NH NH - Maura Murray, 21, Haverhill, 9 Feb 2004 - #12

[McSpy]

I agree with you about the sociopath part. That is a clinical diagnosis that needs to be made by a psychologist/psychiatrist and has massively negative connotations so I think its pretty irresponsible to be throwing out labels like that so flippantly.

However, if the police did, in fact, find searches on her computer regarding pregnancy, I think its perfectly reasonable to speculate that that might have been a contributory factor in her wanting to run away.

I agree. Sociopaths don't usually care if they crack up their dad's car. They don't feel guilt or dread. I think it bothered Maura, so I doubt she was a sociopath. She was too emotional to be a sociopath, IMO.

 

[Fireweed]

I agree. Sociopaths don't usually care if they crack up their dad's car. They don't feel guilt or dread. I think it bothered Maura, so I doubt she was a sociopath. She was too emotional to be a sociopath, IMO.

I don't know what happened to Maura more than anyone else, but it has always seemed to me that the primary emotion driving Maura to leave town that Monday was shame. Sociopaths have no shame. I think Maura was the complete opposite of a sociopath.

 

[Lolacat]

i too am really disappointed in Renner. not that i argue with the investigation & getting justice for the victim being more important than my own insatiable curiousity. but still, this latest "bombshell" and then no-bombshell kinda smells funny.

not sure how i feel about Renner, he does seem to make it all about him. which is his right, but i bet most people reading these blogs are not as interested in how the search for Amy's killer and what happened to Maura affects/affected HIM as they are about what the hell happened to those girls. i attempted to read his fiction book "Man from Primrose Lane" and gave it up after a while. maybe it's a coincidence but seemed to me that "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" was a major influence and the story was just not that interesting after a while.

maybe that's all Renner has to say about the subjects, how it affected him. again, his right but just a little ego-centric and not interesting to me as much.

My feeling is that his motives aren't entirely what he claims them to be. Of course, justice is more important. If JR really had come across something that would indicate a potential murder/criminal investigation (and sharing it would hamper that) then he really shouldn't be telling ANYONE but the police, not the podcast guys, and certainly not dangling it in front of everyone like one of those gossip websites who post hints but never actually come out and say who they mean. He could have easily simply said, "I'm following up some promising new leads" etc.

He claims that by having a deadline for the "bombshell" he hoped to provoke someone to come forward. Come forward with what? If it involves a CRIMINAL charge, as he heavily implies, then what is he expecting?- someone to come forward with a confession that they murdered Maura or were somehow involved in her disappearance off the face of the earth? Yeah, right. It would just be *that* easy wouldn't it? Maybe they could be a guest on the next podcast! If it *doesnt* involve criminal charges and is an entirely innocent event then why can't he say what it is?

I'm not quite sure how he expects to proceed now, because if he wants people to continue discussing the case and he does indeed have evidence as to why she drove up to the white mountains, then what is the point of people speculating about it when he has a major piece of the puzzle and they dont? Its pointless. Everyone else will be fumbling around in the dark whilst he has a flashlight.

 

[gnomony]

For years, I've read comments by people who fault Renner for his supposedly single-minded hypothesis that MM is alive and in hiding somewhere. Now he apparently has come across something that changes his mind -- he says that, if true, the new info would make it much more likely that MM is dead. That's pretty damn inconvenient for someone who has already finished his book. Teasing the big news on his blog and then withholding it? Doesn't sound like a way to build interest in his book, since the new development apparently jeopardizes the book's thesis. (Also, it obviously annoys his blog readers.)

So, since it may contradict what his book was going to say, and since it annoys his followers, I see it as being against his own interests -- and therefore likely legit.

Renner's job isn't to please me. Based on what I've seen him do, and on his willingness now to entertain new evidence that contradicts his working hypothesis, I give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Fireweed]

My feeling is that his motives aren't entirely what he claims them to be. Of course, justice is more important. If JR really had come across something that would indicate a potential murder/criminal investigation (and sharing it would hamper that) then he really shouldn't be telling ANYONE but the police, not the podcast guys, and certainly not dangling it in front of everyone like one of those gossip websites who post hints but never actually come out and say who they mean. He could have easily simply said, "I'm following up some promising new leads" etc.

He claims that by having a deadline for the "bombshell" he hoped to provoke someone to come forward. Come forward with what? If it involves a CRIMINAL charge, as he heavily implies, then what is he expecting?- someone to come forward with a confession that they murdered Maura or were somehow involved in her disappearance off the face of the earth? Yeah, right. It would just be *that* easy wouldn't it? Maybe they could be a guest on the next podcast! If it *doesnt* involve criminal charges and is an entirely innocent event then why can't he say what it is?

I'm not quite sure how he expects to proceed now, because if he wants people to continue discussing the case and he does indeed have evidence as to why she drove up to the white mountains, then what is the point of people speculating about it when he has a major piece of the puzzle and they dont? Its pointless. Everyone else will be fumbling around in the dark whilst he has a flashlight.

This is the problem with Renner making the book about himself and his experiences researching this case. He now has a huge ego about his own ability to solve it. He essentially set up his own little sting operation on his little blog and it failed. He got it in his head that he was slick enough to "flush out" a suspect like you see the cops doing on television shows.

What a complete and total farce.

 

[xjd]

all this has me thinking....i've been following the "Missing Maura" podcasts, and what strikes me about them is that listening to the 2 dudes discuss that case is just that; listening to 2 dudes discussing the case. something that could be overheard in a bar or restaurant. to me, neither come off as researchers or investigators and all the real intel comes from the guests. since the 1st podcast coincided with Renner's finishing the book, i've wondered if the podcasts were more connected to Renner than they let on. what have they said that indicates anything they could build a documentary around? but it has drummed up more interest in the forthcoming book.

i remain skeptical.

 

[Caffeine]

It is very telling to see Renner shift from the opinion of likely alive to well, not so certain anymore.

If we are in fact dealing with a possible new person here, you have to wonder why no one seemingly knew beforehand. I mean, would friends not mention this to LE? Has LE looked into and deemed it a dead end?

Not to jump to any conclusions, but you can't help but to think back to the NH LE's comments on FB about there being an actual suspect, but a profound lack of evidence to take action.

 

[Fireweed]

all this has me thinking....i've been following the "Missing Maura" podcasts, and what strikes me about them is that listening to the 2 dudes discuss that case is just that; listening to 2 dudes discussing the case. something that could be overheard in a bar or restaurant. to me, neither come off as researchers or investigators and all the real intel comes from the guests. since the 1st podcast coincided with Renner's finishing the book, i've wondered if the podcasts were more connected to Renner than they let on. what have they said that indicates anything they could build a documentary around? but it has drummed up more interest in the forthcoming book.

i remain skeptical.

The guys making the podcast and documentary do not strike me as knowing what they are doing. I think they are two guys who are interested in true crime and film making, but who do not have the experience or talent to make a good documentary (certainly the podcast is very mediocre from a production standpoint). Making a really good podcast or documentary is actually much harder than it appears, so I am not saying these guys "suck" or anything, but rather that their talent is limited in certain ways and so their productions will simply never be all that good.

 

[Lolacat]

Renner's job isn't to please me.

Um, it kind of is, if he expects people to 1. support and visit his blog and 2. to spend their own money on buying his book.

 

[Fireweed]

Um, it kind of is, if he expects people to 1. support and visit his blog and 2. to spend their own money on buying his book.

Exactly. If he likes playing games, alienating people and losing credibility he can totally do that but it will ultimately result in fewer book sales. As a man who makes his money by selling books, that seems like an odd strategy to me, but of course he is free to do as he likes.

 

[Steleheart]

It is very telling to see Renner shift from the opinion of likely alive to well, not so certain anymore.

If we are in fact dealing with a possible new person here, you have to wonder why no one seemingly knew beforehand. I mean, would friends not mention this to LE? Has LE looked into and deemed it a dead end?

Not to jump to any conclusions, but you can't help but to think back to the NH LE's comments on FB about there being an actual suspect, but a profound lack of evidence to take action.

The blog post suggests that there is a certain person as well as 'people' involved;

"The only one who put a deadline on the release of this info (which is, essentially, an event that is four years old) is me. I put a hardline at noon today and I did so for a couple reasons. Mostly, though, I had hoped the subject of the piece would step forward with the info, themselves, if given time. They chose not to. The police have the info. They have not yet begun to interview the people involved."

~ An 'event' that is 4 years old.
~ Wanted the 'subject' of the piece to come forward.
~ Police have not yet 'begun' to interview the 'people' involved.

So he is not the only one who knows the supposed 4 year old info. There are multiple people who also know of it.

And BTW isn't the original post that he has new information now deleted?

 

[Fireweed]

The blog post suggests that there is a certain person as well as 'people' involved;

"The only one who put a deadline on the release of this info (which is, essentially, an event that is four years old) is me. I put a hardline at noon today and I did so for a couple reasons. Mostly, though, I had hoped the subject of the piece would step forward with the info, themselves, if given time. They chose not to. The police have the info. They have not yet begun to interview the people involved."

~ An 'event' that is 4 years old.
~ Wanted the 'subject' of the piece to come forward.
~ Police have not yet 'begun' to interview the 'people' involved.

So he is not the only one who knows the supposed 4 year old info. There are multiple people who also know of it.

And BTW isn't the original post that he has new information now deleted?

Who really knows? Let's break down the post, shall we.

I have been advised to not publish the new information, today.

Okay, by whom? I guess we are supposed to assume it is the police, but for all we know it was his wife who advised him. It is written in the passive voice, which is often done as a way to hide the identity of the subject.

I don't know when or if it will be published.

Again, this is pretty vague. Does he mean that he himself won't be publishing it or what? Once again, the passive voice has been utilized so as to avoid any ownership of the act of publishing the "bombshell".

The purpose of this blog - the way I've always seen it, anyway - is to show you how the sausage is made. To show you how a story, and a book, comes together piece by piece. From the beginning, I've openly shared documents and interviews. Sometimes I've had to go back and correct some things. Sometimes I was just plain wrong (loudly and embarrassingly, wrong) . And you got to see that happen in real time.

Okay that's fine. Indeed, this is what I used to like about the blog.

This is the hard side of journalism. Sometimes the story is bigger than one writer. I can't make this decision on my own.

Okay, then who is this other person or these other people? The above sentence sounds way more profound than it actually is. What does it even mean? I have no idea what he is talking about here.

What we don't want to do is jeopardize this case in any way. Justice is a slow process. Mind-numbingly slow. The only one who put a deadline on the release of this info (which is, essentially, an event that is four years old) is me. I put a hardline at noon today and I did so for a couple reasons. Mostly, though, I had hoped the subject of the piece would step forward with the info, themselves, if given time. They chose not to.

What is this "we" and "they" stuff? By we does he mean he and the police, or all of us on the blog? Why use "they"? Does he honestly not know if "the subject" is male or female? Again, this is written in a very strange way and I am not entirely sure I follow. I guess he is saying that he wanted to spook "they" into coming forward by threatening to publish something on the blog, but within a one day (or was it two?) period he changed his mind completely and decided that justice must prevail.

The police have the info. They have not yet begun to interview the people involved.

Once again, it does not say he gave the police the info. I suppose most people just assume that Renner gave it to them but that it not actually what he says.

While I can't say this info solves the case, I believe it does answer the question of what Maura was doing in the White Mountains.

Disappointed? Sure. Me too.

Actually Renner you could just publish what you promised to publish and make us all not disappointed. There is nothing in this post which states that law enforcement told you not to publish it. Though getting through the vaguely-worded excuse was a bit of a chore, when broken down to the nitty-gritty the post does not say that you gave any information to the police, or that the police has asked you not to publish it. The identities of everyone involved have been purposefully kept vague by the writing style.

 

[KenShabby]

since the 1st podcast coincided with Renner's finishing the book, i've wondered if the podcasts were more connected to Renner than they let on. what have they said that indicates anything they could build a documentary around? but it has drummed up more interest in the forthcoming book.
i remain skeptical.

I might be wrong, but my impression has been that Renner's relationship with these two documentary guys goes back at least a few year — perhaps to at least that time when Renner took the trip to Quebec to follow those leads on Maura's supposed whereabouts. In fact, I think that they might have joined him on that particular trip — based on information shared on one of these forums.

 

[Fireweed]

I might be wrong, but my impression has been that Renner's relationship with these two documentary guys goes back at least a few year — perhaps to at least that time when Renner took the trip to Quebec to follow those leads on Maura's supposed whereabouts. In fact, I think that they might have joined him on the that particular trip — based on information shared on one of these forums.

That is what I always thought. He went to Canada with some documentary film makers - these guys.

I guess now they are pretending like they have some huge information in order to make money off the podcast and the film.

I really wish before they continue on this path that they would take the time to respect the fact that a real, actual human being is at the heart of all this. It is angering me a bit to think that this tragedy has just been used as a part of a hoax to drum up interest for what I assume are financial reasons.

 

[allmybecsloveme]

Nope. Not gonna happen today--says so on the website right now. His reasoning is that he wants to maintain the integrity of the investigation and the person/people involved in the new lead haven't been interviewed by the police yet.

Some of you bring up an interesting point about her possibly being pregnant. If so, then the attention should be focused not on those last few days, but in the weeks prior. What I'm saying is (and I have NO experience in this deparment): How soon can a woman discover that she is pregnant after conception? A day? 3 days? 7 days? I'm sure it varies from woman to woman, and depends on her ovulation cycle.

In addition, something else occurs to me if she was pregnant: Is it possible--and there are examples of this out there--that Maura was wrecking those cars in an effort to cause a miscarriage? Because before those 2 wrecks, I believe her driving record was spotless--even if she had a drinking/drug problem (that's speculation). But then to have 2 accidents within days, I think some insurance adjuster would be thinking "insurance fraud" under such weird conditions, because the probability of that has to be miniscule--unless both wrecks were on purpose.

Just wondering . . . .

Back then probably 2 weeks, at about 4 weeks pregnant, but that is if you're tracking your cycle. Most women who are not trying to get pregnant don't know they're pregnant until 6-8 weeks, or maybe even farther along. 4 weeks is when you miss your first period and 8 weeks is when you miss your second period with regular cycles.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

 

[allmybecsloveme]

I don't know what happened to Maura more than anyone else, but it has always seemed to me that the primary emotion driving Maura to leave town that Monday was shame. Sociopaths have no shame. I think Maura was the complete opposite of a sociopath.

Agreed. It is also very hard for sociopaths to keep friends. Maura definitely had a few close friends.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

 

[CanManEh]

Iam glad to see people talking about my idea i brought up about her maybe having a misscarriage to set this all off...Iam also happy to see that some of you are listening to the things i said on the very day this guy started telling us about the book .this guy has personally contacted me on a different site and well all i can say is he is all about the money....dont waste your time with this guy.

 

[Sparky]

Stop the bickering and the rude and snarky comments. If you don't like a post, scroll and roll or alert a mod. We're more than happy to help. Thank you!

 

[xjd]

I might be wrong, but my impression has been that Renner's relationship with these two documentary guys goes back at least a few year — perhaps to at least that time when Renner took the trip to Quebec to follow those leads on Maura's supposed whereabouts. In fact, I think that they might have joined him on that particular trip — based on information shared on one of these forums.

thanks for this info, i was not aware. it would absolutely be quite a coup if he had someone to document his discovery of Maura's whereabouts (given his long held belief that she was most likely alive).

 

[Fireweed]

thanks for this info, i was not aware. it would absolutely be quite a coup if he had someone to document his discovery of Maura's whereabouts (given his long held belief that she was most likely alive).

I think that's what he was going for, yes.