Tracey wants to know

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Barbara, Jul 10, 2004.

  1. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...3025479,00.html



    I suppose that this question mirrors Lin Wood's disgust at all of us for keeping an interest in this case.

    The RST might want to let Tracey know that if it weren't for "us" obsessed with the wretched, his pockets would be quite empty.


    Biting the hands that feed him eh?

    But Jameson, Rainsong, Margoo, and the others will continue to throw roses at his feet despite his disgust for them, like Wood. Will they never learn? (rhetorical of course) NO, they will never learn.
     
  2. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    Another Tracey Gem

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...2922884,00.html

    Quote:
    More than any other institution, the press has been charged with keeping us honest and the master class of the political elite in its place. Walter Lippmann, one of the 20th century's greatest journalists, famously wrote: "There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and shame the devil." That seemed to have got lost somewhere as newspapers and networks, pursuing ever greater profits, gravitated toward the banal, the trivial, the juvenile.


    Yeah, it has gotten very lost Tracey. Why don't you explain? What about those profits?

    Hypocrite!

    Perhaps I am being too hard on him. Maybe he donated all his "profits" to the JonBenet Ramsey Foundation. Ya think? Maybe? Oh right, there is NO foundation. Well, perhaps he donated his profits from JBR to another children's charity. Right?
     
  3. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    Jameson chooses to respond to my post:


    Wrong. His work is not "honorable". Read his articles. He has done what he believes is wrong. He dragged names out there on a documentary that had no business being there. If they truly belonged there, he had a moral, social and journalistic responsibility not to make it public and then try to "sell" it to the United States. His responsibility demanded that the information he tries to sell us as real possibilities did not belong out there in the public. But then, he wouldn't be able to make all those profits. What is honorable about what he has done? Nothing.

    Wrong again. I do understand their social circles. Have been part of them. They are lawyers. They are part of the forum community as they get many of their materials from the forums and if not for us, this case would not be the money maker it is for both tracey and wood. Now Jameson, you know better than that. The internet is where the interest is these days and because of that, the NE, Tracey, Wood, yourself, etc. have made quite a few bucks. If not for the online community prompting interest in this case, the docs and the talking heads and the tabloids would have no buyers. It is all about us on the forums.

    And there's more:

    Susan Stine??????????? Demands the truth????????? Lin Wood?????????? Yourself???????????????????

    Not to worry, your name will never be off that list so you will be forever honored.

    At the very least, these people have to recognize and TELL the truth before they can demand it!

    Susan Stine??????????? You really got me there! Yeah, she's as honest as they come. :snake:

    Although, to our knowledge, she is the only one on the list who hasn't made some money from a dead child. Everyone else seems to have made it a profitable career.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2004
  4. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Well, if we the wee folk are going to be castigated for our continued involvement in this or any other case for the sake of justice, I just have to ask:

    1. Why did Tracey do another crockumentary?
    2. Why are Lou Smit and Ollie Grey still turning over rocks in rundown trailer parks with the help of a paid drug addict to paint continually morphing faces on an ancient intruder theory?
    3. Why are the Ramseys still handing out free happily-autographed copies of their book proclaiming their innocence at political rallies?
    4. Why are the Ramseys and Lin Wood continuing their suit against Fox?
    5. Why is John Ramsey still using his daughter's death as a "God-given platform" for his political campaign?
    and
    6. Why is the Rocky Mountain News still publishing editorials and articles about the Ramsey case?

    Clearly the forums are not the only "dysfunctional" hangers-on. Same old double standard--we can do it, but you're damned if you do. Boring.......
     
  5. Tez

    Tez Member

    That Susan Stine comment really got me. She impersonated Beckner for crying out loud. Yep, she is really honest. In any other place, other than Boulder, the woman (and I use that term loosely) would have been prosecuted. It seems Jameson is saying Stine was persecuted. :violin: She wasn't persecuted, but she deserved to be prosecuted!
     
  6. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Ha! According to Jameson, we've been persecuting every person she declares "innocent" including herself and is proud to be on the list with baby killers, liars, thieves, impersonators and profiteers. Well, she belongs on that list. And pride is the only thing the RST's case is about. Nothing new here....and still boring.... :flipper:
     
  7. Show Me

    Show Me FFJ Senior Member

    Susan Stein honest? innocent? hahahahaha Lin Wood not deceiving us? And remember Jams still thinks David Westerfield is innocent.

    No wonder the swamp barely exists anymore...
     
  8. Sabrina

    Sabrina Member

    In the documentart the narrator said the Ramseys are impoverished.



    This is what Webster says is impoverished:

    Impoverished Synonyms: bankrupt, barren, beggared, broke, clean, depleted, destitute, distressed, drained, empty, exhausted, flat, flat broke, have-not, hurting, impecunious, indigent, insolvent, necessitous, needy, penurious, played out, poverty-stricken, reduced, ruined, spent, sterile, stone-broke, stony, strapped, tapped out, worn out.


    Is Tracey reporting accuractly? He never mentioned John is running for a political office and travels around in limos. Instaed, he calls the Ramseys impoverished. Is this responsible journalism?
     
  9. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Well, now that JR's running for public office, their tax returns are fair game. Maybe it's time to debunk this spin as well.
     
  10. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    In fairness Sabrina, the documentary may have been completed before John announced his political ambitions. I don't think many people saw that coming!

    The BIG review of the documentary (double page spread of TV Times) did mention the political aspirations. I was in contact with that journalist and she had done quite a bit or research.
     
  11. Show Me

    Show Me FFJ Senior Member

    I'd love to see the Ram's tax returns....which is it? Wealthy again from lawsuits or poverty? And what constitutes Ram poverty? Only a half a million dollar home compared to a million plus home?

    The JonBenet Ramsey Children's Foundation....John said every penny in it was his....do we get to see this tax return also?
     
  12. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

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

    Show Me FFJ Senior Member


    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.
     
  14. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    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.
     
  15. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    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:-

    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.
     
  16. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    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)



    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?
     
  17. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    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.
     
  18. DocG

    DocG Banned

    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.
     
  19. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    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.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice