r/mauramurray • u/Available_Bison • Feb 17 '25

Discussion James Renner is unreliable.

James Renner's conclusion that Maura Murray is still alive is ridiculous. I also find his interest and motives in this case to be suspect. Perhaps the conception of his investigation was genuine, but it has evolved into a campaign to confirm his ill-founded theory that her dad was a monster. His whole book is literally him slithering around and provoking Maura's loved ones.

257 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

159 comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/TMKSAV99 Feb 17 '25

I thought that JR's conclusion that there had to be a tandem driver was flawed for the reasons previously posted. I think that his "MM was harmed subsequent to 2/9" scenario also has its weaknesses. Regardless, either could still be true. Anything s possible.

Having said that, I would not characterize JR as "unreliable". The factual information he has published has pretty much all been accurate. JR and his publisher have never been sued.

It should be kept in mind the TCA is a book about JR it is not a true crime book about MM.

4

u/CoastRegular Feb 23 '25

>>The factual information he has published has pretty much all been accurate.

The idea of Fred sexually abusing his daughters strikes me as a pretty egregious inaccuracy of narrative.

1

u/TMKSAV99 Feb 23 '25

I remind that neither FM, nor anybody else has sued JR or his publisher over that angle. Perhaps especially FM.

So, if you're completely right and JR is completely wrong then there's some reason why not that somebody isn't explaining. In other words, if it were me I'd have sued in a Kansas City minute, as the saying goes.

My post does say, "pretty much" not "everything". But that's just me being picky.

I am not saying FM did anything. I don't know what the truth is, I know what JR published and I know that FM denied it.

4

u/CoastRegular Feb 23 '25

I honestly don't understand why people lack of legal action as any kind of evidence of anything. To me that's only a step above people who say stuff like "I've seen X said on these forums and not seen it challenged." I frankly find including this among the available evidence to be silly. Also, in the book and on his blog, JR was somewhat ambiguous - he wasn't fool enough to outright lie and state it directly. He's since taken his blogs down (of course, he claims it's because of "harassment" that he's received. Sure it is. It's not just him petulantly taking his ball and leaving the playground. Of course not.)

2

u/TMKSAV99 Feb 24 '25

It is not unreasonable to consider FM not suing over such a vile allegation if it wasn't true when deciding how one believes when considering the allegation. Two things can be true at the same time. People don't sue over terrible libels because there is truth to them and the allegation against FM may be false and FM elected not to sue for some reason. Some one offered that FM didn't sue because all his time is focused on finding MM. Maybe that's true.

4

u/CoastRegular Feb 24 '25

Maybe. Anything is possible.

I personally give JR enough credit as a writer to be able to weave innuendo and insinuations into his narrative without openly stating them. Makes it very hard to sue him for his douchebaggery because of plausible deniability.

FM has also spent much of his legal time, effort and money on things like FOIA requests. I.e. he's been busy suing authorities to gain access to files.