MR."X" IS REVEALED.

Michael Tracey's first documentary portrayed the media as "reckless" for implicating the Ramseys.

Didn't Michael Tracey just do the same thing in implicating this man?

 

And how long did all of us have to suffer the torture of constant media coverage when the Ramseys were so outraged at the "false" accusations they had to hire the attorney for the damned and sue every rag they could spell? Yet they have done nothing BUT the same damn thing against one person after another for all these years and only Miles and Wolf stood up and tried to hold them accountable. Amazing that both cases were dismissed. Nevertheless, Helgoth's family and Mr. Gigax should get together and find a damn good lawyer!!!! They could even name CU in that suit since Tracey's on faculty.

 

Wy

I OTOH, have not. The attacks by the Ugly Sisters are bizarre and boring. It's just the same insults repeated over and over and over. There is no reasonable attempt to debate or even discredit through intelligent discussion or analysis. The Uglier sister is incapable of debate. She can't even bring herself to address other posters directly. Instead, she addresses her responses to "All". That's a mental problem if ever I saw one.

You see WY, it's the difference between simply calling someone a liar, and proving that this person is a liar by providing evidence of their lies for all to see. The former is easy to do but is baseless without the latter. The Ugly Sisters do lots of name calling and a search through forum archives will show that with the Uglier of the two sisters, it has been a pattern - same insults and accusations, different posters. The Uglier sister makes false accusations which she cannot prove - because she's wrong. Ask her for proof and she disintegrates into a barrage of name-calling instead.

 

Imon is Rachel and that sadden's me...don't know what to say.

However I still like to know what miss uglier sister has to say about her hero Darnay bringing home baby killer Steinberg in a limo.

Maybe the Mr. X flaming posts from uglier is the way to keep from answering some hard questions about Darnay's ethics? Funny, you think she would post the last news articles on NYL. Enquiring Gossips want to know.

 

Candy is "displacing" her love for Darnay with her love for Lin Wood. He is her new hero.

It's almost hopeful if not naive to think that Candy has distanced herself from Darnay due to his limo trick with Steinberg. For those who watched, even Catherine Crier was appalled that he was picked up by hoffman (not deserving of capital lettering) in a "white limo".

Candy unfortunately, will not ever admit that she worshipped at the wrong altar, but given the fact that she is not mentioning him, leads me to believe, perhaps wrongly that she has traded hoffman for wood.


DejaNu brings up a good point. The Ramseys are outraged at the finger pointing at them as innocent people, yet they have never spoken out about finger pointing at the others. There must be some people the fingers are pointed at that the Ramseys don't believe are responsible, yet they never state that in public.

One thing is for certain: If the case is ever solved (I don't believe it will be), it will be despite the Ramseys, not because of the Ramseys

 

Imon is surely a great disppointment to all who "used to" know her. However, there is an old saying that leopards never change their spots, they only camoflauge them. Imon was always the Rachel/Shylock we now know, only it was hidden for a long time. That is truly sad, but not so unusual. Imon and Candy remind me of the team of Jameson and Lovely Pigeon. One would lie or be rotten and the other would stand by them and lie with them, regardless. True teamwork in its most distasteful form. There is nothing more demeaning and distasteful than that sort of hero worship and shadowing.

 

Lovely Pigeon is doing a "wonderful" job over at WS defending Scott Peterson. The same thing over and over...LE is wrong....It is soooo boring. I just skim by her posts.

PS: Don't tell her the palm print is Melinda's. She will argue with you about that...She will say Charlie Brennan is "uninformed" and not to be trusted. Like Susan Bennett should be trusted. Or Lovely Pigeon for that matter.

 

Facts

Candy apears to have some difficulty in interpreting the meaning of the word "libel". Here is the definition:-

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861696485

Candy accuses Tricia and I of libelling Steve Gigax ... because we have posted that he is the "Mr X" in Michael Tracey's latest documentary. She hopes he bankrupts us. I have just spoken with a lawyer about this and she says that in the UK, a case for libel can only made if the statements are false or "substantially false". She says that neither Tricia nor anyone else is committing libel for revealing that John Steven Gigax is the unnamed person in Tracey's documentary - because that is true - a fact.

Candy also accuses me of "peddling" Tracey's theory on the Internet. To peddle means to sell or promote and anyone who has read and understood my posts will know that I most certainly haven't done that. I had an open and receptive mind prior to seeing the documentary, my initial reaction was that it was an interesting theory and one worthy of further consideration, but when I sat down and really studied it in depth, I posted of many flaws or "holes" in the theory - and justified my thoughts for believing so. I advocated naming Tracey's "Prime Suspect" because I believe he has been falsely accused. If anyone was libelling me of murder in another country, I'd most certainly want to know about it.

My instinct was that if Gigax was innocent, that he might come forward voluntarily (and speedily) to clear himself and of course there is the added incentive of the fact that he would have excellent grounds for a lawsuit. If jameson's claims are correct, then my instincts were correct. Clearing suspects can only be a good thing for this investigation. If the investigators don't want suspects to be named, then they shouldn't make documentaries about them, talking to their friends, showing where they lived, showing documents containing easily readable personal information and showing written physical descriptions of them.

Tricia and others who have the documentary agreed with me and Tricia had the balls to make this happen. I have spoken with her at length about this and I know for a FACT that she wasn't driven with thoughts of "being first" or "getting the scoop". Those accusations are clearly just sour grapes. She certainly isn't cashing in on it and in speaking out, she has possibly prevented others from doing so.

Secondly, regarding Candy's accusations that I am "peddling" Tracey's theory, as I see it, no-one who has seen the documentary and who knows the background of the case is "buying" Tracey's theory about Gigax - because it is built on little more than a great deal of speculation. I am at a loss to understand how they could still point the finger at Gigax for the Dancewest assault when they clearly had information which shows that Gigax does not remotely resemble the physical description of that perp.

So either Candy doesn't understand the meaning of the words "libel" and "peddle", or her accusations are being made purely out of malice.

Either way, Candy's accusations are most certainly false, defamatory and therefore in themselves libellous.

 

Candy's language is getting harder and harder to understand. Is she still gonna sic the entire University, Lin Wood, the BPD on you two? What a powerful woman....capable of controlling whole police departments! Did she leave out the FBI? What's wrong with the FBI? Surely she's on their code 6 wingnut list!

She's peeod cause Tricia and Jayelles and ACR know more of Gigax and scooped her. I'm not surprised she's attacking you Jayelles and Tricia...that normal for Candy. It's attacking or SMEARING ACR and her wonderful website.

Candy's insane jealousy is so transparent. Why if it weren't for the words "Scum" "Guttergossips" and "Smear"...she wouldn't have a thing to say.

------------

AKA: Show Me Scum

 

Say it often enough

jameson wants to think that the only reason we named Mr X was to attack Michael Tracey - eh? What kind of spin is that. So someone commits libel, and when people show indignance about it they are accused of wanting to attack the libeller?

Michael Tracey made a documentary accusing a man of being a potential midnight burglar, multiple killer and child rapist. It would appear (from jameson) that he didn't even attempt to contact the man to check the accusations levied at him - instead, he claimed the man had "disappeared". The man comes forward after he is named and it is discovered that he hasn't disappeared at all. He says he will willingly take a DNA test to prove his innocence. jameson seems to believe that all of that is OK. It's a woopsy, no biggie - will be edited out of the US version - maybe Gigax could even star in the US version. Let's just forget get back to case and see who's next on the list of prime suspects?

And anyone who suggests that the man has a good case for a lawsuit is only saying so to attack the people who libelled the man in the first place!

As usual, jameson quotes and quotes and quotes - you will never see a link to the sources of her quotes. That is because she doesn't want you to see them in context. Her quotes are worthless without the links to the sources.

 

Let's face it, Jayelles, Michael Tracey had a nerve making that documentary, and he didn't come up the Clyde in a bubble. He knew Helgoth's mate's identity
would be discovered in a flash. You were right when you cottoned on to the fact that "all was not right" with this movie being shown in the U.K. I think Michael Tracey could be in HEAP BIG TROUBLE!

 

LOL - Clyde in a bubble! I hadn't heard that one before. I've heard "Ah didnae come doon the Clyde in a banana boat" I wonder - what is special about the River Clyde?

Warning bells rung for me when Michael Tracey sent jameson an e-mail which clearly indicated that he is a man who doesn't check things out.

If anyone e-mailed me a quote, I would certainly not comment on it (especially not rudely!) without reading that quote in context. If Tracey had checked his facts, he would have seen that what he was commenting on was me quoting from an article and not me making those claims myself. Nor did Tracey have the courtesy to respond to my e-mail which pointed this out. Another warning bell.

He has given me no reason to suppose that he behaves any differently when he's making his documentaries and IMO, he deserves to be brought to heel for his incompetency.

 

Oh, look, jameson f i n a l l y has a new member - SX. Brahahaha.

 

Is he on scholarship? hehehehe Good thing he joined now and not in the mad December membership rush.

 

mr. x

If mr. x was edited out of the documentary there wouldn't be anything left. There has to be an accomplice for the theory to work - such as there were "two gentlemen" mentioned in the ransom note. Although I really doubt those two would describe themselves as gentlemen. :no:

 

It is interesting that jameson claims to have been made aware of Steve Gigax's name prior to the documentary and that she insisted on nicknaming him "SX" claiming that it stood for "suspect x".

We now know that SX are the first and last letters of his name.

 

Purely coincidence

She did NOT know his name prior to Tricia posting it.

Funny that she "spoke" with him only AFTER his name was revealed and she was able to find him through his website.

Bull! She knew nothing.

 

Jayelles

I remember hearing - I didnae come up the Clyde on a bike! Liked your banana boat!

I was very impressed when I read about the Independent Television Commission observing what is being shown in the U.K.. What's the procedure, Jayelles? Is it up to the public to complain to the ITC or the BBC Governors on a documentary like Michael Tracey's that contains false documentation? One would need a lot of proof before contacting them.
Who knows, Gigax may contact them himself, if he doesn't have any more charges hanging over his head (?). I've said that before! Charming fellow! Ugh! It was good that you posted the ITC information.

 

I agree Elle, it's good that they have the ITC.

However, let's remember that they MUST have only been allowed to list the program as "entertainment" there and the rules might be a little more lenient when listed as entertainment

He likely could not get it listed as a documentary due to the facts that are not there in the film. It was truly just entertainment for the RST

Documentaries are not listed as entertainment when they are supposed to be documentaries. Documentaries are factual by law.

That's probably how it got it on the air

 

I'm surprised they would classify a story of a child being brutally killed as "entertainment" Barbara, but I understand what you're saying here, plus it happened in the U.S. not the U.K. I've never given any thought to this side of the TV marketing before, but it probably happens all the time. There's always a loop hole for these film producers. I wonder how much Tracey made on that deal (?).