1131 users online (195 members and 936 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741

    Why Am I The Only One Asking

    I think it is pretty obvious by now that the topic of Gilgax' name being made public has caused quite the stir.
    There are the factions that think it is terrible that his name was made public.

    There are the factions that are just plain envious that they didn't get it first for either personal pride or for profit

    There are the factions that are applauding the fact that his name is out there, putting a stop to any profit being made on his information, and hoping that this will get some attention and we can put this man's name to rest one way or the other (I'm in this group BTW)

    Now we have the second listed faction above who are taking great delight in finding fault with Tricia for doing this because.....

    1. this is an "active investigation",
    2. Now he knows they are looking at him
    3. Tricia posted information that IS NOT MEANT TO BE KNOWN DUE TO THE INVESTIGATION!!!!!!!!!!

    Why isn't anyone asking why and HOW Tracey was able to get hold of this information and make a f***ing documentary all about this guy?
    He got to know where he lived, who his family is, what he does, HIS NAME, HIS NAME, HIS NAME, HIS NAME, HIS NAME

    His records, his date of birth, his friends, and everything else about this case and this man's whole life story. Tracey is nothing but a journalist, and a two bit journalist at that!

    WHY ISN'T ANYONE INQUIRING WHO GAVE ALL THIS INFORMATION TO TRACEY AND IF IT IS SUPPOSEDLY "LEGITIMATE" INFORMATION, WHY DOES TRACEY HAVE IT????

    WHY WAS TRACEY GIVEN ALL THIS INFORMATION AND ALLOWED TO MAKE A TELEVISION SHOW ABOUT HIM, MAKE A PROFIT, MAKE A NAME FOR HIMSELF?????

    AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO BELIEVE JAMESON THAT SHE HAD ALL THIS INFORMATION, I WOULD ASK: WHY DOES AN ORDINARY CITIZEN HAVE ALL THIS INFORMATION???????????????

    SHE IS NOTHING BUT A CITIZEN. WHY WAS SHE GIVEN ANY INFORMATION AT ALL, ESPECIALLY INFORMATION THAT IS SO "CRITICAL" AND "IMPORTANT"?????

    WHO IS LEAKING THIS INFO TO AN ORDINARY CITIZEN?



    WHY ISN'T ANYONE ASKING THESE QUESTIONS BESIDES ME???????
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,384
    Two words............LOU SMIT.


    I find it very interesting that in the U.K the first article about the new "film" had a mention of Lou Smit as being involved(and I want to say a picture of him.......is that true Jayelles??) but then Tracey outright denies any involvement on Smit's part.


    Which leads me to ask............who gave the U.K media that info??????
    Why is Tracey so adamant???


    I think Lou has been mining his cache of stolen BPD files and feeding them to Tracey.

    The whole thing is filthy as is what happens when theres lies and money and everybody out for themselves and theyre using a dead little girl to do so (hey! sounds like John's political campaign!!!!!!).
    The saints are the sinners who keep trying...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514
    Bravo Barbara!! Important questions to be asking.

    We have to remember that there is NO real investigation going on in the DA's office in the JonBenet Ramsey case. The WHOLE POINT of Keenan telling the public that her office is taking a new look at the Ramsey case was to aid Lin Wood and his paid position by the Ramseys in manipulating public opinion!!
    This whole garbage of a 'documentary' is playing right into that and whatever JUNK "leads" the office could slip over to RST they did! This guy Tracey's crock is calling a suspect (who really isn't) is all part of the same on-going SCHEME. And they know it.
    This post is my opinion.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    the beach
    Posts
    268
    Barbara,

    Personally I think this whole "crock" is the ugly, disgusting side of this so called active murder investigation. That this information was obviously leaked to Tracey in the first place is wrong. He had enough insider information to create the documentary and someone backed him with enough money to get it produced and on the air. Follow the money and we may just get some other good clues as to what is really behind this cloak and dagger investigation.

    I don't think that this latest suspect is going to turn out to be viable, however, the name is out and wouldn't it be nice if he would come forward and settle the score one way or the other. For some reason, Tracey seems to think he was worth sleuthing out to make some money off of, so now lets see if he can put his money where his mouth is and produce something out of his latest suspect instead of spinning the wheel of fortune one more time.

    Thanks, Barbara, for your thought provoking post.

    Peki

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver CO
    Posts
    797

    investigation

    Quote Originally Posted by K777angel

    We have to remember that there is NO real investigation going on in the DA's office in the JonBenet Ramsey case.
    This whole garbage of a 'documentary' is playing right into that and whatever JUNK "leads" the office could slip over to RST they did! And they know it.
    Keenan being the DA hired Tom Bennett, the veteran investigator at $25 hour according to The Denver Post. If she had told him during the employment interview that she wasn't really interested in an investigation, or that she implied it was just a formality, would he have taken the job? If he was told by his superior, Keenan, to go easy, or find any possible suspect, would he continue to do his job? If his work produced a good (or bad) suspect whose name was then leaked to someone in the media who publicized it making his job more difficult, would he continue to work on the case? The likely and obvious answers are no. In fact, if he did resign, he might make his lack of confidence a matter of public record.
    This is my opinion, and change is good.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Dumpwater, Arkansas..LOL
    Posts
    5,333

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by messiecake
    Two words............LOU SMIT.


    I find it very interesting that in the U.K the first article about the new "film" had a mention of Lou Smit as being involved(and I want to say a picture of him.......is that true Jayelles??) but then Tracey outright denies any involvement on Smit's part.


    Which leads me to ask............who gave the U.K media that info??????
    Why is Tracey so adamant???


    I think Lou has been mining his cache of stolen BPD files and feeding them to Tracey.

    The whole thing is filthy as is what happens when theres lies and money and everybody out for themselves and theyre using a dead little girl to do so (hey! sounds like John's political campaign!!!!!!).
    Amen Messie!

    Barbara,

    You already know how I feel. Thank you for posting this here!

    Victor,

    I am sure Bennett is being told to look at other leads other than the Ramseys.
    "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving isn't for you!"

    The above post is my opinion and my opinion only. Please do not copy and past to other forums. If I wanted to posted on other forums, I would do it myself. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated in this matter.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753
    Barbara, this is what people do. We tell stories, we gossip, we start rumors, we pass rumors. It's all in good fun, ins't it? Look at the movies, t.v., novels, yellow journalism, the tabs, sometimes people prefer fantasy to fact, dream to consciousness. Listen to Coast to Coast a.m. There's no conspiracy here, it's just a good boogeyman story. Even if the truth came out about what Patsy did, yellow journalism would still run boogeyman stories about the intruder and people would still buy into it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by messiecake
    Two words............LOU SMIT.


    I find it very interesting that in the U.K the first article about the new "film" had a mention of Lou Smit as being involved(and I want to say a picture of him.......is that true Jayelles??) but then Tracey outright denies any involvement on Smit's part.


    Which leads me to ask............who gave the U.K media that info??????
    Why is Tracey so adamant???


    I think Lou has been mining his cache of stolen BPD files and feeding them to Tracey.

    The whole thing is filthy as is what happens when theres lies and money and everybody out for themselves and theyre using a dead little girl to do so (hey! sounds like John's political campaign!!!!!!).
    Yes. The biggest article about the doc was in the TV Times which is the magazine for the TV channel which broadcast it. This article had a photo of Lou Smit and a caption which said "Lou Smit believes Michael Helgoth and an accomplice killed JonBenet". I reported that correctly at the time and another British poster, Enola, scanned the article and it was posted. I was in contact with three of the journalists who covered the documentary and the one who wrote this particular review had certainly done the most research (this was evident from the articles anyway).

    However, it is apparent that Lou Smit DIDN'T participate in this documentary and the footage of him was old. My guess is that there was an assumption made that he believed in the theory because his footage appeared to endorse what they proceeded to build upon. On closer inspection, there is a lot about the documentary which may not be what it appears to be.
    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
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    This is Jameson's response to my thread.



    jameson
    Member since 5-8-02
    07-13-04, 11:14 AM (EST)

    19. "RE: Responding to BORG"
    In response to message #0

    on my knowing about Gigax before the documentary discussion online...

    Q: "AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO BELIEVE JAMESON THAT SHE HAD ALL THIS INFORMATION, I WOULD ASK: WHY DOES AN ORDINARY CITIZEN HAVE ALL THIS INFORMATION???????????????

    SHE IS NOTHING BUT A CITIZEN. WHY WAS SHE GIVEN ANY INFORMATION AT ALL, ESPECIALLY INFORMATION THAT IS SO "CRITICAL" AND "IMPORTANT"?????"

    A: No doubt I am a bit more than just an "ordinary citizen" when it comes to this case.
    How so? And why? What makes you more than just an "ordinary citizen"? And by whose authority? Yours? The Ramseys? LE? Please explain

    I have many case files here... documents, tapes and letters....
    I'll repeat: Why? What and WHO gave you case files, documents, tapes and letters????? By whose authority?

    there are many, many conversations embedded into my memory, that might help investigators at times.
    By whose authority were persons on the "inside" having conversations with you that are not public and WHY? Again, by whose authority?

    Investigators have come to me numerous times to ask if I have any information on this or that - - - if something means anything to me - - if a certain piece of information was ever made public - - if I have any information on this, on that person.
    If the investigators are coming to you NUMEROUS TIMES for information on this case, an ordinary citizen from Hickory, NC, then this case is scarier than I thought. If you have information that investigators don't have, it is at the very least inappropriate, and at the very most ILLEGAL

    I
    do not have a copy of LE files. I don't have copies of Ollie Gray's files. I don't have copies of Lin Wood's files - - and they have no idea what is in MY files. I don't copy everything to them. Never have.
    The fact that you are publicly admitting that you have your OWN files, not shared with LE is quite telling and disheartening if its true. Actually, the fact that you have files at all in this case is very disturbing, unless you can show that you are more than an "ordinary citizen" as you claim

    They don't share highly confidential information with me - - and what they do share they do knowing I don't break a confidence - ever.
    So you are saying that they share confidential information, just not HIGHLY confidential information. As far as breaking confidences---EVER, there are a few posters on the internet who would disagree. You know, those people who you posted personal information on and those persons whose jobs you called? Maybe it's just me, but that is not keeping a confidence.

    For that reason, LE and lawyers and investigators and reporters have called on me to talk. They know I may have some piece of the puzzle they need - - and I will help if I can
    .

    Dear God, I hope you're making this up!

    I want SickPuppy caught - -
    *sigh* If only that were true

    Bottom line: What makes you more than an ordinary citizen?

    If you haven't been ordained as such by anyone other than yourself, then what you do and what you hear is ILLEGAL and obviously someone is LEAKING information; and if they are leaking information to YOU, then it must be someone who thinks the Ramseys innocent. Now who could that be hmmmm?
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Sherman Oaks, CA
    Posts
    3,955
    She's a legend in her own mind. The legend, just keeps getting bigger and bigger.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha
    Posts
    19,487
    Hey all. Her name is Susan Bennett. She feels comfortable hiding behind her hat. She doesn't feel comfortable when we use her real name.

    Someone who knows their stuff explained this to me in detail
    Help our Administrator Bessie
    Check out our Facebook page
    Follow me on Twitter

    Tricia Griffith
    triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com
    6300 N. Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H # 214
    Park City UT
    84098






  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753
    Again, some people prefer fantasy to reality.

    That's why JonBenet is dead.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    226

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Tricia
    Hey all. Her name is Susan Bennett. She feels comfortable hiding behind her hat. She doesn't feel comfortable when we use her real name.

    Someone who knows their stuff explained this to me in detail



    Hey Trica thanks--- Susan Bennett I enjoy writing that name since she hates it used ,I might have to use it alot .

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514
    LOL!!

    Like LE has respect for some obsessed nutcase from NC.
    More like suspicion isn't it?
    This post is my opinion.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,910
    My question is "Who is Gilgax"?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast