Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 13 to 19 of 19
  1. #13


    Quote Originally Posted by JC
    This much is known, from a post on 5/15/04 by DejaNu, post 9 under "Foundation,"
    $2000 was contributed to their Boulder church.

    Isn't that considered a 'tithe'? Except for crimestoppers small donation...all the Rams ever do is donate to their own interests, their own church, their kid's camp and so on.

  2. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Texarkana, USA


    Quote Originally Posted by Show Me
    Isn't that considered a 'tithe'? Except for crimestoppers small donation...all the Rams ever do is donate to their own interests, their own church, their kid's camp and so on.
    A "charitable contribution" from that post: - 1999

    Per 990 PF dtd 08/25/00:
    Contributions received: $3,865
    Donor: Unknown
    Charitable contributions made: $2,000
    Recipient of charitable contribution: St. Johns Episcopal Church, Boulder
    Purpose of charitable contribution: "Assistance to children's programs
    and other unrestricted church use"

    I don't think it is considered a "tithe." I think it is considered a tax write-off. Only me thinking, tho.

  3. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2003

    Default Tracey the documentarian

    There is a spectacular amount of spin going on about Tracey and his documentary elsewhere. Some are upset by criticism of him. Seemingly, some people think that makers of documentaries do not have absolute responsibility towards their subject matter and that if the message is wrong or defamatory then it's a simple case of "don't shoot the messenger".

    A ridiculous analogy was made with another documentarian who made documentaries about tribes who swap wives and the "point" was made that it didn't mean actually he believed in wife swapping. ?????? Eh?

    Are we supposed to think that although Tracey has made three documentaries presenting the intruder theory, that it doesn't mean he believes in it? Or just that he doesn't *actually* believe in the Helgoth + Mr X theory? Or perhaps just that he's just Ollie Gray & co's dumb messenger and therefore bears no responsibility for defaming innocent people in his documentaries?

    Clearly some people are incapable of making more than ONE interpretation of a set of facts. We saw that in the vanDam case when these same people went into overdrive with their fantastic theories of naughty ninja Danielle!

    The posters in question suggest that Tracey's role has been too subtle for the rest of us to understand.

    Like this:-

    [..]The new team of detectives think Helgoth may well have been involved as an accomplice of an even more deadly killer. One who later murdered him to stop him talking after Alex Hunter’s unnerving press conference [..]

    When looking for his possible killer, detectives looked for a violent associate who shared his interest in martial arts and young girls. They immediately came up with one. A close associate who has since disappeared [..]

    Helgoth’s associate lived in this trailer park near the car salvage yard. The makers of this programme know his name, but have decided to withhold it, because he has not been charged with any offence. But the more that has been discovered about him, the more he fits the profile of a stalker and a killer[..]

    If Michael Helgoth and this one associate that we identified were actually involved in the burglaries, they could easily have been involved in the murder also. There’s just too many associated items that could tie him to it that means that he has to be eliminated. We need DNA from him –- wherever he might be[..]

    These investigators see the associate as their prime suspect in the Ramsey case [..]

    Seven years after the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, a prime suspect has been identified for the killing. He’s been identified by new investigators, who have also uncovered disturbing facts about another crime he may have committed [..]
    These Tracey supporters believe that his documentary should still be shown in the US even although it would appear it was built upon sand, supposition and speculation. They believe they can just edit out the bits about Mr X and present the theory anyway because it might be right and that they just got the wrong guy for Helgoth's associate! (Maybe there's a substitute list LOL)

    The bottom line is that the Ramsey PIs got it wrong. They risked their reputations on this theory and it was wrong. The errors they made show that they are no better than the BPD whom they are so critical of. Pots and kettles. They have been shown to be incompetent because seemingly (if jameson is to be believed) Gigax claims they didn't even try to contact him. I tend to believe this because of other information I have. These PIs also tried to pin the Dancewest assault on him - apparently disregarding the small FACT that Gigax doesn't bear any resemblance whatsoever to the description of the intruder given by the victim's mother. They did not even attempt to explain "why" they disregarded her description (no doubt jameson will suggest it was one of the bits cut out of the documentary or that there is "more" evidence we don't know about ... da dee da).

    I am sick of lies and spin in this case. It is time that someone took this case by the horns and dealt with the imposters who claim inside information and then proceed to weave a web of misinformation which serves only to mislead the public.

    I no longer read jameson's many BORG threads. I stopped last week. These threads serve no purpose other than to enable the likes of jameson & co to vent their wrath at posters on other forums. The BORG threads are where you will find the lies and spin and in terms of documenting the case, they have zero value. The very fact that jameson has a policy of NOT linking to the posts that she quotes from makes her claims about the posts worthless. She wouldn't make it past the first semester in any degree programme for her refusal to back up her attacks on her opponents in this way.

    Imagine the mess if we all followed jameson's rule about not providing sources. I could post here that Margoo has claimed to have received some piece of case information from Lou Smit or that jameson admitted to an affair with john ramsey -- and it would be a parcel of lies. I couldn't prove it because it didn't happen. But I could say it anyway and claim that I won't post a link to the source because "jameson replaces links with porn". For sure, some posters would accept my word on it and that might be enough for me. I believe this is what jameson banks upon.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  4. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Brooklyn, New York


    What the fools over there don't seem to understand, (although I think they really do and choose not to admit the error of his ways 'cause then there can't be any "spin")

    Tracey himself went on Catherine Crier and made it very clear that he believed the theories put forth in the documentary. He couldn't have been any clearer as far as his own beliefs, so where Rainsong and the others are spinning away with analogy after ridiculous analogy that don't apply here, the bottom line is

    Tracey himself went on Catherine Crier and DOES BELIEVE THE THEORIES PRESENTED IN HIS OWN FILM

    Bottom Line #2

    Tracey claims to have made a "DOCUMENTARY"! A documentary implies that the information presented is true and factual. A journalist has a legal, ethical and moral responsibility to assure that the information presented in a "documentary" is credible and confirmed and FACTUAL.

    What was presented in the film was blatant misinformation and intentional lies to fool the public. That is likely why it was presented as "entertainment" in the UK, rather than a documentary.

    There is no way the spin works in this case, because those of us who watched his television interview heard with our own ears and saw with our own eyes, (and the transcript) that he is a believer of this theory (at least on television he is)

    The American Heritage Dictionary:

    DOCUMENTARY: A work, such as a film or television program, presenting FACTUAL information without editorial or fictional elements

    Rainsong also feels that just because Gigax owns a website where he sells and CREATES his own Nazi merchandise, doesn't make him a Nazi sympathizer or Neo Nazi. Just because there are Hitler photos on every page and links to various Nazi organizations as well as weapons sites and militia sites, doesn't make him a Nazi believer. She actually tried to rationalize this by stating that Gigax just found a "merchandising niche"

    Enough said. Need I say more?

  5. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Hornetsville, NY


    Ha! Jayelles. I quit reading the swamp swill over a month ago, because it's the same old drivel day after day. jameson is incredibly full of herself. Too bad she doesn't realize she's an idiot. I don't tolerate people like her in my RL, why should I subject myself to one of the worst fools I've ever witnessed on the Internet? I don't care what she has to say anymore. Nothing she has said, to date, has been beneficial, IMO, and I don't expect that to change.

    As far as Tracey's opinion about why people are interested in crime cases such as JonBenet Ramsey and the Peterson case and Bryant case, not to mention OJ Simpson case, perhaps he should consider what this world would be like if people were NOT interested in these cases. There has been so much desensitation of human emotion, thanks to violent video games and movies that are ever more violent with each new issue. It is purely a wonder that any of us are even affected by these violent crimes anymore. I don't watch violent movies or video games, but I read a lot of non fiction books, especially the true crime books. I have become desensitized to a degree, myself. We all have.

    When people stop caring altogether about what happens to others and about justice for all, who is Tracey going to peddle his propaganda to? Well, not me, that's for sure. I don't much like fiction.

    We are all human. We all have different interests. Who the hell is Tracey to decide it's wrong for anyone to be interested in these cases? He's nobody to me.
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  6. #18


    Yup, it definitely looks like Tracey and the entire Ramsey spin team got caught with their pants down. Their prime suspect didn't disappear. They just didn't bother to look for him. Why? Because in their heart of hearts they knew he had nothing to do with the Ramsey case. Helgoth was a convenient goat because he was dead. But his DNA didn't match. So they concocted a partner in crime for him. And since THIS guy had "disappeared" why that was almost as good as dead, no? Better, in fact, since there'd be no way to test that DNA.

    There is something really disgusting happening here. Tracey and Smit have been touting themselves as impartial, so why have they been playing this game? If you have what you claim to be a viable suspect and that person can be contacted and you fail to contact him, then what does that mean? Looks to me like they are ALL spinning, the whole lot of them.

  7. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2003

    Default DocG

    You are so right DocG. They had a good theory - why spoil it?

    Poor folks elsewhere have got the wrong end of the stick once again. Major comprehension difficulties! Obviously my point was too subtle }>

    Let me try and simplify matters. A challenge was given to "choose any subject" and this is where the inability to think laterally comes into play.

    This has nothing to do with subject matter. The FACT is that there are different genres of documentary. You CANNOT compare a documentary which presents facts objectively (i.e. the tribal documentary would fall into this category) ... to a propaganda documentary whose purpose is to manipulate beliefs - as in the case of Tracey's documentary where a pro-intruder case was forwarded with supporting arguments and "evidence". Their purpose is clearly to change the way the people view the Ramsey case.

    In this same silly thread, Dave also provides a silly analogy about history books and in doing so demonstrates his own failure to recognise that there are different genres of history book in the same way as there are different genres of documentary. Some document facts, others present theories.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

Similar Threads

  1. Michael Tracey.
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: October 12, 2006, 9:17 am, Thu Oct 12 9:17:43 UTC 2006
  2. Rocky Mountain News - Defense of Tracey/Says Tracey was ethical
    By Cherokee in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 12, 2006, 11:40 am, Tue Sep 12 11:40:20 UTC 2006
  3. Heads Up re Tracey on LKL
    By Deja Nu in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: August 29, 2006, 7:25 am, Tue Aug 29 7:25:25 UTC 2006
  4. CBS and Tracey
    By Watching You in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: September 26, 2004, 10:09 pm, Sun Sep 26 22:09:55 UTC 2004

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts