HUH? To Stalk or not to stalk.

Some rather odd comments about the issue of stalking on the internet have been circulating on the blogs lately.
These complaints claim that the vary act of visiting a PUBLIC Twitter account that has a PUBLIC link to a blog that deals mainly with True Crime cases is Stalking.

That is probably the dumbest thing if not the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

It seems to me that if person A: is concerned over relatives tracking her down over a so called "tax case," she would have been well advised not to write the serious accusations against them in a PUBLIC BLOG.

This same person A would also have been well advised NOT to keep setting up the large number of various web sites where she exposes herself to be "researched" by those she has had issues with in the past, long before any of us ever heard of each other.

The same goes for person B: SHE chose to put up the Twitter account, the blog site, the Facebook site and who knows how many others OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. NOT ONE of these sites are private or even require passwords or permissions to enter.

On the flip side I have been told that someone going into My past, ie: Obituaries, Driver's license checks, requests for my UNLISTED phone numbers, and so on and so forth is NOT STALKING!

Well as I said in my Hypocrite article, MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

You cannot have it both ways. IF your claim of being stalked, ms McKee and MS. Goddard are valid.....

SO ARE MINE.

MURT

Hypocrite

I was sent a link, today, of the Twitters of  Michelle McKee where she is attacking Pat Brown and company, accusing them  of "stalking her".


She then links quite a number of screen shots alleging Google and Zabba searches of her personal information.

The only reason this needs to be brought up her is that THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT I HAVE BEEN ACCUSING THE "OTHERS" OF DOING.

However, when I DO THE ACCUSING, I am told that anything on the internet is PUBLIC INFORMATION.

That is, when it has to do with ME.
When it is done to others it is considered STALKING!

To me they are HYPOCRITES!

You cannot have it both ways.

MURTWITNESSONE

BUSTED YET AGAIN.

There has been some nitwit that has been posting that "they" have not been bothering or mentioning us for the last 6 weeks. Well, that turns out to be a LIE suprise, suprise. It seems they like to set up IMPERSONATOR rooms on Paltalk. I guess there are some OTHER PEOPLE that needs to get a life:

I HOPE I SPELLED HYPOCRITE CORRECTLY BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE........IN ADDITION TO BEING LIARS AND STALKERS!

MURTWITNESSONE 

BUSTED

"Any attempt to access this account is stalking. Your IP is being recorded." Princess in a ip ban messsage on one of her websites.


MEET PRINCESS THE STALKER

REGARDING CMOF2

Since someone has decided to make an issue of CMOF2, I decided to write a separate article in regards to her.
CMof2 has been around since the Trenton Duckett case and is most familar with what errors of judgment I made in regards to that case.

Her comments to me had to do, for the most part, with that case. As I used to tell people at that time, I admitted to my mistakes in judgement and had learned from them.

In a single letter to me, she explained her concerns over what was done to my by Princess and her minions. She still holds to what she told me in earlier comments in regards to the way I handled myself in the Duckett case but became concerned about the way I was being smeared by the BH group. She is one of a growing number of BH members and those who know NANANC, MOMMIES, and TINK who are concerned about the actions that have been taken against me.

She is not nor never was "a mole." Princess dumped her because she thought she was a mole and boasted as much in the private area once she left. Princess still has moles. I get quite a few tips from them from time to time and from what I gather, things are quite interesting on the dark side.

In her paranoia, Princess dumped and subsequently angered several loyal members when she decided to "clean house,"

CMof2 came to me. I never sought her out and have not asked for any of the information she has.

MURTWITNESSONE

WHY?

I simply cannot figure out why people who have sex offenses in their background get involved in missing children. There have been at least Two people exposed over the last two years and now there is a third.

Accusations have surfaced that the owner of Hearts 4 Haleigh is a registered sex offender from California:

According to the author of this Topix thread:

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/satsuma-fl/TU1HE06G6FBKFF0AN

Hobbit55 has quite a history. He was allegadly convicted of THREE counts of child molestation in October, 1992.

Details in this link:

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/area-44193-yuba-lincoln.html

In the conversation I had with the editor of the newspaper, he recalled that fliers were passed around warning residents of the presence of Mr. Lincoln.

The Editor was suprised, to say the least that Mr. Lincoln was operating a website having to do with a missing female child. Do note in the article in the above link that Mr. Lincoln was described by local law enforcement as having strong desires toward female children.

I have filed and am waiting on case information under California's FOIA laws and will update once these records are recieved.

People have often wondered why I posted my real name and information in light of the attacks against me over the past couple of years.

This incident is why.

ANYONE who does ANY kind of background check will find that I have NO criminal history of any kind let alone any having to do with ANY sexual offender convictions or listings.

I feel that ANYONE regardless of gender who has an internet presence relating to missing and abused children are duty bound to provide their legal name so that the public can be assured of who it is that are operating thse sites.

William K Murtaugh

MURTWITNESSONE