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.

Professor coresponds with crazy man who didn't do it. That's worth making a documentary about.

Enola said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

BTW: i have no doubt he's into this up to his neck, too:

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

Tracey is a complete idiot loser.:loser: :razz:

Blood money can't buy salvation, buster!

SuperDave said:

Blood money can't buy salvation, buster!

Click to expand...

right on !

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 said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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


.

UKGuy said:

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?


.

Click to expand...

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.

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!


.

UKGuy said:

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!


.

Click to expand...

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.

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!

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.

KBUK said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Thanks - and I couldn't agree with you more. The bias in the programme was almost uncomfortable to watch! The section concerning DNA infuriated me simply because the DNA found may not even be related to the crime and that was not mentioned.

I do have to say that I thought JR came across as quite likeable. However this may just be down to the pro-Ramsey nature of the show, making the point that JR is now living on his own, etc. I did find one part strange though - when JR said that Patsy only ever cried twice - once when the cancer was originally diagnosed, and secondly when she realised that she would die. What about when her daughter was found to have been murdered?

R-Wood said:

Thanks - and I couldn't agree with you more. The bias in the programme was almost uncomfortable to watch! The section concerning DNA infuriated me simply because the DNA found may not even be related to the crime and that was not mentioned.

I do have to say that I thought JR came across as quite likeable. However this may just be down to the pro-Ramsey nature of the show, making the point that JR is now living on his own, etc. I did find one part strange though - when JR said that Patsy only ever cried twice - once when the cancer was originally diagnosed, and secondly when she realised that she would die. What about when her daughter was found to have been murdered?

Click to expand...

I had missed one portion of the programme and have just watched it. I cannot believe that they not only omitted the fact that the DNA might not be the killer's, but that they actually claimed it IS the killer's. That is downright dishonest. I have no objection with them saying the believe it's the killer's but as long as there is the possibility it isn't, they should not be broadcasting otherwise. There is no way they can say they aren't aware of the possibility that the DNA might not be the killer's. They used Mary Lacy's press conference in the programme and she made that DNA statement at the same conference. That indicates deliberate deception I'm afraid. I just wish they wouldn't do this. Do they have so little regard for the British public that they think we deserve to be spun a yarn?

Jay, why is it that these documentaries are shown to British TV and not here in the US? Any thoughts?

Nehemiah said:

Jay, why is it that these documentaries are shown to British TV and not here in the US? Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

The documetaries have been mainly attacking the US - media, LE ... But I dunno. As one of the new posters claimed above (and I've been saying this for years), it's virtually the only coverage the case has had here - they have a monopoly on it in other words.

Despite the fact that we've had these 4 docs, most Brits still don't know who JonBenet, Patsy or John Ramsey are. You need to say "The little murdered beauty queen..." and then people know who you are talking about. There's no obsessiona about the case here.

I feel that the British Public have been repeatedly cheated by the fact that Tracey & Mills haven't told the whole truth and have presented a very biased and slanted version of the facts. It wouldn't be the same if they showed their docs in the States because you guys have had the other side told to you by the media, but this is all we've had. There is no way the British public would know about the Ramseys refusing polygraphs and police interviews or about the DNA not definitely being the killer's or about karr's family testifying that he was with them that Christmas. I have no objection to a slanted tale being told - as long as someone else is able to redress the balance but as I say - they have the monopoly. That is why I think it's time for another programme maker to tell the rest of the story and if they are interested, I will give them some very interesting materials to include.

Jayelles, I completely agree. The programme even went to the lengths of showing american media who "have tainted the american peoples image of the ramseys" - please!

Did you notice when they were discussing the intruder they showed an image of the basement window wide open, with the suitcase below, leaving the viewer with the impression that was how it was found?

I was thinking of contacting C4, you shoudl do the same. You mention interesting materials, may I ask what?