885 users online (182 members and 703 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 66
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    319

    Tracey at it again in the UK?

    I've just been reading my TV magazine for the UK tv this coming week and Tracey has a documentary about Karr on Tuesday! I'm speechless - that is some pretty fast work for a man who wanted to 'let justice take its course'.

    I've scanned the small section in so you can see it.

    Just my opinion...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Professor coresponds with crazy man who didn't do it. That's worth making a documentary about.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Enola
    I've just been reading my TV magazine for the UK tv this coming week and Tracey has a documentary about Karr on Tuesday! I'm speechless - that is some pretty fast work for a man who wanted to 'let justice take its course'.

    I've scanned the small section in so you can see it.


    Making money, isn't it? seems to be what he's in it for.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,748
    BTW: i have no doubt he's into this up to his neck, too:

    http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44874

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    north carolina
    Posts
    1,203
    Tracey is a complete idiot loser.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Blood money can't buy salvation, buster!
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave
    Blood money can't buy salvation, buster!
    right on !
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Hi Enola

    Don't you think it's interesting that the documentary is on Channel 4 this time instead of ITV?

    I bought the TV and Radio Times this week and there is no additional "write up" in either of them about the documentary. Not even a teeny paragraph that I could see. The only mention about the documentary are the actual listing entries themselves. Any programme which they consider to be remotely interesting usually gets some additional write-up or review.

    Nor do either the TV Times or Radio Times even give a "recommended viewing" tag to the documentary. That's a first for a Ramsey documentary! The Radio Times gives a "recommended viewing" tage to several programmes on Tuesday - including a programme about the thickness of pizza crusts!

    The Radio Times lists the producers as David Mills and Michael Chrisman - no mention of Tracey.

    I'll be recording it and will watch it with interest. If it's misleading or contains false or biased statements as the previous documentary, I will seriously consider reporting it to Ofcom. I'm sick of the British Public being fed one side of a story as though we are idiots. Tracey made three British documentaries bemoaning the fact that the Ramseys were vilified by the American media and not once did he mention the fact that they avoided police interviews for four months. I think we already need a two hour documentary devoted to pointing out the omissions and misleading information provided by Tracey's docs!
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Don't you think it's interesting that the documentary is on Channel 4 this time instead of ITV?

    I bought the TV and Radio Times this week and there is no additional "write up" in either of them about the documentary. Not even a teeny paragraph that I could see. The only mention about the documentary are the actual listing entries themselves. Any programme which they consider to be remotely interesting usually gets some additional write-up or review.

    Nor do either the TV Times or Radio Times even give a "recommended viewing" tag to the documentary. That's a first for a Ramsey documentary! The Radio Times gives a "recommended viewing" tage to several programmes on Tuesday - including a programme about the thickness of pizza crusts!

    The Radio Times lists the producers as David Mills and Michael Chrisman - no mention of Tracey.

    I'll be recording it and will watch it with interest. If it's misleading or contains false or biased statements as the previous documentary, I will seriously consider reporting it to Ofcom. I'm sick of the British Public being fed one side of a story as though we are idiots. Tracey made three British documentaries bemoaning the fact that the Ramseys were vilified by the American media and not once did he mention the fact that they avoided police interviews for four months. I think we already need a two hour documentary devoted to pointing out the omissions and misleading information provided by Tracey's docs!
    Jayelles,

    Channel 4 may have been willing to pay the screening fee's, ITV in their current financial state may have declined to do so.

    Now that Rupert Murdoch has a stake in ITV, and broadcasts Sky News his views will be taken into account by ofcom.

    Nor do either the TV Times or Radio Times even give a "recommended viewing" tag to the documentary.
    Could be a Three Strikes and your presumed guilty syndrome, who knows?


    .

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    Jayelles,

    Channel 4 may have been willing to pay the screening fee's, ITV in their current financial state may have declined to do so.

    Now that Rupert Murdoch has a stake in ITV, and broadcasts Sky News his views will be taken into account by ofcom.


    Could be a Three Strikes and your presumed guilty syndrome, who knows?


    .
    I have always said that Channel Four hosts the best and worst of TV. You could be right about ITV's finances. They are apparently suffering badly as a result of Internet advertising. Having said that, I'm not aware of the commercial breaks getting any shorter....

    I seriously doubt that Rupert Murdoch can buy his way into Ofcom. Ofcom's job is to regulate television and communications. They aren't answerable to the Heads of TV.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,871

    Documentary

    Just finished viewing the latest offering from the RST.

    Nothing new except some of the footage. John Ramsey complains about not being ever able to present his case in a court of law, so can sympathise with J M Karr! He accepts he is assumed guilty as per the media.

    New fact: The dna discovered in the house has been analysed and has been sourced to a white male, which is not a Ramsey, mmm.

    SBTC signed on J M Karr's yearbook stands for Shall Be The Conqueror

    Lou Smit on J M Karr: if you go hunting for a shark sometimes you catch a Barracuda thats his take on the dna failing to match.


    Special Agent Gary Smith who appears on the screen to be medicated, states he thinks J M Karr killed JonBenet, and that he remains a Person Of Interest in the case. J M Karr is linked to a pedophile awaiting extradition from Australia on various serious sexual offences including rape and sodomy. It was stated J M Karr was in Australia at the same time as this person, and who also lived across the road from him in the USofA. So the link is geographic, along with a shared interest in pedophilia!

    So the two Tracey's, Smit, assorted law enforcement, family lawyer, along with John and footage of Patsy finally some talking media heads at the very end, probably for a token attempt at balance, run over how ridiculous the intruder theory is!

    Thats all folks, if you read the forums , you know it all already!


    .

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    Just finished viewing the latest offering from the RST.

    Nothing new except some of the footage. John Ramsey complains about not being ever able to present his case in a court of law, so can sympathise with J M Karr! He accepts he is assumed guilty as per the media.

    New fact: The dna discovered in the house has been analysed and has been sourced to a white male, which is not a Ramsey, mmm.

    SBTC signed on J M Karr's yearbook stands for Shall Be The Conqueror

    Lou Smit on J M Karr: if you go hunting for a shark sometimes you catch a Barracuda thats his take on the dna failing to match.


    Special Agent Gary Smith who appears on the screen to be medicated, states he thinks J M Karr killed JonBenet, and that he remains a Person Of Interest in the case. J M Karr is linked to a pedophile awaiting extradition from Australia on various serious sexual offences including rape and sodomy. It was stated J M Karr was in Australia at the same time as this person, and who also lived across the road from him in the USofA. So the link is geographic, along with a shared interest in pedophilia!

    So the two Tracey's, Smit, assorted law enforcement, family lawyer, along with John and footage of Patsy finally some talking media heads at the very end, probably for a token attempt at balance, run over how ridiculous the intruder theory is!

    Thats all folks, if you read the forums , you know it all already!


    .
    It was awful. Michael Tracey reading out little excerpts from Karr's e-mails (none of his own were shown - hmm). I forgot about the SBTC yearbook offering. Said that Karr's handwriting seemed to match the ransom note (ONE guy said that - the rest all said no as I recall).

    The documentary OMITTED to tell us that the DNA might not be the killers. Most importantly it completely omitted the fact that Karr's father, brothers, wife, sisters-in-law all claimed he had been with them that Christmas. That is a serious omission IMO and one worthy of reporting to the TV regulator. The doc claimed that Michael Tracey and mary Lacey were unfairly attacked by the same people who attacked the Ramseys in the first case and that some of them will always think John Ramsey killed his daughter - because the media told them so.

    Gary Phillips (Homeland Security) was an unusual character. He has unblinking eyes and I wouldn't like to meet him in a dark alley.

    Mostly it was about Michael Tracey. I'd be interested to know if any of the other Brits thought the documentary came across as very defensive? I missed one section of it when I was on the phone, but I thought that they came across as though they were really trying to justify themselves.

    This is David Milll's 4th documentary about the case and he has consistently omitted important facts. He is on the board of the Campaign for Quality Television and I think it;'s a disgrace that someone in his position is making slanted documentaries which only tell that part of the story which he personally believes in and omits the bits which don't bolster his theory. I think that is an ABUSE of his position as a programme maker. It certainly is questionable whether his documentaries are in breach of the TV Regulator's Code of Practice - which requires that documentaries shown in the UK represent both sides of the story. There is no good reason why they omitted the fact that the DNA might not be the killer's and no good reason why they omitted the fact that Karr had several alibis for his whereabouts on that Christmas.

    Never mind the Campaign for Quality Television, let's have a Campaign for Honest Television.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11
    Well I was very disappointed with the programme. It missed out lots of important information and evidence. I've just been talking to a girl from work who was adamant Karr did it after watching the programme!

    It was a very one-sided show and I can't believe I wasted my time watching it. The only interesting part was the tracking of Karr - and his emails were just weird!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Wakefield, England
    Posts
    230
    As a lurker on this boards for some time now, I felt I had to speak up re last nights programme. It is rare that here in the UK we are given information about this case, however, last nights programme was shown with such bias it is understandable that R-Woods colleague is adamant that JMK is guilty.

    The complete ommittance of evidence to the contrary left the viewer in a disillusioned state, but we knew that would be the case anyway.

    What struck me was the footage of Patsy and John, I believe around 2003. Patsy was sat supposedly reading a book, but the look of distain upon her face as she glanced up at John sat opposite did not look like an error of camera angle IMO.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by KBUK
    As a lurker on this boards for some time now, I felt I had to speak up re last nights programme. It is rare that here in the UK we are given information about this case, however, last nights programme was shown with such bias it is understandable that R-Woods colleague is adamant that JMK is guilty.

    The complete ommittance of evidence to the contrary left the viewer in a disillusioned state, but we knew that would be the case anyway.

    What struck me was the footage of Patsy and John, I believe around 2003. Patsy was sat supposedly reading a book, but the look of distain upon her face as she glanced up at John sat opposite did not look like an error of camera angle IMO.
    Welcome you guys! I'm simply at a loss about what to do. The first I knew about the case was the 1998 documentary and I came to the Internet feeling that the Ramseys had been very hard done by the media. It was only after reading everything I could online and in books that I came to understand that there WAS another side to the story. The Tracey docs have never told that other side and have consistently presented THEIR facts as though the media attacked the Ramseys for no reason. They never told us about the Ramseys refusing to be interviewed by police for 4 months or refusing to take polygraphs or taking three attempts to "pass" polygraphs. They have never told us that the DNA may be unrelated to the murder and that this means no-one can be excluded unless they have rock solid alibis.

    I missed a portion of last night's documentary, but I don't think they addressed the small issue of their previous documentary where they built a case against John Steven Gigax - who happened to be in Indiana at the time of the murder and could prove it. The claimed he'd disappeared when he hadn't (and they may well have known that he hadn't - it certainly seems likely that they were aware of his website which contained correct contact information for him).

    A few months ago, Bill Kurtis's documentary was shown on Sky television. It was an old programme originally shown in the States, but it DID present both sides of the story and told viewers "why" the media attacked the Ramseys.

    Yes the programme did make it look as though Karr might still be the guy. I just don't think this kind of one-sided biased reporting should be allowed. How many more of these kinds of programmes are the British public going to be subjected to? We guys need to get together and complain properly.

    ETA - I would have no objection to Mills and Tracey reporting those media attacks which were really OTT if only they had explained why there was media criticism of the Ramseys at all. I'm just very uncomfortable with this misleading atyle of reporting which borders on the deceptive. It's the fact that they have completely omitted the reason why people criticise the Ramseys that gets to me. It's so dishonest. Very bad reporting. I would offer my entire archive of ramsey case materials to any programme maker who wanted to make a fair programme about the cae for the British viewers. I would also include some material which has never been reported on the forums which would make VERY interesting viewing.

    I'll bet they could get some of the case players to participate too.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. At least Tracey
    By gsquared in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-03-2006, 10:13 AM
  2. Tracey III
    By Jayelles in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-09-2005, 11:22 AM
  3. Tracey wants to know
    By Barbara in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-10-2004, 09:00 AM
  4. Tracey transcript
    By Jayelles in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-06-2004, 11:32 AM