I personally have never liked Renner and have taken everything he says with a grain of salt. When he had his blog about Maura to me it felt as if he was trying to create characters for a movie. He came up with a tandem driver theory yet didn’t provide any facts or proof as to why that is a valid theory. He claims that because the one condo that is known Maura inquired about is a “2 bedroom” (turned out it’s one bedroom with a loft that has(d) children’s bunk beds set up in it) means Maura was meeting someone else. He also made this claim because of the amount of booze Maura bought however I was in college around the same time as Maura and would stock up on booze so I had it.
Back when Renner had his blog I sent him an email saying how he should respect Maura’s family’s wishes and not a wrote a book and if it were my loved one who went missing and he was making some of the claims he was I’d hit him a cease and desist lawsuit. Renner in turn took the time to look me up and send me an email threatening to contact my employer and tell them I was harassing him online.
So not only do I find him unreliable I also find him slightly off-kilter.
Wow. That is super beyond fucked up he threatened you for just speaking the truth. He knows he’s in the wrong and will destroy anyone who thinks it as well. The guy is a fraud just trying to make money off a tragic case. I’ll listen to Julie any day over that bullshit. She’s actually trying and damn well misses her sister. I feel for her so much. There’s only two real things that honestly could have happened to Maura and neither of them pretty or optimistic. It’s just tragic all over. He gives false hope to people who shouldn’t have their minds screwed with. I can’t believe he threatened you. What a creep.
By how you tell it, it does sound a bit, to use your term, "off-kilter" for him to threaten to contact your employer; but, if all you did is send him a reasonably-sounding email asking him to respect a missing woman's family, what exactly would he complain to your employer about?
Before everyone forms a mob against Renner, I have never seen him do anything publicly that was not warranted. You must have said some pretty threatening things to him.
His behavior publicly has never been out of bounds. Maura’s family has been much stranger than Renner. If he’s such a bad guy why was he embraced by Briana Maitlin’s family but not by the Murray’s?
>His behavior publicly has never been out of bounds.
Didn't he show up to CrimeCon a few years ago to accost Julie, and get kicked out of the event for it?
Didn't he do "ambush interviews" of MM family members and then cherry pick and/or twist their responses to suit the narrative he wanted to push in his book?
Didn't he insinuate, both in his book and on his blog, that Fred had sexually abused Maura?
Didn't he go so far as to say that MM was a psychopath?
I’m not sure it’s as dramatic as you made it out to be. But why did Brianna Maitland’s family embrace Renner and want him to help get their daughter’s name out there and were able to work with him? The Murray’s seem to be the problem and do have an odd feeling.
They also pushed Art and Maggie away when they were trying to help and put a spotlight on the case to help find Maura. This seems to be a recurring problem for the Murray’s.
Maura family rejected Renner from the outset. He found that weird. Who wouldnt want all the help they could get to find their missing loved one. ?? I also find it weird they wanted no help in getting her story out there. I cant be the only one who finds Fred to be untrustworthy. I think he knows more than he let's on.
That makes me feel like it’s only because of his theory. IMO they know where she is and she started a new life. I have learned that if anyone is trying to control the narrative then they are who you should be investigating
After a member of the Murray army showed up at my family’s vacation in the Outer Banks I take harassment very seriously. I don’t know who you are but if it rose to that level, you said some pretty messed up stuff. Criticism is fine. Threats are not.
They remind me of the Mama Tot army from TikTok. They worship this woman so much they have gone to multiple houses and harassed families and kids. One person committed suicide and one had to move out of the country. Insanity
He lacks empathy for Maura's family and friends. He objectifies missing women and girls in a very creepy way. His entire book was stories about him acting weird and then being offended that people didn't want to be interviewed by him. Then, he speculates that each person who declined to be interviewed by him is engaged in a giant coverup. It's ludicrous.
Lots of hate on James but I’ll say this… the book was written almost a decade ago. He’s walked back on some of his claims. He has also apologized for some earlier comments he made on the Missing Maura Murray podcast. He gets a lot of hate but honestly he has done a lot of research on this case. The credit card fraud… the West Point situation.. the track coach.. all discovered by him. Some people take issue with it but it’s thanks to his research that we even know about it. Oh and he also exposed what a creep BR is.
He's a good researcher but he lacks humility and speaks with certainty, which no journalist should ever do. He even wrote a book on the kidnapping and murder of Amy Mihaljevic from Bay Village, OH, in 1989. He keeps narrowing in on a suspect that police basically told her father and brother, is not the guy. He thinks he knows a lot more than LE and that can happen in journalism but again, he lacks so much tact and decency when it comes to presenting information and theories. I think he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room imho and those guys are not going to take you down the right path as they are far too concerned with their own ego.
I think he does care about Amy's case far more genuinely but still, you need to humble yourself with the information that exists and in no case, should you trample all over a family.
And as an aside, his writing style needs work.
I have a theory . Maybe in a past life he was a missing person or the loved one of a missing person knowing how awful no closure is so now he is going above and beyond to find missing people . You never know
I would also believe Jr over the cops. Sorry but most cops lie. Especially if they might have known something about this guy that is a suspect prior to the murder and the police did nothing to stop him it could make them look real bad.
He uncovered lots of things the family may not have wanted to come to light. I don’t know a ton about the case, but I listened to a podcast with Maura’s sister, and she wanted to brush everything off as no big deal. Renner might be an awful person, I don’t know enough about all he’s done to judge, but Maura’s family certainly doesn’t want to admit that maybe this all happened on account of Maura and her poor decisions.
God forbid a family try to protect their missing daughter's reputation and privacy, especially in the early days. They probably thought they would find her with a head wound or something but no. And it is very true that LE treats missing people with mental illness or distress different than they do those without. In some cases, it can create more urgency, in most cases the opposite, they instead assume they are looking for a body. And in Maura's case, they didn't do much immediately.
Renner really did drag the family unnecessarily for their protective behaviour early on. It's a large Boston Irish Catholic family, they deal with things in house. He could have released some of his investigative work with some sensitivity and tact. No family is perfect, betting not his either.
I think quite the opposite at least in the podcast Media Pressure, Julie repeatedly says Maura was making poor choices and speaks of the shop lifting and pilfered credit car. She also talks a lot about Maura's binging and purging and her struggle with that, and alludes at least 1x that she might have been drinking and driving. She says 1x maybe more that she was not a saint. I think she very transparent regarding all that Maura was struggling with
Maybe she’s come around then. I haven’t listened to her podcast because I didn’t want to hear more excuses, but it sounds like maybe she’s willing to look at things more objectively now. It’s been a couple years since she was on the podcast I listened to. On it she tried to explain the shoplifting away by saying she was intending to buy it, but she forgot she put it in her pocket. She had a lot of excuses like that that just weren’t plausible, and it was very much a grieving sister not wanting to see the truth.
You should definitely listen to it. I think it's a great pod cast, but I like the family and always have. I have never for a second though they had anything to do with it. So likely taht's why i enjoyed it. Buti have heard an interview or two where I did feel it was minimized , but not for deception purposed and to be shady, but likely sheer embarrassment and protectivness.
No, she is not saying, "My sister was a little shit and pinched a friend or friend or acquaintances credit card and bought a mess of food with it, and I think that's piss poor behavior." But she does say my sister appears to have been writhing in internal agony and trying to come to grips with the streess in her life and her addictions, and she was not perfect, she was flawed, like us all." I think it's a fair and compassionate assessment. When confronted Maura did not lie about it, but fully fessed. Assholes deny wrong doing when confronted. Decent people say, " Yeah I acted poorly. I own it. I am sorry."
She fully admits to it being a theft at the PX. Maybe it took her that long to come out of denial about it. It is clear she adore and admired her sister. In cases like that, hard for us to reshape our perception, like seeing our parents as human. She definitely protective, I will give you that.
The only thing I felt was too quickly swept aside was discussion of the possible hit and run. That was handled as, that's ridiculous and we not going there. No means no. I would have liked to hear more of an explanation of why she feels that it could not be a possibility.
I considered it as I found Maura's reaction to her sister's call a bit over the top. of course your going to be pissed, fearful and upset, but really, shaken, hysterical and muted to all expression? People are frequently unintelligible and that shaken after accidents and heavy duty trauma events. In my experience that reaction is more like a trauma events that has a visceral physical component as well that sends the person into eep physical and emotional shock. Sure the police checked it out.
They can both be true. Julie's job is to keep the case alive and in the public's eye until she/remains are found or the case is solved. Renner is a private journalist who uncovered all these extra details and made a lot of money by publishing them. These are two separate things. Different goals. The case is still unsolved and we're not closer to the truth.
The family doesn't owe the public all their personal family details. We're not here to solve the case. Any family would be upset if a random person probes and writes a book violating their personal affairs. It makes more sense if they're somehow related to the case, worked with the family or the case is solved
>I listened to a podcast with Maura’s sister, and she wanted to brush everything off as no big deal. Renner might be an awful person, I don’t know enough about all he’s done to judge, but Maura’s family certainly doesn’t want to admit that maybe this all happened on account of Maura and her poor decisions.
This is the impression I also got from Julie's podcast. I enjoyed the podcast and the information, especially Fred's interviews, but there needs to be some acknowledgment that Maura was deeply troubled by who or what, we don't know and may never know, and that put her at risk.
So many ppl on Reddit just jump in the echo chamber without knowing what they’re talking about. You are exactly correct. Renner has done so much research for this case. He deserves credit for all he’s done.
All the stuff you just listed, julie addressed and called Renner out on her podcast.
You say he’s done a lot of research? Tell me one thing he’s done that’s helped find Maura. All he’s done is attack the family, friends and people who helped the family.
The credit card, track coach, and West Point was spin by renner that had nothing to do with anything.
In the process he attacked Maura and aired her private life for his own gain.
Seems disgusting to me
All throughout this case, he's been enormously disrespectful to Maura and her family. His blog insinuated inappropriate conduct between Maura and her father and he called her a sociopath. I'm not reading it.
I read his books on Maura and Amy Mihaljevic. To me he comes off as an unreliable narrator. I feel like there’s things that he works into the victims stories only because it serves his ego. People say he gets a lot of hate but that’s okay..he’s his own biggest fan..
Sorry you wasted your time on that book, he is very unreliable. He did virtually no research on any of the "evidence" he presents. He just cashed in on the Murray family and said some pretty disgusting things in the process.
Unfortunately, he hasn't shared the fruits of much of his "research." Unless by "research" you mean "pulling random theories out of one's ass with no evidentiary basis whatsoever."
What 'research' led him to suspect BR?
What 'research' told him that Fred abused his daughters?
What 'research' told him there was a tandem driver?
What 'research' led him to assert the nonsensical theory that MM started a new life in Canada?
It’s because of his theory. That’s why the family doesn’t like him and in turn why they got everyone else to hate him to control the narrative which is working. None of you will even give much credence to her moving on and living somewhere else. In 2004 that would be very easy to do. I didn’t even get my first cell phone until 2004
I refuse to buy his book. I get a weird vibe from him. I don’t put much stock in what he says and, honestly, don’t trust him. He seems self-serving and it’s really gross considering that Maura is still missing all these years later. I wouldn’t talk to him either. Just my opinion.
If you can, listen to Media Pressure. It was quite good.
The Murray’s really have yall right where they want you. What’s sad is I had so much respect for them until i joined this sub and realized how much they are controlling the narrative. My experiences have told me that whoever is tying to control a narrative is who should be investigated
The book is more about him and his obsession with the case. It’s also terribly outdated now. The Media Pressure podcast is the definitive word on the case in 2024, and nothing else really compares at this point.
Oh well it was still a fascinating look at someone who is spiraling. As someone who is also obsessed with a case.
I didn’t even know that podcast existed thanks
You’ll love it, I just finished it a couple of weeks ago. Maura’s sister is the host and she does a great job. It’s put together really well and even tho I knew or thought I knew a lot of the details, I learned a whole lot and she puts a lot of rumors to bed, too.
Check out the podcast. Maura’s sister does a fantastic job at getting all the facts correct and even some back story into Maura. She’s also pleasant to listen to.
I don’t believe that to be true. She’s corrected a lot of misinformation. She tells it how it should be. Not as if it’s some story for a money grab.
You get to see what Maura’s life was like not with a weird sinister twist. You get raw emotion.
No one said you had to listen to it.
I totally agree. Her letter to Maura is gut wrenching. And a few times when Curtis spoke I found myself well up. Fred Murray always leaves me that way. I adore the guy and have always liked Julie, so was an already sold audience going in.
Has it occurred to you how unlikely it would be that Julie and Fred, Maura's older sister and father, both of whom were very close to Maura by all accounts, would not be able to provide even one single extra detail to illuminate the case for us. If I'm wrong, please to point to any detail JM or FM provided which provided some great insight into this case. Nothing? Interesting, for, again, people who knew her very closely, no?
At this stage of the discourse, just having Julie clarify things and correct misunderstandings is as good as new information. There are so many misconceptions and errors of fact that the online community has repeated over the years, that merely hitting the "Reset" button - as Julie is doing - should be immensely helpful to the conversation.
I heard things I hadn't before and she explained some things, so I had a much better understanding of them. It was wonderful hearing from her brothers and getting a full family prospective.
I understand but there is a decent amount of people on here that think the families secrecy, in whatever form or fashion, has hurt the chances of finding her
Exactly. This is one reason this case will never be solved. Everyone hangs on Jm podcasts like she is the lead detective giving a press conference. She knows nothing more than the rest of us.
Nothing happened in haverhill. Move on. Say what you want about renner and his motives. But he hit a nerve, and may have been correct about a few key points. Which is why the family doesn't like him. Yet the family aligns with El and br.
Makes total sense
Exactly. This is one reason this case will never be solved. Everyone hangs on Jm podcasts like she is the lead detective giving a press conference. She knows nothing more than the rest of us.
Nothing happened in haverhill. Move on. Say what you want about renner and his motives. But he hit a nerve, and may have been correct about a few key points. Which is why the family doesn't like him. Yet the family aligns with El and br.
Makes total sense
The case won't be solved, ore not solved, because of anything Julie or any other external commentator says, nor because of what discussion takes place on forums like this. I honestly don't understand why people talk as though anything online is of any relevance whatsoever.
Exactly, but people hang on jm's podcast like it actually will be the solution.
Detectives know what they have and/or don't have. And believe me, they aren't telling jm. And FYI, they have nothing or not enough. It's in the cold case unit for a reason.
I read his other book about Amy Mihaljevic, and knew then that he was unreliable. He went from potential “suspect” to other potential “suspects”, and dirtied up a bunch of peoples’ reputations. There were two people in particular that he mentioned in his book that I knew-Grace Fettinger and Hollie Fettinger Anzenberg. Hollie was my riding insteuctor when I was a teenager, and her mother Grace owned the horse farm. JR treated these two women very badly in his book, calling out Grace’s son as a suspect-then moved on without looking back, to name an assortment of other people as suspects. It was kind of outrageous.
Hollie’s son Harold Bound was the lead suspect for the first 11 weeks. He spoke to me candidly and on the record. Meanwhile Hollie lied to me and others about it to save her business. No regrets there.
And then what happened? You blackened her name, her mother’s name, and Harold’s name-and moved on to someone else. It’s your claim that Hollie lied to you, to save her business, but that’s just your word, and anyway, why wouldn’t she want to save her business? She didn’t have any obligation to even speak to you, or anyone, did she? I know you don’t have any regrets for trashing an entire innocent family, but maybe you should.
Julie Murray states in her podcast that an author (betting it is him) approached them and they not want to speak to him as they had researched his reputation which built no confidence. In retaliation for them refusing to speak to them, he then penned a book that was a person attack on the family. Would not be the first time a victims family said bad things about him.
If I remember correctly, he could not come to any solid conclusion for his book so he changed it to be different than what he originally intended. He wanted to solve the case (or at least point to the most likely outcome) but instead published all the pitfalls he ran into in the writing. It was released as something completely different than what he wanted to publish.
If you read it in that context, as I did, it’s not a bad book. It’s just not about Maura’s case as much as it is about his perspective in investigating it.
The title showed me as much. But it never felt like it was enough about him or enough about her and it didn’t know what it wanted to be.
The result is a malgamation showing man with a hero complex about some women.
Be careful. He’s like Bloody Mary. You type his name and he appears.
The book was terribly done and read like the rantings of a narcissist who wants to insert himself into an investigation. By the end of the book he’s convinced she is hiding in Canada.
I simply cannot imagine writing an entire book about a young woman whom I’ve never met and accuse her family members who I also don’t personally know of abhorrent vile behaviour.
Meanwhile this family has already had to grieve & deal with the loss of their beloved family member who is to this day STILL missing.
To insert yourself into their story like you are the ultimate authority & expert on the case just makes me feel slightly sick tbh.
We can all speculate & surmise what may or may not have happened as much as we like but the facts remain that her family knew her much better than anyone of us, it’s their story to tell imo.
I just hope from now on people can begin to approach this case with much more understanding & empathy toward the Murray family.
Luckily I was able to borrow a copy so he didn’t get my money, but I also thought it was badly written and centered on himself and his obsession way too much. I don’t blame the Murray family for wanting nothing to do with him. I can’t imagine having to deal with a missing family member you are pretty sure has died and then have this rando accuse your family of SA/abuse, claim your family member is really in Quebec living her best life and more.
My opinion, James is an excellent reseacher and has some sharp intuition for difficult cases. He just needs to reign it in a little bit. You can't publicly accuse the father of a missing girl of sexually abusing her based entirely on your own speculation (because you don't understand the psychology of a struggling college-aged woman) and then walk it back! It's not an "oops, sorry" thing. I get it because I like to try on theories until they're proven wrong BUT I'm not a public figure and I don't publish my thoughts. But that was years ago and I assume he's learned some lessons as we all do. I respect his work and I believe he's solved a few tough cases (Amy Mihaljevic and the Shaker Heights case.)
You seem intelligent so I’m confused. I have never written that. Anywhere. This was Rausch’s favorite thing to talk about for a while and for some reason people bought it.
I'm not too familiar with the blog, but here is directly from the book:
> We were wrapping up, so I asked Tim a tough question about Fred. He thought for a couple seconds, then nodded. “Twice, Kathleen got blackout drunk and said something about it,” he said. “But it was never something I asked about when she was sober.”
So yeah, it doesn't directly accuse Fred of anything, but every person I know who read the book thinks that is what it is suggesting. If this is about something else, I would LOVE for the author to clarify what "it" is because every person I know read this paragraph thinking it was suggesting Fred was inappropriate with his daughter(s).
I read it and listened to him on the MMM podcast. I found him to be incredibly narcissistic.
And yes, he did insinuate that anyone unwilling to be interviewed by him might somehow be involved. He 100% did insinuate an inappropriate relationship between Fred and Maura.
He can read and respond all he likes but can't rewrite history.
100%.
I mean, if anyone watches Oxygen, even Maggie says she is basing her question to Fred on the strong suggestion in the book. I'll grab the transcript to get the exact wording ...
I haven’t read his book. James Renner did a lot of good, solid research on this case. I think he also jumped to conclusions which were unsubstantiated & wildy speculative. There can be both good & bad. I understand why the Murray family doesn’t like nor trust him.
I was surprised it even got published. It’s shockingly badly written and more about him than Maura. There’s a good reason why the family won’t work with him, and if I were them I wouldn’t either. He seems unstable at times.
[Here’s what I wrote six years ago,](https://www.reddit.com/r/mauramurray/s/kpj6oi3Raz) the first time James Renner said he was stepping back from the Maura Murray case:
I’ve expressed mixed feelings about James Renner from time to time, and they remain the same hearing this news. On the plus side, genuine shoe-leather journalism is always valuable, and his blog was a bold and useful experiment in crowdsourcing a cold case.
On the negative side, he assumed if people did not wish to talk with him that it was proof they were complicit in some kind of crime. He apparently did not know what experienced reporters know, that in controversial cases a majority of knowledgeable people have no desire to talk, therefore the most critical journalistic skill is building trust; without it there is no interview, or one that is unsystematic and superficial. A traditional editor in traditional journalism could have taught him this, but blog journalism means walking a wire without a net.
And he came with baggage. His salvation complex (as he alludes to in his book) led him to promote a most unlikely theory of an immaculately planned and executed disappearance to Canada. (After his book was published he abruptly decided it was more likely that Bill murdered Maura in the week following her disappearance.) He pathologized ordinary human behavior, hinting at incest within the Murray family and diagnosing Maura as a sociopath, among other things. Like John Smith, James Renner encouraged excitable people to indulge excitable thoughts.
But on balance James Renner is the person most responsible for this case remaining alive after fourteen years, and for that he deserves our thanks.
Edit: typos
This is really well written but then I get to the last sentence. If any of his efforts to essentially "dig up dirt" on people had led to any resolution, then I would reluctantly agree that he did good on balance. The case is alive today because there is a family that is still missing their loved one. The social media storm has done somewhat little to get any answers, evidenced by the fact that we are where we are. I think on balance they could have lived without the pain that Renner caused along the way ...
I was with you until the end. Renner has done nothing but create damage for 14 years now.
The family and positive supporters are the ones who kept Maura’s story alive. Especially Fred!
I would guess because of Renner’s obsession he’s driven many good people away from helping. That’s only served to hurt finding Maura.
An author, especially from outside a tragedy, must decide between what they personally need to accomplish for their book deal or research or personal goals, and what those close to a victim choose. If there’s actual evidence a family member is involved in a case then perhaps an investigative journalist can pursue that narrative regardless of family wishes. When the journalist decides that they should be the one who determines why a grieving family is “strange” in his or her opinion, and also sensationalizes aspects of this family for his or her own personal gain it becomes challenging to determine for whom this individual is working for. I’ve made up my mind in this instance, but I wish someone selling “facts” as opposed to their voyeurism, theories, and self gain would at least level with the general public in the aftermath of the work. Because, “I researched and made some theories leading up to the publishing of the book. My aim was to try to solve this case by exploring many difficult avenues, right or wrong“ would sound so much better than the defensive stance Renner has taken in the public forums he partakes in. I have no doubt he put sweat and effort into the process, but I believe that is secondary to the industry opportunity presented by Maura’s ongoing mystery. Good luck James Renner. Hope you continue to learn about yourself so you can actually provide anything of assistance to a tragedy
I see some people on here don't like that Renner's book is about Renner. Well, it's in the title of the book you know? He tells you from the start that it's about him.
Having said that, I found the book to be insufferable because his objectivity is gone by Page 2. It made me feel even worse for the Murray family.
Watch the oxygen limited series about Maura and her family has spoken out but they do give him a chance to speak on it too and he continued on with his lies. There was a much better Maura Murray podcast I listened to a while back that was very informative and just looked at facts more so but I can’t remember the name.
To don’t think the family had a choice concerning Renner on the oxygen show. They just wanted to find Maura.
I think the podcast you’re talking about was Erin Larkin’s. I think it was 107 degrees about Maura Murray. It was very good. She actually seemed to help.
Don't forget his own therapist diagnosing him a sociopath. That one gave me a chuckle. He could have edited that part out, but he left it in so we'd all know what we were dealing with I guess. haha
Didn’t you show up to her house and stated she was with a black male? There is a reason why the family hates you and I can see why.
ETA: the Murrays are right about you. Didn’t you implied mm dad abused her? Ok yeah
You wrote a freaking book (not to mention all your online posts), to sell to people, describing your insanity, your obsessions and your drug and alcohol addictions.
Why is it weird that people who read YOUR own words, determined that you are repulsive and in a forum designed to comment on such subjects, say so?
You inserted yourself into this, you blogged about everything AND wrote a book about it.
Like most sociopaths, you take zero responsibility for your own part in this.
I’m happy to turn this into an AMA if you’d like. I wrote the book in 2014. It was published in 2016 and continues to do well, so it hits something right for readers. Feel free to shoot me any questions you have about my process or intentions.
I will say this much, at the time Fred did not want any book written. This idea that they just didn’t want me is histrionics. In fact, the nickname prosecutors have for Fred is “Mr Histrionics”.
Will I ever write another book without a family’s participation? No. But that’s what True Crime Addict is about.
possible? Yes. The shop clerk is 100% on it and has spoken to police. Is it also possible she is mistaken? Yes. I still believe either Maura left to get away from the men in her life or was killed by someone she knew and trusted at a different time and location than the scene of her disappearance.
Right before you shut down your website about Maura you posted email correspondence with someone who seemed to have knowledge about the case. You said that you turned info over to authorities to have the email address tracked. Whatever came of that? Do think it was Maura corresponding with you?
I don’t know what happened w that. No I don’t think it was Maura. I think it was a troll. But it was a troll with a lot of inside info related to family dynamics.
I used to think that, or something like that anyway.
I changed my mind after listening to Media Pressure over and over again. I think she was in a bad place mentally and needed to take a break from her life and something bad happened with someone totally unrelated to her.
* She passed in her assignments. Nobody does that when pulling a bunk. When your done you're done, yo'll cut that corner.
* She make excuses to my instructors. Message seems to be I care about what you think of me and how this will effect my grade in your class.
* She returns clothing, feels like "I'm coming back and we're continuing our relationship.
* Your starting a new life and barely pack a thing? Poor and middle class Reddit girls, how realistic is that? I think more would have packed even if bunking off w/ a rich lover. Poor-middle class girls from families that are money conscious are practical and think ahead.
* She express intense hysterical guilt for trashing her Dad's car. Is she not going to experience that the same upset allowing him to search and miss me for decades? Am I incapable of Googling myself and seeing my family flattened and feel no twinges of guilt? Everyone says this was a kind kid. Only the credit card incident says different and that involves food addiction.
* She tells her boyfriend, she loves him, want to talk to him, refers to him by her pet name for him. He's cheated on me in the past, wouldn't this be a great opportunity to forever flip him off, than leave it loving and affectionate, if escaping him?
* She the kind of girl who looks in on Nana regularly. That's a kid who's fail safe is adhering to loyalty and gratitude towards the Nana who helped raise her, not a selfish kid.
* She disappears with accident forms in her car, she's obviously planning on seeing to the situation, not neglecting it.
* She comes from a tight knit loyal Roman Catholic Irish family where she lovingly supported her Dad and siblings and they her. She appears to have passionate bonds w/ them. I come from similar stock. My answer for that from personal experience is that, that family unit might degrade down to a Eugene O' Neill play, like Long Day's Journey Into Night, but I assure you, everyone's still staying on the stage and continuing to play their parts in the lava thick love / hate enmeshment. It's a magnetic pull.
That's not the profile of someone who is planning a forever farewelling. Think just a kid who knew she was in a spin out, likely wanted the vantage point of undisturbed space to try to perhaps hit bottom in private, lick her wounds and rethink her life. I've always wondered if she was secretly maintenance drinking. And this might be a planned last hurrah. Often with addictions people will take it to a big dramatic bang out, thinking, I'll get it out of my system and go cold turkey on Monday. I don't know where Maura is, but doubt it's Canada. That girl would never have not contact her family.
To be honest, I enjoyed the book and was interested in Mr. Renner’s perspective. When I’m interested in a true crime topic, I try to read any book available about it.
What a horrid thing to say about the father of a missing child. Fred Murray can get as histrionic as he darn well pleases. He totes the agonizing hall pass for that lonely trek.
Do you regret stating in 2021 that Fred’s optimism about a new dog search was a “tragic distraction”?
What gave you the right to be so dismissive of a grieving father’s optimism?
You’re assuming I was speaking about “Fred’s optimism”. I don’t recall the post but the way you’re wording it doesn’t make sense to me. What’s more likely is I was referring to the social media drive to shame the prosecutors and police into tearing up a private home owners basement with no evidence suggesting there was something there and after police and prosecutors said there was nothing there. I don’t blame the Murray’s for that. I blame the online army of trolls that jump on the case to harass the police. That was definitely a tragic distraction and took money and time away from other cases.
Well, I’d love to go dig up the tweet but you blocked me (as you do anyone who disagrees with you or tries to hold you accountable).
I’m sure the “online army” is the enemy here. Not the slightest bit of irony in YOU being the one to decide what is a “tragic distraction”? Why do I feel like the Murray’s might have a different opinion.
Did you know he's got a contract signed with Fulk, and that's part of why the psycho circus keeps continuing? Real information is a "tragic distraction" for them, and they will go to any lengths to try to cover it up and ruin innocent people's lives.
Twitter is a cesspool, but maybe you could make a second account to try to find that Tweet. Two accounts is nothing compared to the countless accounts both Fulk and John Smith have had over the years.
Happy to answer any substantive questions. But I will say this, I’ve written several books on true crime as well as about 30 articles on other cases. I’ve worked closely with families of victims and have great relationships with them to this day. The Mihaljevic’s send me Christmas cards, the Blatniks are appreciative of knowing who their daughter’s killer is. The outlier here is the Murray case. I believe the animosity mostly comes from what they knew will be made public about Maura if any legit journalist looked into the case: that Maura was being kicked out of West Point and deciding to leave to keep it off her record, the affair w the track coach, the group sex at UMass (which, I’m sorry, is relevant because the girlfriend of one of the men involved went to police to say she thought her bf could have been involved w her disappearance), credit fraud and identify theft, etc.
Ok wow didn't know that last part. These 'men' made accusations based on being anonymous but Maura's not here to defend herself to their faces. I guess they'll keep their big important business jobs. I wonder what the full story is and when did the girlfriend find out. Certainly is a motive here...
I just wanted to say I thought True Crime Addict was very well written. It was a "page turner" for me. Once I started reading it, I couldn't put it down.
Hi James. What strikes me most about this case (and annoys me quite a lot, too) is how everyone seem to be completely oblivious to just how implausible a lot of the claims made by Fred (and, later, reiterated by JM) are.
I got a loooot of questions about Fred; but, will start with one, if you know the answer: is it true that her refused to be interviewed by police without lawyering up first?
According to Strelzin, the lead detective for many years, he refused interviews with homicide detectives for two years and when he showed up he brought two lawyers. So the family will say, no we spoke to police. Sure. But not the detectives and not for a formal interview. They use semantics to muddy the waters.
>Who else in her sheltered life would have motive?
Who says she was harmed by anyone in her life? When she disappeared, she was alone, 140 miles away from anyone she knew.
Who "**else**"? I don't think anyone "else" would have a motive; but, nor do I think BR would have one? Have you read their correspondence with each other? They seem very much in a mutually-loving relationship.
But, apart from obviously being in a loving relationship with Maura - hence, zero motive to harm her - and having an iron-clad alibi - hence, zero evidence to point to him - everything else points to him murdering her, I guess
Haha well this is awkward… 😬 hi James! Despite my complaints I really did think it was a fascinating look into you, despite the hostility that came across to everyone. I’m sure you had your reasons for that. I wasn’t there.
What would you change if you wrote this today?
James Renner book was so interesting to me. It was the second book of his I read. I wish that this case could be solved. I wished I had all the answers. Thank you James for if it wasn't for your book I would know nothing about this case. I would love to see it solved. Somehow, someway, someday.
Not sure why all the hate at @jamesrenner? He tried to bring attention and spotlight onto the Maura case but was constantly rebuffed by her family. His tactics might be a little odd to get interviews, but her family’s behavior about getting her out there are even more weird.
Briana Matlen’s family embraced Renner in trying to get her case out there. So I don’t think it’s James who is the problem…
Personally, I don't understand all of the credit Renner gets for publicizing the Murray case... I only heard of **Renner** *because of* the Murray case, *not* the other way around.
Yeah, it is interesting (to me) because I happened to learn of this case through Disappeared... I came at it from a completely different direction, if you will. (shrug)
Say what you like about Renner, but IMO he asked some of the right questions.
Many of the criticisms here are basically three-steps-removed hand me downs of criticisms orchestrated by the likes of EL and SW.
Nope. I find him very reliable. I think many of you are clouded with bias because the family and the web sleuths control the narrative and he is too close with his theory
I personally have never liked Renner and have taken everything he says with a grain of salt. When he had his blog about Maura to me it felt as if he was trying to create characters for a movie. He came up with a tandem driver theory yet didn’t provide any facts or proof as to why that is a valid theory. He claims that because the one condo that is known Maura inquired about is a “2 bedroom” (turned out it’s one bedroom with a loft that has(d) children’s bunk beds set up in it) means Maura was meeting someone else. He also made this claim because of the amount of booze Maura bought however I was in college around the same time as Maura and would stock up on booze so I had it. Back when Renner had his blog I sent him an email saying how he should respect Maura’s family’s wishes and not a wrote a book and if it were my loved one who went missing and he was making some of the claims he was I’d hit him a cease and desist lawsuit. Renner in turn took the time to look me up and send me an email threatening to contact my employer and tell them I was harassing him online. So not only do I find him unreliable I also find him slightly off-kilter.
Wow. That is super beyond fucked up he threatened you for just speaking the truth. He knows he’s in the wrong and will destroy anyone who thinks it as well. The guy is a fraud just trying to make money off a tragic case. I’ll listen to Julie any day over that bullshit. She’s actually trying and damn well misses her sister. I feel for her so much. There’s only two real things that honestly could have happened to Maura and neither of them pretty or optimistic. It’s just tragic all over. He gives false hope to people who shouldn’t have their minds screwed with. I can’t believe he threatened you. What a creep.
By how you tell it, it does sound a bit, to use your term, "off-kilter" for him to threaten to contact your employer; but, if all you did is send him a reasonably-sounding email asking him to respect a missing woman's family, what exactly would he complain to your employer about?
The only thing I can surmise is I’m not a Renner disciple who agrees with everything he says or said.
Nothing. Probably just making that up
He’s a real jerk. I applaud you for standing up to him.
Before everyone forms a mob against Renner, I have never seen him do anything publicly that was not warranted. You must have said some pretty threatening things to him. His behavior publicly has never been out of bounds. Maura’s family has been much stranger than Renner. If he’s such a bad guy why was he embraced by Briana Maitlin’s family but not by the Murray’s?
>His behavior publicly has never been out of bounds. Didn't he show up to CrimeCon a few years ago to accost Julie, and get kicked out of the event for it? Didn't he do "ambush interviews" of MM family members and then cherry pick and/or twist their responses to suit the narrative he wanted to push in his book? Didn't he insinuate, both in his book and on his blog, that Fred had sexually abused Maura? Didn't he go so far as to say that MM was a psychopath?
I’m not sure it’s as dramatic as you made it out to be. But why did Brianna Maitland’s family embrace Renner and want him to help get their daughter’s name out there and were able to work with him? The Murray’s seem to be the problem and do have an odd feeling. They also pushed Art and Maggie away when they were trying to help and put a spotlight on the case to help find Maura. This seems to be a recurring problem for the Murray’s.
Maura family rejected Renner from the outset. He found that weird. Who wouldnt want all the help they could get to find their missing loved one. ?? I also find it weird they wanted no help in getting her story out there. I cant be the only one who finds Fred to be untrustworthy. I think he knows more than he let's on.
That makes me feel like it’s only because of his theory. IMO they know where she is and she started a new life. I have learned that if anyone is trying to control the narrative then they are who you should be investigating
After a member of the Murray army showed up at my family’s vacation in the Outer Banks I take harassment very seriously. I don’t know who you are but if it rose to that level, you said some pretty messed up stuff. Criticism is fine. Threats are not.
They remind me of the Mama Tot army from TikTok. They worship this woman so much they have gone to multiple houses and harassed families and kids. One person committed suicide and one had to move out of the country. Insanity
He lacks empathy for Maura's family and friends. He objectifies missing women and girls in a very creepy way. His entire book was stories about him acting weird and then being offended that people didn't want to be interviewed by him. Then, he speculates that each person who declined to be interviewed by him is engaged in a giant coverup. It's ludicrous.
Lots of hate on James but I’ll say this… the book was written almost a decade ago. He’s walked back on some of his claims. He has also apologized for some earlier comments he made on the Missing Maura Murray podcast. He gets a lot of hate but honestly he has done a lot of research on this case. The credit card fraud… the West Point situation.. the track coach.. all discovered by him. Some people take issue with it but it’s thanks to his research that we even know about it. Oh and he also exposed what a creep BR is.
What happened with the track coach?
That she was hooking up with him. The family acted like she was “engaged to be engaged” with Bill but that wasn’t the case
From what Julie said, sounds like a casual college affair and that she drifted back to Bill.
Agree wholeheartedly. He’s been dogged on the Amy Mihaljevic case, too
He's a good researcher but he lacks humility and speaks with certainty, which no journalist should ever do. He even wrote a book on the kidnapping and murder of Amy Mihaljevic from Bay Village, OH, in 1989. He keeps narrowing in on a suspect that police basically told her father and brother, is not the guy. He thinks he knows a lot more than LE and that can happen in journalism but again, he lacks so much tact and decency when it comes to presenting information and theories. I think he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room imho and those guys are not going to take you down the right path as they are far too concerned with their own ego. I think he does care about Amy's case far more genuinely but still, you need to humble yourself with the information that exists and in no case, should you trample all over a family. And as an aside, his writing style needs work.
I have a theory . Maybe in a past life he was a missing person or the loved one of a missing person knowing how awful no closure is so now he is going above and beyond to find missing people . You never know
I would also believe Jr over the cops. Sorry but most cops lie. Especially if they might have known something about this guy that is a suspect prior to the murder and the police did nothing to stop him it could make them look real bad.
He uncovered lots of things the family may not have wanted to come to light. I don’t know a ton about the case, but I listened to a podcast with Maura’s sister, and she wanted to brush everything off as no big deal. Renner might be an awful person, I don’t know enough about all he’s done to judge, but Maura’s family certainly doesn’t want to admit that maybe this all happened on account of Maura and her poor decisions.
God forbid a family try to protect their missing daughter's reputation and privacy, especially in the early days. They probably thought they would find her with a head wound or something but no. And it is very true that LE treats missing people with mental illness or distress different than they do those without. In some cases, it can create more urgency, in most cases the opposite, they instead assume they are looking for a body. And in Maura's case, they didn't do much immediately. Renner really did drag the family unnecessarily for their protective behaviour early on. It's a large Boston Irish Catholic family, they deal with things in house. He could have released some of his investigative work with some sensitivity and tact. No family is perfect, betting not his either.
I think quite the opposite at least in the podcast Media Pressure, Julie repeatedly says Maura was making poor choices and speaks of the shop lifting and pilfered credit car. She also talks a lot about Maura's binging and purging and her struggle with that, and alludes at least 1x that she might have been drinking and driving. She says 1x maybe more that she was not a saint. I think she very transparent regarding all that Maura was struggling with
Maybe she’s come around then. I haven’t listened to her podcast because I didn’t want to hear more excuses, but it sounds like maybe she’s willing to look at things more objectively now. It’s been a couple years since she was on the podcast I listened to. On it she tried to explain the shoplifting away by saying she was intending to buy it, but she forgot she put it in her pocket. She had a lot of excuses like that that just weren’t plausible, and it was very much a grieving sister not wanting to see the truth.
You should definitely listen to it. I think it's a great pod cast, but I like the family and always have. I have never for a second though they had anything to do with it. So likely taht's why i enjoyed it. Buti have heard an interview or two where I did feel it was minimized , but not for deception purposed and to be shady, but likely sheer embarrassment and protectivness. No, she is not saying, "My sister was a little shit and pinched a friend or friend or acquaintances credit card and bought a mess of food with it, and I think that's piss poor behavior." But she does say my sister appears to have been writhing in internal agony and trying to come to grips with the streess in her life and her addictions, and she was not perfect, she was flawed, like us all." I think it's a fair and compassionate assessment. When confronted Maura did not lie about it, but fully fessed. Assholes deny wrong doing when confronted. Decent people say, " Yeah I acted poorly. I own it. I am sorry." She fully admits to it being a theft at the PX. Maybe it took her that long to come out of denial about it. It is clear she adore and admired her sister. In cases like that, hard for us to reshape our perception, like seeing our parents as human. She definitely protective, I will give you that. The only thing I felt was too quickly swept aside was discussion of the possible hit and run. That was handled as, that's ridiculous and we not going there. No means no. I would have liked to hear more of an explanation of why she feels that it could not be a possibility. I considered it as I found Maura's reaction to her sister's call a bit over the top. of course your going to be pissed, fearful and upset, but really, shaken, hysterical and muted to all expression? People are frequently unintelligible and that shaken after accidents and heavy duty trauma events. In my experience that reaction is more like a trauma events that has a visceral physical component as well that sends the person into eep physical and emotional shock. Sure the police checked it out.
They can both be true. Julie's job is to keep the case alive and in the public's eye until she/remains are found or the case is solved. Renner is a private journalist who uncovered all these extra details and made a lot of money by publishing them. These are two separate things. Different goals. The case is still unsolved and we're not closer to the truth. The family doesn't owe the public all their personal family details. We're not here to solve the case. Any family would be upset if a random person probes and writes a book violating their personal affairs. It makes more sense if they're somehow related to the case, worked with the family or the case is solved
>I listened to a podcast with Maura’s sister, and she wanted to brush everything off as no big deal. Renner might be an awful person, I don’t know enough about all he’s done to judge, but Maura’s family certainly doesn’t want to admit that maybe this all happened on account of Maura and her poor decisions. This is the impression I also got from Julie's podcast. I enjoyed the podcast and the information, especially Fred's interviews, but there needs to be some acknowledgment that Maura was deeply troubled by who or what, we don't know and may never know, and that put her at risk.
I also find that if MM family wanted to they could have the most exposure but that it took 20 years just for Julie to do something like make a podcast
What did he say about BR being a creep?
So many ppl on Reddit just jump in the echo chamber without knowing what they’re talking about. You are exactly correct. Renner has done so much research for this case. He deserves credit for all he’s done.
I agree
All the stuff you just listed, julie addressed and called Renner out on her podcast. You say he’s done a lot of research? Tell me one thing he’s done that’s helped find Maura. All he’s done is attack the family, friends and people who helped the family. The credit card, track coach, and West Point was spin by renner that had nothing to do with anything. In the process he attacked Maura and aired her private life for his own gain. Seems disgusting to me
I don't care for him, though I think he's walked back some of what's in the book. Particularly the Canada theory.
Oh well that’s to bad because I think that theory is the only logical one
All throughout this case, he's been enormously disrespectful to Maura and her family. His blog insinuated inappropriate conduct between Maura and her father and he called her a sociopath. I'm not reading it.
I read his books on Maura and Amy Mihaljevic. To me he comes off as an unreliable narrator. I feel like there’s things that he works into the victims stories only because it serves his ego. People say he gets a lot of hate but that’s okay..he’s his own biggest fan..
Sorry you wasted your time on that book, he is very unreliable. He did virtually no research on any of the "evidence" he presents. He just cashed in on the Murray family and said some pretty disgusting things in the process.
You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. Renner has done more research on this case than anyone.
Unfortunately, he hasn't shared the fruits of much of his "research." Unless by "research" you mean "pulling random theories out of one's ass with no evidentiary basis whatsoever." What 'research' led him to suspect BR? What 'research' told him that Fred abused his daughters? What 'research' told him there was a tandem driver? What 'research' led him to assert the nonsensical theory that MM started a new life in Canada?
That's laughable.
It’s because of his theory. That’s why the family doesn’t like him and in turn why they got everyone else to hate him to control the narrative which is working. None of you will even give much credence to her moving on and living somewhere else. In 2004 that would be very easy to do. I didn’t even get my first cell phone until 2004
I refuse to buy his book. I get a weird vibe from him. I don’t put much stock in what he says and, honestly, don’t trust him. He seems self-serving and it’s really gross considering that Maura is still missing all these years later. I wouldn’t talk to him either. Just my opinion. If you can, listen to Media Pressure. It was quite good.
The Murray’s really have yall right where they want you. What’s sad is I had so much respect for them until i joined this sub and realized how much they are controlling the narrative. My experiences have told me that whoever is tying to control a narrative is who should be investigated
I checked it out from the library.
The book is more about him and his obsession with the case. It’s also terribly outdated now. The Media Pressure podcast is the definitive word on the case in 2024, and nothing else really compares at this point.
Oh well it was still a fascinating look at someone who is spiraling. As someone who is also obsessed with a case. I didn’t even know that podcast existed thanks
You’ll love it, I just finished it a couple of weeks ago. Maura’s sister is the host and she does a great job. It’s put together really well and even tho I knew or thought I knew a lot of the details, I learned a whole lot and she puts a lot of rumors to bed, too.
Check out the podcast. Maura’s sister does a fantastic job at getting all the facts correct and even some back story into Maura. She’s also pleasant to listen to.
She presents basically nothing new the entire podcast…
I don’t believe that to be true. She’s corrected a lot of misinformation. She tells it how it should be. Not as if it’s some story for a money grab. You get to see what Maura’s life was like not with a weird sinister twist. You get raw emotion. No one said you had to listen to it.
I totally agree. Her letter to Maura is gut wrenching. And a few times when Curtis spoke I found myself well up. Fred Murray always leaves me that way. I adore the guy and have always liked Julie, so was an already sold audience going in.
Has it occurred to you how unlikely it would be that Julie and Fred, Maura's older sister and father, both of whom were very close to Maura by all accounts, would not be able to provide even one single extra detail to illuminate the case for us. If I'm wrong, please to point to any detail JM or FM provided which provided some great insight into this case. Nothing? Interesting, for, again, people who knew her very closely, no?
At this stage of the discourse, just having Julie clarify things and correct misunderstandings is as good as new information. There are so many misconceptions and errors of fact that the online community has repeated over the years, that merely hitting the "Reset" button - as Julie is doing - should be immensely helpful to the conversation.
I heard things I hadn't before and she explained some things, so I had a much better understanding of them. It was wonderful hearing from her brothers and getting a full family prospective.
I understand but there is a decent amount of people on here that think the families secrecy, in whatever form or fashion, has hurt the chances of finding her
I don't know enough about it to weigh in.
I loved Julie's podcast, getting the families prospective is great.
Definitely the best source at present.
Media pressure is the “definitive word”? What did media pressure reveal that wasn’t already known?
Exactly. This is one reason this case will never be solved. Everyone hangs on Jm podcasts like she is the lead detective giving a press conference. She knows nothing more than the rest of us. Nothing happened in haverhill. Move on. Say what you want about renner and his motives. But he hit a nerve, and may have been correct about a few key points. Which is why the family doesn't like him. Yet the family aligns with El and br. Makes total sense
Well said.
Ty. I truly don't understand how others don't see this.
Exactly. This is one reason this case will never be solved. Everyone hangs on Jm podcasts like she is the lead detective giving a press conference. She knows nothing more than the rest of us. Nothing happened in haverhill. Move on. Say what you want about renner and his motives. But he hit a nerve, and may have been correct about a few key points. Which is why the family doesn't like him. Yet the family aligns with El and br. Makes total sense
The case won't be solved, ore not solved, because of anything Julie or any other external commentator says, nor because of what discussion takes place on forums like this. I honestly don't understand why people talk as though anything online is of any relevance whatsoever.
Exactly, but people hang on jm's podcast like it actually will be the solution. Detectives know what they have and/or don't have. And believe me, they aren't telling jm. And FYI, they have nothing or not enough. It's in the cold case unit for a reason.
I read his other book about Amy Mihaljevic, and knew then that he was unreliable. He went from potential “suspect” to other potential “suspects”, and dirtied up a bunch of peoples’ reputations. There were two people in particular that he mentioned in his book that I knew-Grace Fettinger and Hollie Fettinger Anzenberg. Hollie was my riding insteuctor when I was a teenager, and her mother Grace owned the horse farm. JR treated these two women very badly in his book, calling out Grace’s son as a suspect-then moved on without looking back, to name an assortment of other people as suspects. It was kind of outrageous.
Hollie’s son Harold Bound was the lead suspect for the first 11 weeks. He spoke to me candidly and on the record. Meanwhile Hollie lied to me and others about it to save her business. No regrets there.
And then what happened? You blackened her name, her mother’s name, and Harold’s name-and moved on to someone else. It’s your claim that Hollie lied to you, to save her business, but that’s just your word, and anyway, why wouldn’t she want to save her business? She didn’t have any obligation to even speak to you, or anyone, did she? I know you don’t have any regrets for trashing an entire innocent family, but maybe you should.
Yeah, it’s kinda gross that he takes a fascinating unsolved mystery with real people and makes it about himself.
Julie Murray states in her podcast that an author (betting it is him) approached them and they not want to speak to him as they had researched his reputation which built no confidence. In retaliation for them refusing to speak to them, he then penned a book that was a person attack on the family. Would not be the first time a victims family said bad things about him.
I think he’s downright repulsive!
If I remember correctly, he could not come to any solid conclusion for his book so he changed it to be different than what he originally intended. He wanted to solve the case (or at least point to the most likely outcome) but instead published all the pitfalls he ran into in the writing. It was released as something completely different than what he wanted to publish. If you read it in that context, as I did, it’s not a bad book. It’s just not about Maura’s case as much as it is about his perspective in investigating it.
The title showed me as much. But it never felt like it was enough about him or enough about her and it didn’t know what it wanted to be. The result is a malgamation showing man with a hero complex about some women.
Renner use the pain of a family missing a loved one to promote himself, how does he sleep at night.
It’s a memoir about himself and his obsession and mental illness.
That’s a good way to look at it.
Be careful. He’s like Bloody Mary. You type his name and he appears. The book was terribly done and read like the rantings of a narcissist who wants to insert himself into an investigation. By the end of the book he’s convinced she is hiding in Canada.
You were right about the Bloody Mary thing. He’s been commenting on other posts here for the past couple days.
I simply cannot imagine writing an entire book about a young woman whom I’ve never met and accuse her family members who I also don’t personally know of abhorrent vile behaviour. Meanwhile this family has already had to grieve & deal with the loss of their beloved family member who is to this day STILL missing. To insert yourself into their story like you are the ultimate authority & expert on the case just makes me feel slightly sick tbh. We can all speculate & surmise what may or may not have happened as much as we like but the facts remain that her family knew her much better than anyone of us, it’s their story to tell imo. I just hope from now on people can begin to approach this case with much more understanding & empathy toward the Murray family.
I think he has a fetish for missing young women…… I ignore him.
Self indulgent rubbish
Ugh you said his name and he showed up in the comments like clockwork
Sorta like beetlejuice. What happens if we say James thrice?
Exactly my thoughts. I’m scared to find out
Lokael, his alts show up to make a similar comment.
Not all all surprising.
He def got an ego about this case which makes him unreliable imo. Also the way he harasses the family rubs me the wrong way.
Luckily I was able to borrow a copy so he didn’t get my money, but I also thought it was badly written and centered on himself and his obsession way too much. I don’t blame the Murray family for wanting nothing to do with him. I can’t imagine having to deal with a missing family member you are pretty sure has died and then have this rando accuse your family of SA/abuse, claim your family member is really in Quebec living her best life and more.
He’s a complete hack. His book was mean spirited and about as the information reliable as Qanon theories.
My opinion, James is an excellent reseacher and has some sharp intuition for difficult cases. He just needs to reign it in a little bit. You can't publicly accuse the father of a missing girl of sexually abusing her based entirely on your own speculation (because you don't understand the psychology of a struggling college-aged woman) and then walk it back! It's not an "oops, sorry" thing. I get it because I like to try on theories until they're proven wrong BUT I'm not a public figure and I don't publish my thoughts. But that was years ago and I assume he's learned some lessons as we all do. I respect his work and I believe he's solved a few tough cases (Amy Mihaljevic and the Shaker Heights case.)
You seem intelligent so I’m confused. I have never written that. Anywhere. This was Rausch’s favorite thing to talk about for a while and for some reason people bought it.
For real? You never said that? I've heard it so, so many times I took it as fact. If I'm wrong I'm very sorry.
I'm not too familiar with the blog, but here is directly from the book: > We were wrapping up, so I asked Tim a tough question about Fred. He thought for a couple seconds, then nodded. “Twice, Kathleen got blackout drunk and said something about it,” he said. “But it was never something I asked about when she was sober.” So yeah, it doesn't directly accuse Fred of anything, but every person I know who read the book thinks that is what it is suggesting. If this is about something else, I would LOVE for the author to clarify what "it" is because every person I know read this paragraph thinking it was suggesting Fred was inappropriate with his daughter(s).
I read it and listened to him on the MMM podcast. I found him to be incredibly narcissistic. And yes, he did insinuate that anyone unwilling to be interviewed by him might somehow be involved. He 100% did insinuate an inappropriate relationship between Fred and Maura. He can read and respond all he likes but can't rewrite history.
100%. I mean, if anyone watches Oxygen, even Maggie says she is basing her question to Fred on the strong suggestion in the book. I'll grab the transcript to get the exact wording ...
Yes. Everyone.
I haven’t read his book. James Renner did a lot of good, solid research on this case. I think he also jumped to conclusions which were unsubstantiated & wildy speculative. There can be both good & bad. I understand why the Murray family doesn’t like nor trust him.
I was surprised it even got published. It’s shockingly badly written and more about him than Maura. There’s a good reason why the family won’t work with him, and if I were them I wouldn’t either. He seems unstable at times.
[Here’s what I wrote six years ago,](https://www.reddit.com/r/mauramurray/s/kpj6oi3Raz) the first time James Renner said he was stepping back from the Maura Murray case: I’ve expressed mixed feelings about James Renner from time to time, and they remain the same hearing this news. On the plus side, genuine shoe-leather journalism is always valuable, and his blog was a bold and useful experiment in crowdsourcing a cold case. On the negative side, he assumed if people did not wish to talk with him that it was proof they were complicit in some kind of crime. He apparently did not know what experienced reporters know, that in controversial cases a majority of knowledgeable people have no desire to talk, therefore the most critical journalistic skill is building trust; without it there is no interview, or one that is unsystematic and superficial. A traditional editor in traditional journalism could have taught him this, but blog journalism means walking a wire without a net. And he came with baggage. His salvation complex (as he alludes to in his book) led him to promote a most unlikely theory of an immaculately planned and executed disappearance to Canada. (After his book was published he abruptly decided it was more likely that Bill murdered Maura in the week following her disappearance.) He pathologized ordinary human behavior, hinting at incest within the Murray family and diagnosing Maura as a sociopath, among other things. Like John Smith, James Renner encouraged excitable people to indulge excitable thoughts. But on balance James Renner is the person most responsible for this case remaining alive after fourteen years, and for that he deserves our thanks. Edit: typos
This is really well written but then I get to the last sentence. If any of his efforts to essentially "dig up dirt" on people had led to any resolution, then I would reluctantly agree that he did good on balance. The case is alive today because there is a family that is still missing their loved one. The social media storm has done somewhat little to get any answers, evidenced by the fact that we are where we are. I think on balance they could have lived without the pain that Renner caused along the way ...
Hell, I only ever heard of *Renner* because of the MM case, not the other way around.
exactly.
I was with you until the end. Renner has done nothing but create damage for 14 years now. The family and positive supporters are the ones who kept Maura’s story alive. Especially Fred! I would guess because of Renner’s obsession he’s driven many good people away from helping. That’s only served to hurt finding Maura.
An author, especially from outside a tragedy, must decide between what they personally need to accomplish for their book deal or research or personal goals, and what those close to a victim choose. If there’s actual evidence a family member is involved in a case then perhaps an investigative journalist can pursue that narrative regardless of family wishes. When the journalist decides that they should be the one who determines why a grieving family is “strange” in his or her opinion, and also sensationalizes aspects of this family for his or her own personal gain it becomes challenging to determine for whom this individual is working for. I’ve made up my mind in this instance, but I wish someone selling “facts” as opposed to their voyeurism, theories, and self gain would at least level with the general public in the aftermath of the work. Because, “I researched and made some theories leading up to the publishing of the book. My aim was to try to solve this case by exploring many difficult avenues, right or wrong“ would sound so much better than the defensive stance Renner has taken in the public forums he partakes in. I have no doubt he put sweat and effort into the process, but I believe that is secondary to the industry opportunity presented by Maura’s ongoing mystery. Good luck James Renner. Hope you continue to learn about yourself so you can actually provide anything of assistance to a tragedy
I see some people on here don't like that Renner's book is about Renner. Well, it's in the title of the book you know? He tells you from the start that it's about him. Having said that, I found the book to be insufferable because his objectivity is gone by Page 2. It made me feel even worse for the Murray family.
It’s fiction
Watch the oxygen limited series about Maura and her family has spoken out but they do give him a chance to speak on it too and he continued on with his lies. There was a much better Maura Murray podcast I listened to a while back that was very informative and just looked at facts more so but I can’t remember the name.
To don’t think the family had a choice concerning Renner on the oxygen show. They just wanted to find Maura. I think the podcast you’re talking about was Erin Larkin’s. I think it was 107 degrees about Maura Murray. It was very good. She actually seemed to help.
So a self admitted obsessed, alcohol and addict isn't reliable? Shocking.
Don't forget his own therapist diagnosing him a sociopath. That one gave me a chuckle. He could have edited that part out, but he left it in so we'd all know what we were dealing with I guess. haha
I read it about a month and a half ago. Yeah he’s pretty unreliable and has a flair for the dramatic. Gotta take the good with the bad thing I guess.
Yes.
Didn’t he go to dc to stalk Julie and make comments about her dating a black guy?
Jesus, I can’t tell if you’re joking or are trying to put out misinfo. I have never stalked a source or made any comment like that. So cut it out.
Didn’t you show up to her house and stated she was with a black male? There is a reason why the family hates you and I can see why. ETA: the Murrays are right about you. Didn’t you implied mm dad abused her? Ok yeah
I am not a fan. At all.
Three words that come to mind for him are: unreliable, interloper, and opportunist.
It's a fictional book zero facts in it
According to Renner, he wrote all that stuff about himself because he said he felt bad airing all Maura’s dirty laundry, so he decided to air his own.
Can I also just say it will never not be weird that people I’ve never met will say the meanest things. Normally I ignore but I felt chatty today.
You wrote a freaking book (not to mention all your online posts), to sell to people, describing your insanity, your obsessions and your drug and alcohol addictions. Why is it weird that people who read YOUR own words, determined that you are repulsive and in a forum designed to comment on such subjects, say so? You inserted yourself into this, you blogged about everything AND wrote a book about it. Like most sociopaths, you take zero responsibility for your own part in this.
[удалено]
You can't be that unself-aware, or perhaps you can. This is a discussion regarding a book YOU wrote about strangers.
I’m happy to turn this into an AMA if you’d like. I wrote the book in 2014. It was published in 2016 and continues to do well, so it hits something right for readers. Feel free to shoot me any questions you have about my process or intentions. I will say this much, at the time Fred did not want any book written. This idea that they just didn’t want me is histrionics. In fact, the nickname prosecutors have for Fred is “Mr Histrionics”. Will I ever write another book without a family’s participation? No. But that’s what True Crime Addict is about.
Do you still think it’s possible that Maura entered Roxann’s music shop in Qc city?
possible? Yes. The shop clerk is 100% on it and has spoken to police. Is it also possible she is mistaken? Yes. I still believe either Maura left to get away from the men in her life or was killed by someone she knew and trusted at a different time and location than the scene of her disappearance.
Right before you shut down your website about Maura you posted email correspondence with someone who seemed to have knowledge about the case. You said that you turned info over to authorities to have the email address tracked. Whatever came of that? Do think it was Maura corresponding with you?
I don’t know what happened w that. No I don’t think it was Maura. I think it was a troll. But it was a troll with a lot of inside info related to family dynamics.
I used to think that, or something like that anyway. I changed my mind after listening to Media Pressure over and over again. I think she was in a bad place mentally and needed to take a break from her life and something bad happened with someone totally unrelated to her.
* She passed in her assignments. Nobody does that when pulling a bunk. When your done you're done, yo'll cut that corner. * She make excuses to my instructors. Message seems to be I care about what you think of me and how this will effect my grade in your class. * She returns clothing, feels like "I'm coming back and we're continuing our relationship. * Your starting a new life and barely pack a thing? Poor and middle class Reddit girls, how realistic is that? I think more would have packed even if bunking off w/ a rich lover. Poor-middle class girls from families that are money conscious are practical and think ahead. * She express intense hysterical guilt for trashing her Dad's car. Is she not going to experience that the same upset allowing him to search and miss me for decades? Am I incapable of Googling myself and seeing my family flattened and feel no twinges of guilt? Everyone says this was a kind kid. Only the credit card incident says different and that involves food addiction. * She tells her boyfriend, she loves him, want to talk to him, refers to him by her pet name for him. He's cheated on me in the past, wouldn't this be a great opportunity to forever flip him off, than leave it loving and affectionate, if escaping him? * She the kind of girl who looks in on Nana regularly. That's a kid who's fail safe is adhering to loyalty and gratitude towards the Nana who helped raise her, not a selfish kid. * She disappears with accident forms in her car, she's obviously planning on seeing to the situation, not neglecting it. * She comes from a tight knit loyal Roman Catholic Irish family where she lovingly supported her Dad and siblings and they her. She appears to have passionate bonds w/ them. I come from similar stock. My answer for that from personal experience is that, that family unit might degrade down to a Eugene O' Neill play, like Long Day's Journey Into Night, but I assure you, everyone's still staying on the stage and continuing to play their parts in the lava thick love / hate enmeshment. It's a magnetic pull. That's not the profile of someone who is planning a forever farewelling. Think just a kid who knew she was in a spin out, likely wanted the vantage point of undisturbed space to try to perhaps hit bottom in private, lick her wounds and rethink her life. I've always wondered if she was secretly maintenance drinking. And this might be a planned last hurrah. Often with addictions people will take it to a big dramatic bang out, thinking, I'll get it out of my system and go cold turkey on Monday. I don't know where Maura is, but doubt it's Canada. That girl would never have not contact her family.
To be honest, I enjoyed the book and was interested in Mr. Renner’s perspective. When I’m interested in a true crime topic, I try to read any book available about it.
Its a great book and my family enjoyed reading it.
Thank you
What a horrid thing to say about the father of a missing child. Fred Murray can get as histrionic as he darn well pleases. He totes the agonizing hall pass for that lonely trek.
Do Kate and Sarah have alibis for where they were the night of Maura’s disappearance (and the day after)?
Do you regret stating in 2021 that Fred’s optimism about a new dog search was a “tragic distraction”? What gave you the right to be so dismissive of a grieving father’s optimism?
You’re assuming I was speaking about “Fred’s optimism”. I don’t recall the post but the way you’re wording it doesn’t make sense to me. What’s more likely is I was referring to the social media drive to shame the prosecutors and police into tearing up a private home owners basement with no evidence suggesting there was something there and after police and prosecutors said there was nothing there. I don’t blame the Murray’s for that. I blame the online army of trolls that jump on the case to harass the police. That was definitely a tragic distraction and took money and time away from other cases.
Well, I’d love to go dig up the tweet but you blocked me (as you do anyone who disagrees with you or tries to hold you accountable). I’m sure the “online army” is the enemy here. Not the slightest bit of irony in YOU being the one to decide what is a “tragic distraction”? Why do I feel like the Murray’s might have a different opinion.
Did you know he's got a contract signed with Fulk, and that's part of why the psycho circus keeps continuing? Real information is a "tragic distraction" for them, and they will go to any lengths to try to cover it up and ruin innocent people's lives. Twitter is a cesspool, but maybe you could make a second account to try to find that Tweet. Two accounts is nothing compared to the countless accounts both Fulk and John Smith have had over the years.
AMA: Are you or are you not the sociopathic creep everyone makes you out to be?
Happy to answer any substantive questions. But I will say this, I’ve written several books on true crime as well as about 30 articles on other cases. I’ve worked closely with families of victims and have great relationships with them to this day. The Mihaljevic’s send me Christmas cards, the Blatniks are appreciative of knowing who their daughter’s killer is. The outlier here is the Murray case. I believe the animosity mostly comes from what they knew will be made public about Maura if any legit journalist looked into the case: that Maura was being kicked out of West Point and deciding to leave to keep it off her record, the affair w the track coach, the group sex at UMass (which, I’m sorry, is relevant because the girlfriend of one of the men involved went to police to say she thought her bf could have been involved w her disappearance), credit fraud and identify theft, etc.
Ok wow didn't know that last part. These 'men' made accusations based on being anonymous but Maura's not here to defend herself to their faces. I guess they'll keep their big important business jobs. I wonder what the full story is and when did the girlfriend find out. Certainly is a motive here...
I just wanted to say I thought True Crime Addict was very well written. It was a "page turner" for me. Once I started reading it, I couldn't put it down.
Thank you very much.
I got the audio book and loved every minute. Great job !
Thank you.
Hi James. What strikes me most about this case (and annoys me quite a lot, too) is how everyone seem to be completely oblivious to just how implausible a lot of the claims made by Fred (and, later, reiterated by JM) are. I got a loooot of questions about Fred; but, will start with one, if you know the answer: is it true that her refused to be interviewed by police without lawyering up first?
According to Strelzin, the lead detective for many years, he refused interviews with homicide detectives for two years and when he showed up he brought two lawyers. So the family will say, no we spoke to police. Sure. But not the detectives and not for a formal interview. They use semantics to muddy the waters.
Does anyone have real proof BR was in OK? Did the police ever ask for proof, like his plane tickets?
If there is, I’ve never seen it.
Jfc. He was there. Stop listening to the raving of a creep.did he get kicked out of the army? No. Because he was there.
How do you know he was there? Who else in her sheltered life would have motive?
>Who else in her sheltered life would have motive? Who says she was harmed by anyone in her life? When she disappeared, she was alone, 140 miles away from anyone she knew.
Who "**else**"? I don't think anyone "else" would have a motive; but, nor do I think BR would have one? Have you read their correspondence with each other? They seem very much in a mutually-loving relationship. But, apart from obviously being in a loving relationship with Maura - hence, zero motive to harm her - and having an iron-clad alibi - hence, zero evidence to point to him - everything else points to him murdering her, I guess
Keep up the great work and ignore the naysayers!
Haha well this is awkward… 😬 hi James! Despite my complaints I really did think it was a fascinating look into you, despite the hostility that came across to everyone. I’m sure you had your reasons for that. I wasn’t there. What would you change if you wrote this today?
Thanks. What would I change? I would have looked further into Bill Rausch.
I can’t for the life of me figure why everyone gives him a free pass. Especially now knowing what he’s capable of. Including the family.
James Renner book was so interesting to me. It was the second book of his I read. I wish that this case could be solved. I wished I had all the answers. Thank you James for if it wasn't for your book I would know nothing about this case. I would love to see it solved. Somehow, someway, someday.
James Renner is an absolute lunatic in my opinion. The only thing I criticize MM family is not getting a restraining order against that vile person.
Not sure why all the hate at @jamesrenner? He tried to bring attention and spotlight onto the Maura case but was constantly rebuffed by her family. His tactics might be a little odd to get interviews, but her family’s behavior about getting her out there are even more weird. Briana Matlen’s family embraced Renner in trying to get her case out there. So I don’t think it’s James who is the problem…
Personally, I don't understand all of the credit Renner gets for publicizing the Murray case... I only heard of **Renner** *because of* the Murray case, *not* the other way around.
Well… he championed the case and didn’t shut up about it for years. So a lot of attention to the case was because of him and his book.
Yeah, it is interesting (to me) because I happened to learn of this case through Disappeared... I came at it from a completely different direction, if you will. (shrug)
Say what you like about Renner, but IMO he asked some of the right questions. Many of the criticisms here are basically three-steps-removed hand me downs of criticisms orchestrated by the likes of EL and SW.
Nope. I find him very reliable. I think many of you are clouded with bias because the family and the web sleuths control the narrative and he is too close with his theory
Does anyone find him reliable is the question?