Sunday, March 2, 2014

***UPDATED! JEAN FOUND ALIVE!*** Claude Moulton Asked to Take Lie Detector Test


Those who have followed Maura's case for years recall the story from the Murray family about the "A-frame house" and the "bloody knife". A man named Larry Moulton came forward after Maura's disappearance, claiming that his brother, Claude, killed her. He gave the Murray family a knife that he said was used in the crime.

Lately, the Moulton brothers theory has reappeared on a number of blogs. I still do not see any evidence that Maura's disappearance was an abduction/murder and so was not too interested in this Claude character. But then an internet sleuth over on Websleuths dug up the story of Jean Caccavaro and I was struck by the resemblance between Maura and Jean.

Caccavaro disappeared in 1977 after she was dropped off at the intersection of Rt. 112 and Rt. 116, just a couple miles east of the site of Maura's accident. In 1978, Claude Moulton married Caccavaro's daughter.

I spoke to a member of Claude's extended family, this weekend. Here's what I learned.

At the time of Maura's disappearance, Claude was living with a woman he met when she was 14 and he was 34. Started sleeping with her at 17. They lived in the A-frame house on Valley Rd. about a mile from where Maura was last seen. He drove truck for Lin-Cor Environmental.

Claude told family members that Larry made up the story about him snatching Maura in order to get reward money. Larry had a history of drug use and was not an altogether likeable guy, himself.

After Larry came forward, Claude was asked to sit for a lie detector test at the Havehill Police Department.

Claude has a long history of domestic violence and a thing for very young women.

Days after Larry talked to detectives, Claude hurriedly scrapped his red volvo car. For his part, Claude tells family he had nothing to do with Maura's disappearance.

**UPDATE**
Just got off the phone with James Caccavaro. Guess what? Jean is alive and well. She ran away, started a new life, and came back in 1984.

James says Claude "is a good guy. Smart guy." Maura Murray, he says, "was obviously an alcoholic young lady. She ain't dead. No one abducted her. She'll come back one day. That girl, she's a fuckin' ho. A drunken ho. And her father? A fuckin perv. You know what I mean?"

93 comments:

  1. Mr. Renner, I'm glad to hear that Jean Ellen Caccavaro was found alive and well.

    Nevertheless, you're an unethical hack journalist for claiming that you were "struck by the resemblance between Maura and Jean." I am the sleuth who brought the Jean Ellen Caccavaro story to your attention in the comments section on this blog. I am the sleuth who discovered that Claude Moulton married Tina Caccavaro about a year after her mother, Jean Ellen Caccavaro, vanished in the Route 112 area.

    Mr. Renner, you are an disingenous jackass!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love the tasty irony of a pretentious "websluether" calling someone a hack.

      Delete
    2. James Caccavaro seems to have some anger issues. How does He even know enough about this case to be so angry or opinionated.

      I think He really likes Claude Moulton who is "ONE STAND UP KINDA GUY"

      Maybe Mr. James Caccavaro needs some more looking into himself.

      Just saying.

      John

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Aaron why are you so angry?just because James didn't name you doesn't mean he's trying to take credit for your work.you brought it to his attention & he was then struck by the similarities.at least that's the way it came across to me & no doubt other readers.

      Delete
    5. I got to side with Mr. Renner on this one Aaron,''he did say'' that he got his info. from another internet sleuth..If you want the credit you should make the phone calls yourself!!..good work Jimmy

      Delete
    6. I, too, was struck by the resemblance between these two woman. Gosh, does that make me an unethical jackass too?

      Delete
  2. Why is everyone so eager to be angry? If you read the article, it clearly says I was not the person who found this info. I first read about the link on Websleuths and found the pic from a link, there. And yes, I was struck by the similarities. Who wouldn't be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also do not understand Aaron's anger. Renner never said he was the one who discovered it.

      Delete
    2. Lol people need to take a chill pill or at least some Midol for Pete's sake. I think we should all be more interested in homeboy's statements to James calling Maura a drunken ho and her Dad a pervert. Holy wow those are big words.

      Delete
  3. James Caccavaro seems like a real classy guy......

    ReplyDelete
  4. Guess that answers at least one of the people who was given a lie detector test?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Did you ask Mr. C why he felt that way about the Murrays?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Some pictures of the A-Frame: http://notwithoutperil.com/photos/

    ReplyDelete
  7. Everyone needs to calm down - James - you need to address some of these questions about the plausible theories - Johnny Green/jwb questioning your motives etc. We understand you have a job but at the same time you are leaving a lot unanswered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I always find it amusing when people tell me I NEED to do something. James clearly reads the comments. So I've made the assumption at this point that he doesn't want/need to address anything John or anyone else has asked him. I'm not saying it's right. I am saying that I think everyone who continues to bother him about it should give it up. It's his blog.

      Delete
  8. Was the knife ever tested?did it even exist?is there anyway of finding out if it was logged in evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mr James Caccavaro shows to be living in Haverhill >He obviously must be following the case in order to make such nasty remarks about Maura and Fred without personally knowing them. Nobody in Haverhill is a dirtbag. Oh wait, Claude age 34 was hitting on a 14 year old Minor and slept with her at the age of 17 and that just makes my skin crawl.

    James, this angle just might be worth digging a little deeper. I would like to hear from Tina and Jean.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. If anything this warrants more digging into. Caccavaro is a little defensive, huh? What happened after Jean returned home? Is there any proof that she actually did return? Besides this classy Caccavaro saying so......

      I think Renner just wanted to put the Moulton theories to rest but I think there's more there to look into.

      I mean if it was discovered someone in Maura's family was living with a 14 year old girl when they were 34 Renner would be all over that.

      And you really think this scumbag was living with this girl at 14 but waited to have sex with her until she was 17? I hate to say it but I doubt it. Sickening.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps his nastiness stems from Claude being (wrongfully)?) accused of being involved in Maura's disappearance and being subjected to a lie detector test due to his own brother Larry's greed? Seems his anger should be directed at Larry, but sometimes a family will lash out at others over something unsavory one of their own has done. ( sound familiar?) Your assumption that he has followed the case is indeed not obvious to anyone except yourself and anyone else who wants to find a bogeyman responsible. You may of course be right, but it is only a guess and it is not obvious.

      Delete
    3. If James C says Maura is an Alcoholic/HO and fred is a perv, I doubt very much that he just pulled that out of his hat. I stand by the assumption that he has followed the case.

      Delete
    4. I would say that at the time of the "bloody knife" indecent he probably did take some interest and I would bet that it didn't take long to not like Fred, and even a little research would, and has, led many to conclude that Maura was an alcoholic and/or promiscuous. I have seen many "better" people come to the same conclusions very quickly about both. So I stand by my conclusion that you are only seeing what you want to see.

      Delete
  10. Renner just wants to put the Moulton theories to rest so he can get back to trashing the Murray family.

    If Renner had been following this case closely, he would know that the Moulton theories have been circulating for years.

    Yet, why hasn't Renner contacted Claude Moulton to get his perspective? Or contacted Lawrence Moulton's wife, Muriel, who just remarried? Or Lawrence Moulton's son, Telly? Or the Vermont state trooper John Monahan / John Kapp Monaghan, who mysteriously showed up at the scene of Maura Murray's accident and now is the chief of police in nearby Franconia? All of these people still live in the Haverhill / Woodsville area and are active on social media.

    But, instead of contacting these people, Renner is busy searching the backwoods of Georgia for the missing Maura Murray. What a joke!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good point Aaron.......He would be afraid of these BAD BOYZ..!

      ALSO....."Let's not forget about Russell" Claude/Jefferson

      John

      Delete
    2. "Renner just wants to put the Moulton theories to rest so he can get back to trashing the Murray family."

      "Swartz just wants to put the Moulton theories to rest so he can get back to trashing Renner"

      Tomato/Tomatoe....

      Delete
    3. Aaron,
      I think it's great that you were trying to help by providing this information but James Renner is not very professional and it doesn't quite fit his agenda. If Maura's dead, so is his theory. On top of that he treated a quote by one of these guys as proof of Fred Murray's personality, or at least it comes off that way to the average reader.

      Also, Renner has a lot of blind followers who think he is wonderful and can do no wrong, but he's basically a sensationalist and often uses hyperbole, then never appears to reassess, nor to explain himself.

      One day maybe he will address the fact that he was on a wild goose chase in Canada after saying he KNEW where she was and whom she was with.

      Don't waste your breath here. You're better off talking to LE....

      -Louis

      Delete
    4. Really don't care for people talking bad about my father yes he did have a drug problem and was not perfect but a bad person no he was not

      Delete
  11. Trashing the car so quickly is a red flag. This whole Caccavaro/Moulton clan sounds like just the kind of "dirtbags" we could be looking for.

    Until we get ANY solid leads, I think it is absurd to conclude that Maura is alive. One thing is consistent with these cases when they are eventually solved: the most popular theories usually end up being wrong.

    Here's a rather obvious question: if you wanted to turn someone in to claim reward money why would you choose your BROTHER? I suppose it's possible there was bad blood there, but their explanation doesn't say that - just says that Larry was a bad guy with a drug problem.

    As for the illustrious Mr. Caccavaro --- he's standing up for Mr. "I waited until she was 17" (yeah, right) and calling Fred a pervert??? I'm sorry but based on WHAT??? One blogger supposedly finding of yearbook pictures in trash at an abandoned house? RIDICULOUS. I'm not saying Fred's a great guy or that he's telling the truth (I think he's hiding a lot of knowledge about why Maura left), but this Mr. Caccavaro is a joke - just look at his quotes in the old articles about Jean's disappearance. He's "out there" as much as anybody else in this case and I'd take his opinion with less than a grain of salt.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Look, here is what I think.

    Obviously Maura was leaving. Whether it was for a few days, a week, or forever, we have no idea. But everything points to her getting the hell out of dodge. The car crash? IMO, it was not planned. 1) She was planning to get away for a week in the mountains to clear her head. She brought alcohol. She withdrew money (probably for a rental, however for a week that seems low especially if you have to eat, which she did). We *could* assume that she also had 10k on her, but most likely she did not. So we are back to having a couple hundred dollars. If that is all she had on her, we factor in gas, food, and a hotel or cabin. That leaves me to believe she was either meeting someone, OR only staying a night or two. I originally didn't think she was meeting anyone, but to me it makes the most sense, since she e-mailed her professors saying she would be gone a week.

    Now, here is where it gets interesting. She crashed. Even if she was planning to be gone for a week, she had already crashed a car. Now, she is freaking out. This was the breaking point. This obviously still doesn't mean she was planning to run away for good, but she ran off. Someone hit her, someone picked her up...

    Then you realize she packed her stuff up. IMO, she was running away. That could still mean she's dead now, but it can't be ruled out. I see people saying "there's just no way she happened to break down and be picked up by a serial killer". Well, yeah, there is. It also didn't have to be a serial killer, it could just be a crazy person. Or she could have met someone on the internet, hitchhiked to see them after her car wrecked (planned to go back later) and that person wasn't a good person. Etc. I also see people say "there's no way she ran away and hasn't contacted anyone". This also happens more often than people realize. It isn't SUPER hard to do. It wouldn't have been hard for her to take a bus to, say, L.A., and be a housekeeper or something who is paid straight cash.

    This has all been said before, I'm sure. Just reminding some. Nothing is "too crazy".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps young MM had additional stolen CC numbers and planned on using them to finance most of her trip. Wonder if there are any police reports of CC fraud in that time frame for hotel rooms/rentals/food/gas in the area she was traveling?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. I definitely think her getting hit by a car is a likely theory.

      Delete
    5. Getting hit by a car is a plausible theory, but not a likely one. For someone to hit her and then cover it up for some reason is just as one-in-a-million as the random serial killer happening by the scene. Most people would have no reason to cover it up by taking and hiding a body and they wouldn't just leave her for dead in the woods somewhere. Even if someone was in the middle of something illegal when they did it, they would also have to have no conscience whatsoever not to report it later. That puts it in the same category as a random killer happening by in a tiny window.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. If a person hit her and the driver thought she was a deer then she wouldn't get tossed a great distance into the woods. She would be real close to the side of the road and someone would have discovered the body.

      Delete
  13. --MISSING--

    My Latte was in the kitchen..I left the room for a few minutes and now its gone.

    I will send photos so you all put up posters at the local Starbucks.

    ReplyDelete
  14. --UPDATE--

    Missing latte was found in the dining room minutes later.

    Thanks for all of your help.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tough guy aye? I don't always agree with Renner but that sounds like a threat. Punk

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  16. Gotta love all of these klassy trolls.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Would these Moulton brothers by any chance be related to Cathy Marie Moulton who went missing from Portland, Maine in 1971? Probably not but I had to ask.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They probably are related. The question is how closely, and did they know Cathy?

      Delete
    2. This case is really sad! I pray for the truth to be known someday but the information Mr. Renner is printing is lies I know that to be fact!!! Why would someone create lies is it money does this jerk think he can write a book and ruin innocent people. Is wirting a book of lies worth hurting so many people... Please stop your absolutely out right lying stop calling people and misrepresenting yourself as Maura's family... God help them find peace and god help you for hurting so many people. Leave us alone!

      Delete
    3. Okay, then tell us what the facts are.

      Delete
    4. I never represented myself as family. I told James' wife I was a journalist, writing the book. I told him that as well. In fact, I spelled my name for him twice and pointed him to this blog. Perhaps you need to have a sit-down with him. If you or Claude want to talk to me, James has my number.

      Delete
  18. All of this kills me! Unless her remains are found, or she pops up some where, we will never know what happened on that night. And I honestly doubt, if either of those things happen, that we will learn the 100% truth. This case is so sad.

    ReplyDelete
  19. James Renner you are the lowest form of scumbag I have ever encountered! My father James Caccavaro did not I repeat did not say what you wrote and your a complete moron for bringing up old wounds from a family who suffered greatly... You have no right to say the lies you've printed! Your information is completely distorted! You have no idea what your saying and I suggest you remove the post of inaccurate information regarding what James Caccavaro said!!! Your a liar and leave that poor family alone my prayers are with the Murray's and stop your nasty lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since you were present during the conversation, could you please tell us what was actually said? I think we would all be very interested.

      Delete
    2. Annette, That is actually, word for word, what your father said. If you would like to speak directly, I'd be happy to talk. You can reach me at jameswrenner@gmail.com

      Delete
    3. Annette, Although I disagree on Mr. Renners approch at times, one thing I will agree on is that when he says its a ''fact'' he's got the goods to back it up.
      Im sure if you take him up on his offer & contact him, he will probable have a tape recording of the phone conversation with your Dad.
      After you talk with Renner, Please let us know if you still think his ''facts'' are Lies.

      Delete
    4. This would be all over the news if true. Someone is not telling the truth.

      Delete
    5. What exactly would be all over the news? I don't see anything groundbreaking.Interesting, yes.

      Delete
    6. Yeah, everything Mr. Renner says is true. Just like he put that video out warning MM that he was about to expose her. That he had tracked her down and was going to share with the world where she is if she does not come forward and speak to him. I appreciate what JR is was doing with this blog at first but I now feel he is attempting to sell a book and get internet traffic up on this site and guess what, its worked. There is a great quote from Marty in True Detective when he warns Rust of distorting the narrative because your obsessed with something being true. This is exactly what has happened, JR believes MM is alive and the Murrays know it. He will not listen to anything else and is not investigating any other option. His book will be a detailed story of how he thinks MM left to start a new life. Cant wait until he is proven wrong, even though I wish he was right. My instincts just tell me different. The facts of the case indicate different.

      Delete
    7. That jean caccavaro is alive now for several years. If really true it would have been big news long before now. Something doesn't add up.

      Delete
    8. Thanks for clarifying that and good point.

      Delete
    9. I believe that Jean Caccavaro is alive. I believe that her family would have no problem making a public appeal when she was missing, and then not let the public know she was alive and well because then it would be exposed that she was a "bad" woman who had abandoned her husband and children. If there is one thing I have learned from following missing persons' cases, it is that many families put image above all else.

      Delete
    10. Okay Rose image was not proirity in this case or put above all..Healing and prayer are what we are grateful for... I hope your happy for our ending and I hope the Murrays get the chance we did!

      Delete
    11. If you are her granddaughter, then I assume that you were not even born yet when she was located in 1984. No one here can find any mention of her being found in a newspaper from that year, yet newspapers were used to publicize her disappearance. The point I am making (and it would have nothing to do with you), is that your family seemingly had no problem making the disappearance a public issue, along with issuing a public appeal to find her. However, the public (though asked to assist), was never given the courtesy of being told she was found. It is, IMO, unethical to do that. If you ask someone for help, then it seems only good morals and good manners to let them know when their help is no longer needed. Doesn't that just make sense?

      P.S. Healing and prayer is fine, but that is PERSONAL to you and your family members. What I am requesting is a certain level of decency to the public (i.e. people you do not know) once you have asked for their help.

      Delete
    12. She was found and it was not 84 it was 85 and that I do know for a fact

      Delete
  20. Let me clarify Matt,I think the bashing of the Murray family is totally wrong.
    I don't belive a lot of what Renner writes on this Blog.
    What I do believe is that Renner did have that conversation with James C. and he probably has it on tape.
    I also believe that what was said about Maura & Fred in the conversaion is a crock of $hit.....Also what a great series ''True Detective's is!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Got it, Maura took the identity of Jean...

    ReplyDelete
  22. I dont see the point in people saying Mr. Renner is making up lies to sell books. For someone like Mr. Renner and his publisher, they cant possibly expect this to top the New York Times best seller list and then he can retire comfortably from the proceeds and never write or investigate again and therefore his credibility and investigative integrity dont matter. I think everyone knows he would be lucky to sell 10,000 copies of his book. Not trying to mock him or his talents at all, just trying to be realistic and dissect this motive that is being thrown around the blog. He is an investigative journalist. His credibility is his bread and butter. Unless I am super wrong and he outsells Steven King, I hardly think the risk to his career just to sell a few books merits him making fictitious statements just to drum up a little business. I just cant make sense of that motive he is being attributed. If you take that motive away you are left with someone who is either a) an evil liar who gets his kicks out of pissing off strangers on the internet b) incredibly stupid with no reliable instincts whatsoever c) human and fallible and has made some wrong guesses or d) hasnt told us about all the cards he holds. My gut instinct which happens to ahve always served me well, tells me it's a combination of c and d. Just my two cents for today :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This isn't completely directed at you chefsgirl. I was probably going to write something similar soon anyway.

      I don't think people are saying he is blatantly lying in order to sell books. Obviously some people think that. I don't think most though. What I see are people are questioning his latest approach to the case. That's how I see it. He seems to be spinning the case to fit his agenda. An agenda, that I believe, gives him a better, more interesting story to tell. =more sales/things to write about IMO. He seems dead set on this runaway theory and ignores all other possibilities. I think that's why people are upset.

      As I have said before, this case gives a person writing a book a lot of leeway to "infer" what they believe happened. That means a person like Renner can write a book with their theory (which is certainly plausible) and ignore others and can never be proven wrong (unless some new evidence is released and/or discovered). So he doesn't have to worry about losing credibility for his investigate journalism career by being labeled a liar. Since he is not lying. It's all theory. There is no physical evidence to point in either direction. That's why people are saying he should be investigating/ writing about all angles. He doesn't seem to be doing that. I don't think he's a horrible person though. It's his blog/book. He can write about whatever he wants. I wont buy the book though unless he changes his agenda to include more directions.

      And I have a question for him. If he is so confident she ran away, since that is all he seems to be writing about and was nearly positive she wasn't harmed by a stranger, why is he doing this? If Maura did run away from a bad situation in her old life to start a fresh, new life and is much better off today than in 2004 why would he want to blow her cover? Besides him 'solving the case' so he can line his pockets. Maura doesn't owe him any answers. He didn't know Maura, he's not related to Maura, not friends with the Murray family. Maura isn't a wanted criminal nor does he believe a criminal is responsible for her disappearance. If he's so certain she ran away because her life was so bad and she is living a better life now, why do this? This is an interesting case but Maura certainly doesn't owe anybody answers. If I were family or friend I would like some though but no the general public. I think that's pretty irresponsible of him to oust her for his own benefit and I would question his ethics just so he can make a buck by writing a book about it. I don't see him writing about abused wives who have gone into hiding and bring them back into the public eye. Obv. not the same thing but according to him similar.

      It's an interesting story and he wants to profit from it. This is America and that's his right to do that but he makes a living off writing about stories like this. He needs to keep them interesting so people keep reading his books.And all of this isn't directed at you chefsgirl because some people have said he's not doing this for profit. It's just because he's interested or likes the thrill. While yes I would agree he's interested in the case but he certainly has a financial interest in this case and has to make a good story for his book. To say otherwise is nonsense.

      Delete
    2. Excellent point of view Ryan..

      Delete
    3. I think you will all be pleasantly surprised by the course the book takes. It will be stocked in the nonfiction sections, btw.

      Delete
    4. No offense taken Ryan Rye :) I have the hide of a rhino so even if it was directed at me, I could take it! I never got the point of getting upset over somebody else having their own opinion. My favorite color is pink. I would not get mad at anybody for choosing another hue in our spectrum to favor. Variety is the spice of life!

      Delete
    5. That's a great attitude to have chefsgirl. I think more people should take that approach. Maybe politicians and the like? lol

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. James, I don't think anyone asked if it would be available in the fiction section? I could be wrong. It will be based on fact (so non-fiction, you're correct) and it's your book and with such little physical evidence you can add your beliefs about the case based on the circumstantial evidence. Nothing wrong with that. Something about non-fiction

      "...whose assertions and descriptions are believed by the author to be factual. These assertions and descriptions may or may not be accurate, and can give either a true or a false account of the subject in question; however, it is generally assumed that authors of such accounts believe them to be truthful at the time of their composition..."

      So even if the author believes their own assertions or beliefs to be true it does not necessarily make it fact. And it's still non-fiction. That's nothing new and Renner is not alone. I'm not bashing him for making assertions about the case. You kind of have too with such little evidence otherwise it could be a pretty short book Some people just don't like where the 'assertions' of this blog are going and want to make sure James is still taking a balanced approach to this case. Obviously James doesn't have to take a balanced approach. He can focus on whatever he wants (his blog, his rules), but I think what drew people to this blog in the first place was a comprehensive look at the case and people don't want that to change.

      Delete
  23. you go Chefsgirl!!..''C'' as well...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Never said he lied. He definitely bluffed at the idea that he had found MM right? I have respect for JR and will buy his book and continue to read his blog but I strongly agree with the tactic he used when heading to Canada. His blog, his right!! I don't think he is evil or intentionally misleading anyway but I don't think he is exaggerating and believes only one theory at the moment. I think something will happen in the coming years that will prove that MM is not alive and hiding. I wish Bruce Atwood did not pass as I am almost 100% sure that he never told all that he knows, but likely never would of.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I am glad to know people are reading my comments :) I dont have a horse in this race, as most of us dont which is the only reason I mentioned what I did...just trying to put some more objective material in the pot to consider, as others of you ahve done as well. I just sense that some of the overall tone of the comments lately seem to have lost sight of the one objective of this blog which is to help find what Maura's fate was/is.

    ReplyDelete
  26. And, just as I suspected. Annette Hayward, like every other person who comes to this blog and calls us and Renner "liars," absolutely refuses to back up any of her claims.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Rose, are you sure Annette Hayward refuse to back up her claim?
    I mean its only been a day,maybe she couldn't get a hole of James,unless she told you that?

    ReplyDelete
  28. She won't. They never do. Notice how the actual person who spoke with Renner is not commenting here. It is only someone who (I assume) was not part of the conversation and did not witness it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. To aaron Swartz.....

    Very good point Aaron.......He would be afraid of these BAD BOYZ..!

    ALSO....."Let's not forget about Russell" Claude/Jefferson

    John

    ReplyDelete
  30. I would just like to add that NONE of us know what is in JRs book, as we have not purchased nor read it yet. Also, NONE of us know what kind of information JR has that has not been posted on this website. What if he did find something in CA and is using it in his book and not on this blog? If he gives all his info and secrets away for free on his blog then obviously there is no reason to purchase his book. Maybe some of the things he says are far fetched and maybe they aren't, maybe he has a personal issue with FM and maybe he doesn't. Either you like this blog or you don't and the fact that we keep returning leads me to believe we all rather enjoy it. We do not have to agree with Jr or other readers and that's fine BUT we could use proper etiquette towards each other when discussing these things and not ARGUE our points. If you can't handle that or are so maddened by this blog that you must complain constantly then just quit visiting it, no one is holding a gun to your head to keep you hear!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mrs Forman, While I very much agree with your post, I also believe that most people have been adequate in their responses. People want to be heard and unfortunately for some it means to be really nasty and that is not only ugly but unproductive.
      There are some that might be family or friends with some involved in the conversation and it is understandable why tempers might flair up.

      Conversing with people with diff sides of views can be difficult on a forum. There is a lot of dancing going on in order to try and not offend others. There are people here because they care and are very interested in the case and there are also people here that are bored and probably socially lacking in the real world (see Topix). There are many that not only want to tear apart anything that James does ,but they like to tear apart anyone that sees things differently. They are like a group of thugs that pat each other on the back for each insult they give to people they don't even know.

      Delete
    2. I have had my differences with James but i also have been emailing him on a consistent basis since he started, I can only imagine how many emails he gets in a day yet he always gets back to me, I look forward to the book and appreciate the effort though cringe sometimes. Ya know though, a good investigator is not going to be Mr goodbar to get to the truth.

      Delete
  31. I would just like to say, that I for one, have enjoyed this blog very much. I enjoy reading the posts that Mr. Renner puts out there and I enjoy reading the different perspectives from posters. Mr. Renner is right, that the tone of this site has become very negative and toxic, like many other true crime blogs. I enjoy and appreciate Mr. Renner's insight and positions. Do I always agree with his thoughts? No, sometimes his thoughts add to my own thoughts, or change my ideas completely or I simply agree to disagree. It is disheartening to watch so many people attack him because of his positions and thoughts. Before you attack, no I am not a groopy of Mr. Renner's. I just think civility and decorum are important when you are a "guest" in someone's blog.

    I have been following the McStay family murder and have visited many blogs. There were a couple that were completely toxic and I did not agree with the message nor the tone of the site. So, guess what I did? I stopped visiting it. No one was making me go there and when it frustrated me to read what was written, I stopped reading it. If you dislike what Mr. Renner has to say, or are so violently opposed to his position, then find another site that suits your needs better. You are not being forced to read his thoughts or comments, but by spewing all this venom, you are forcing those of us that want to have an intellectual, courteous exchange read your venom and it is distracting and unappreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I'm the second wife of James Caccavaro and what is being said is wrong and if mr rennet is so right in my thoughts he's not I do now a little more the he does on jean Caccavaro and I think he shouldn't bring up the past for some family's I saw first hand what those children were going through and I think mr renner needs to leave sleeping dogs lye he has no right to do this to this family and has for Jean looking like that missing girl far from it you need glasses she looks nothing like her

    ReplyDelete
  33. Just watched the story for the second time on ID channel. Did anyone ever look more further into tge bus driver that said he stopped and asked her if she was OK? I think they need to investigate him. Just sayin...
    Jackie
    Ohio

    ReplyDelete
  34. I just finished watching the investigation on ID channel too, and I got on the internet to see if she had been found because the original air date was about a year after her disappearance. Personally I think she faced my biggest fear, being kidnapped

    ReplyDelete
  35. From what she packed she was probally just wanting to get away and clear her mind, that's why she bought alchohal and she was probally going to return, but she was abducted.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I will hold to the idea that Maura is alive until the day some real evidence proves otherwise. I understand being in the desperate position to want to run awayh and just start a new life, leaving everyone and everything behind. I think James is way out of line here. Calling Maura a "ho" is overboard. None of us know that for certain, and frankly, with her inner demons and self-esteem issues, maybe she thought sex was the best attention she could get. Maybe it was an escape for her. Maybe she felt it was all she had to offer. Maybe she was so sexually abused that it was all she knew, and she was easily coerced because of this. Sexual abuse victims do often become promiscous. Does this make her a bad person? No. Is it relevant? Only slightly. We cannot play "blame Maura" here. And, the only real relevance is that this pattern of behavior might show one of many reasons why she decided to disappear.

    ReplyDelete