's a bad guy on their turf in their backyard," Murray said. "The skunk is on their doorstep.""

Now, wait a minute! Are we supposed to believe that the Haverhill Police Department and the New Hampshire State Police would prefer to protect a serial killer in their midst rather than solve Maura's disappearance?

Does that accusation make any sense to anyone?

How many other people have disappeared in Haverhill and Woodsville since February 9, 2004?

Is it possible that Mr. Murray was spending most of his time "hanging out in local bars in hopes to overhear a conversation in which someone mentions something about Maura," instead of looking for Maura?

Perhaps, this explains why L4M never saw Mr. Murray during her many walks through the woods.

Might his rather colorful language about a skunk on the cop shop's doorstep be the product of a mind heavily under the influence of alcohol?

earthburner

Boulder, CO

Mason wrote:

How many of you were struck by how odd it was for Mr. Murray to suddenly appear at the NHSP headquarters in Concord and announce to a gentleman sitting behind a glass window that he had a knife that was a probable murder weapon in a capital case?

I KNOW, I KNOW, the mention of it here had me spitting up my oatmeal this morning. ODD INDEED!...kind of funny in a three stooges way...

Mason

Judged:

THE SCENE: A BARTENDER POLISHING A SCHOONER BEHIND THE BAR FROM TWO DUDES SITTING ON BARSTOOLS AT A BAR IN HAVERHILL WITH A THIRD DUDE SITTING ALONE AT A NEARBY TABLE.

DUDE #1: So, that’s when I took out my trusty bloodstained jackknife and waved it in front of her face and said,

BARTENDER: Shhhhhh, Claude, don’t chu be talkin bout guttin dat purty coed cuz dat’s her daddy sittin at da table over yonder.

DUDE #2: Yeah Dad, that’s so not Cool.

DUDE #1: Sorry, How bout dem Red Sox?

Dawn

Omaha, NE

Judged:

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
To which Fred are you referring? I can only assume you mean Fred Murray.

I have not said anything libel about FM. Asking for a work record is NOT libel in any way shape or form. I have simply asked a question. I was referring to your remark to Fred L.

Dawn

Omaha, NE

Judged:

sophie bean wrote:

I would like to point out, here and now, and having not seen some posts which have been removed, that the fact that FireCat and myself, as well as others, have asked for general confirmation of the identity of someone who stridently demands respect if not obedience because of their claimed "expertise" - confirmation which is still not forthcoming - is nothing more or less than reasonable.
Others, including Dawn and BF, have vigorously challenged Mason's identity, and have not been threatened. I find this extremely odd.
It is, however, quite an effective tactic to silence differing voices and opinions "shut up or I'll sue." It serves the purpose of derailing and silencing lines of discussion in the most summary fashion possible.
The questions which FireCat and I asked still stand, unanswered.
They were met with a level of rage and contempt which I've never encountered before in any setting, period.
I disagree significantly with many here, but that does not mean that I want to in any way stifle or inhibit their pursuit of their theories and opinions. Far from it. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with pursuing ALL lines of inquiry which have not been conclusively excluded as possibilities - and by "conclusively excluded" I mean ONLY that LE has specificlly eliminated that person as a POI. It does not mean that any poster here, however "expert," however well-informed, however belligerent insisting that "you can't think that - you aren't allowed to think that because I'm telling you not to think that." The idea that adults of free will should allow themselves to be bullied and manhandled in this fashion by anyone astonishes me. The whole ridiculous idea of "groupthink" only serves the purpose of stifling real interaction. We are individuals, with individual opinions, nothing more or less.
I find myself wondering why an internet discussion of a case that's five years old would arouse such rage and contempt. To this day, no one in this forum has accused anyone of anything - no one, that is, except Mason, who has accused Fred Murray; Chris King, who has accused Gregory Floyd; and OH MY, who has accused everyone on the planet.

Sophie
You are incorrect. Go back and read - Mason was going to sue me for libel because I said some horrible things. There are plenty of pages of this. Also, Ben did not question Mason - he was pointing out to ME that Mason is Fred Leatherman. You have that all backwards. I promise you he is who he says he is.

gvmeabrk

Weare, NH

Judged:

Mason, Just post your law school diploma here and you will verify that Mason is Fred L. I would think you have it hanging on a wall somewhere close by.
Would that be enough to verify? You did state you would post something to prove who you are.

gvmeabrk

Weare, NH

Judged:

I should add..I asked for diploma because I would think that no one else would have that except Mason/Fred L.

Mason

Judged:

gvmeabrk wrote:

Mason, Just post your law school diploma here and you will verify that Mason is Fred L. I would think you have it hanging on a wall somewhere close by.
Would that be enough to verify? You did state you would post something to prove who you are.

Nope, I changed my mind. I'm not a hampster running in a wheel to suit the ducks.

I do not respect them.

I've been through this before and I'm done. I have provided my true name, address, and telephone number. If they want to call me, or come knock on my door, they can do that.

I will not address this subject again.

BTW, I have two valid causes of action for defamation of character against Firecat and Sophie Bean. Anyone else want to make a bid for Defendant #3?

“ Good B chillaxin - TY Scott”

Joined: Jun 12, 2008

Comments: 1128

Judged:

Dawn wrote:

<quoted text>
Sophie
You are incorrect. Go back and read - Mason was going to sue me for libel because I said some horrible things. There are plenty of pages of this. Also, Ben did not question Mason - he was pointing out to ME that Mason is Fred Leatherman. You have that all backwards. I promise you he is who he says he is.

Dawn ~ nothing horrible was said, in my view...just your brand of persistence and enthusiasm.
it's hard to capture an accurate image of others, and relate our own image to others by using only our words.
'nuff said.

“ Good B chillaxin - TY Scott”

Joined: Jun 12, 2008

Comments: 1128

Judged:

FL/Mason has no obligation to prove his claims to any greater degree than he already has; nor is there any obligation to accept and/or embrace his statements/opinions.
again, this is a forum...not a court of law.

Dawn

Omaha, NE

Judged:

Snowy
You always come in with good reason.

“ Good B chillaxin - TY Scott”

Joined: Jun 12, 2008

Comments: 1128

Judged:

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope, I changed my mind. I'm not a hampster running in a wheel to suit the ducks.
I do not respect them.
I've been through this before and I'm done. I have provided my true name, address, and telephone number. If they want to call me, or come knock on my door, they can do that.
I will not address this subject again.
BTW, I have two valid causes of action for defamation of character against Firecat and Sophie Bean. Anyone else want to make a bid for Defendant #3?

Amen.

Saturnus

Uxbridge, MA

Judged:

Snowy White wrote:

FL/Mason has no obligation to prove his claims to any greater degree than he already has; nor is there any obligation to accept and/or embrace his statements/opinions.
again, this is a forum...not a court of law.

Let's see how this works when I replace a name:

(Fred Murray) "has no obligation to prove his claims to any greater degree than he already has; nor is there any obligation to accept and/or embrace his statements/opinions.
again, this is a forum...not a court of law."

By golly, it _does_ work.

“ Good B chillaxin - TY Scott”

Joined: Jun 12, 2008

Comments: 1128