First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Heloise

Chatham, UK

#1 Feb 12, 2012
I see he has been talking about this case relatively recently. You'd think he would just keep his trap shut at this point:

http://www.thelondonfilmandmediaconference.co...

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#2 Feb 12, 2012
Heloise wrote:
I see he has been talking about this case relatively recently. You'd think he would just keep his trap shut at this point:
http://www.thelondonfilmandmediaconference.co...
On the contrary, I wish he would talk even more on the subject of JonBenet and John Mark Karr. And if he DOES choose to speak about it, I think it would behoove us to see what he has to say before we start criticizing him for saying -- what?-- we don't even know what.

I notice that he was formerly Head of the London-based Broadcasting Research Unit 1981-8, then Britain's leading think tank dealing with media issues. We, here in America, certainly have media issues and IMO anything he might offer bringing these issues to the forefront might be beneficial. It's doubtful, however, that the media will ever resort to housecleaning with regard to media shortcomings. Which is part of the problem. And IMO the main problem is and has been the issue of reporting the news vs creating the news.
Heloise

Chatham, UK

#3 Feb 12, 2012
Ole South, please don't misunderstand me: things he has to say about public service broadcasting and reality TV are bang on the money. Pretty much the only thing about Britain I still feel proud of is the BBCD and the current government backed up by Rupert Murdoch are doing their level best to destroy it. In fact, they knighted Peter Balzagette recently - he who gave us Big Brother and shows of that sort. Ironically, his great great grandfather was knighted for inventing sewers...his descendent gives us it back.

But. Tracey did exactly what he accused everyone else of with his pursuit of Gigax and JMK. While David Mills apologised, Tracey never did. I have very mixed feelings about Tracey.
Heloise

Chatham, UK

#4 Feb 12, 2012
I do take your point about any discussion being good and in fact I largely agree. But Tracey cannot credibly talk about this case without mentioning his own mistakes.

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#5 Feb 12, 2012
Heloise wrote:
I do take your point about any discussion being good and in fact I largely agree. But Tracey cannot credibly talk about this case without mentioning his own mistakes.
Thank you for acknowledging my point. I think, however, that whether he made any outright mistakes is something yet to be proved. Many people still believe Gigax was involved and as you know, I strongly believe that Karr was. And while not many, there ARE others who believe the same, some IMO even in law enforcement.

The thing is, until the perp is arrested and convicted, no one can say for certain who was and who was not party to the crime.

While it's certainly possible that Tracey made mistakes, I think whether he did or didn't depends largely upon the viewpoint of the person who is doing the judging.

But I AM curious about your saying that Mills acknowledged mistakes on his part and apologized for them. Not meaning to doubt your veracity, but can you please provide me a source? I'm really interested to see exactly what he said. Thanks.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#6 Feb 12, 2012
Heloise wrote:
I do take your point about any discussion being good and in fact I largely agree. But Tracey cannot credibly talk about this case without mentioning his own mistakes.
I have to agree with you here Heloise. Mills was man enough to apologize, while Tracey just went into hiding for awhile, only to re-emerge when he felt it was all forgotten.

He should have publicly acknowledged where he went wrong
Heloise

Chatham, UK

#7 Feb 12, 2012
Old South, I will search it now. Mills essentially said that he was devastated about the Gigax thing. That said, you can still buy the transcripts of the shows on his site so he may not be that apologetic.
Heloise

Chatham, UK

#8 Feb 12, 2012
This mentions the Mills apology but I'll try to find a less partisan source:

http://www.5280.com/magazine/2007/01/hungry-t...
Heloise

Chatham, UK

#9 Feb 12, 2012
Heloise

Chatham, UK

#10 Feb 12, 2012
In fairness, Mills threw a wobbly when the BBC wouldn't take his word for the McCanns being innocent and wanted to look at both sides of the evidence so I think he does have the Media Donna thing going, but he did at least acknowledge the fault in the JBR case.
Heloise

Chatham, UK

#11 Feb 12, 2012
Heloise

Chatham, UK

#12 Feb 12, 2012
Heloise

Chatham, UK

#13 Feb 12, 2012
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to agree with you here Heloise. Mills was man enough to apologize, while Tracey just went into hiding for awhile, only to re-emerge when he felt it was all forgotten.
He should have publicly acknowledged where he went wrong
Cappy, I think he is depending somewhat on the British media not being au fait with his own contribution to this case..
Heloise

Chatham, UK

#14 Feb 12, 2012
I have been away from this case for a long time so Cappy and Ole South will correct me if I'm wrong but I rather thought Gigax provided documentary evidence that he couldn't possibly have been involved. Am I imagining this?

But, the larger point is that, under English law, the media can't prejudice a case by imputing guilt or innocence before a jury has spoken (law of subjudice reporting) lest they prejudice the presumption of innocence. The documentaries were first shown in England and were demonstrably illegal because they accused Gigax before a trial.
Heloise

Chatham, UK

#15 Feb 12, 2012
Ps. Got very little time outside of Sunday afternoon to chat so I'm sorry for the pyroclastic flow this afternoon.

In fairness, I think Tracey and Mills were ill-advised in lots of ways but I know that they have also been called the bad-toothed slimey limeys in some quarters and I do cringe when anyone English opines in general terms about America.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#16 Feb 12, 2012
Heloise wrote:
I have been away from this case for a long time so Cappy and Ole South will correct me if I'm wrong but I rather thought Gigax provided documentary evidence that he couldn't possibly have been involved. Am I imagining this?
But, the larger point is that, under English law, the media can't prejudice a case by imputing guilt or innocence before a jury has spoken (law of subjudice reporting) lest they prejudice the presumption of innocence. The documentaries were first shown in England and were demonstrably illegal because they accused Gigax before a trial.
Gigax contacted the authorities who told him he was not a suspect, nor ever was a suspect and he had some paperwork of where he was during that time in addition to the authorities telling him he was not, nor ever a suspect

As for Tracey, he should have lost his license as a "journalism" professor for both his errors about Gigax and Karr as he broke every journalism rule that he was teaching. Gigax was intentional and blatantly done with no facts and if he ever hoped to claim that HE really believed Karr did it, he wouldn't have been working on the next documentary (and I say that loosely) about the next suspect in JBR's murder way before Karr was ever cleared of the crime

He should not have only lost his credentials, but charges should have been brought by those he accused. He, like most IDI, pick and choose those who won't and can't due to lack of means defend themselves and go after those who would publicly accuse them, which is a shame. The only "victory" is that the next crocumentary never happened and he layed low for a long time

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#17 Feb 12, 2012
Heloise wrote:
I have been away from this case for a long time so Cappy and Ole South will correct me if I'm wrong but I rather thought Gigax provided documentary evidence that he couldn't possibly have been involved. Am I imagining this?
But, the larger point is that, under English law, the media can't prejudice a case by imputing guilt or innocence before a jury has spoken (law of subjudice reporting) lest they prejudice the presumption of innocence. The documentaries were first shown in England and were demonstrably illegal because they accused Gigax before a trial.
I can honestly say that I don't know all that much about Gigax, except that he (I believe) has served time for child molestation. Another strong link to Karr is his present interest in Nazis and knowing this as well as Karr's possible connection/links to Nazi organizations and the reference in the RN to "foreign factions", I believe there can be an association although there is no concrete evidence there is.

I do know that when Karr's forum administrator and friend tried to contact me, she used the hat, "ChristaSchroeder" when she posted on Topix -- "Christa Schroeder" being the name of Adolph Hitler's secretary. At the time, she and Karr were on the outs and she used the Nazi name because she knew that with his interest in Nazis, he would notice the name. In fact, I paid no attention to it and it was only after Lei Sussurra contacted me and told me the post was meant for me, that I read it and understood her meaning. I therefore am certain of Karr's interest in Nazis, Hitler, and The Third Reich.

I think Biz is more or less an authority on Gigax and can furnish far more information on him than I can, so I'll try to contact her and see if she will come aboard and give you her ideas on him. Obviously, those who are adamant that the Ramseys are guilty steadfastly refuse to acknowledge he can be involved.

Then, your comment, "the media can't prejudice a case by imputing guilt or innocence before a jury has spoken (law of subjudice reporting) lest they prejudice the presumption of innocence", I can only offer my opinion based upon what I've witnessed in the media. And using that as the criteria for my opinion, it seems that the media in America has rather a free reign on HOW they report a crime, although they do make stipulations from time to time that a person is innocent until proven guilty or other statements of the sort.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#19 Feb 12, 2012
Ah biz, we can always count on you to have secret reliable sources that have never come up with anything that was investigated or come to fruition on any topic whatsoever in 15 years.

You'd think, being ABAR, some of the nonsense you come up with would have been investigated by the Ramsey team with all they had access to with all your super duper secret info.

Give it a rest. Your sources are not sources for anyone but yourself and whomever else you have confided in about them. For the rest of us, your "sources" are about as reliable as our "sources"

Either you can name them or they don't exist, other than other internet posters who get together for a groupthink that end up coming up with zero or fantastic theories. Just because you come up with a fantastic theory doesn't make it viable, as we have seen, or yet to see

We are still waiting, and it is now mid February for those "experts" that state JBR was killed by a sexual sadist. You said you would provide that after the holidays. Granted, you didn't say what year you were referring to, but if you would be so kind as to follow up on the many things you were asked for sources about you'd save us the trouble of having to make a list

Can you name even one thing any of your sources ever were successful in investigating or coming up with information not before known? So far, you've come up with a myriad of information that you got from sources that never amounted to anything in the ongoing REAL investigation

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#20 Feb 12, 2012
I'd also be interested, for all the Tracey defenders, to explain why, if Tracey felt he had "the one" with Karr, why was he targeting someone else as "the one" way before Karr was even arrested or cleared?

I guess Tracey didn't figure on the public finding out about that, but since they did, what do you think the explanation is for that?

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#21 Feb 12, 2012
Capricorn wrote:
I'd also be interested, for all the Tracey defenders, to explain why, if Tracey felt he had "the one" with Karr, why was he targeting someone else as "the one" way before Karr was even arrested or cleared?
I guess Tracey didn't figure on the public finding out about that, but since they did, what do you think the explanation is for that?
I'd be interested to know just what it was the public found out about -- just who this person was that Tracey was targeting even before Karr was arrested or cleared. Source?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
JonBenet Investigation (Nov '11) 2 hr JBI 1,617
"Note-Free Case Discussion" 6 hr Legal__Eagle 92
Note-odd detail? 7 hr Note 2,400
Upcoming National Enquirer story - JonBenet Ram... (Oct '10) 8 hr berrytea333 35
koldkase patsy wrote the note 19 hr Legal__Eagle 18
Haapy Thanksgiving 22 hr Capricorn 15
ICU2 's Child Trafficking Tue Legal__Eagle 6
More from around the web