Why Am I The Only One Asking

Barbara

New Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
741
Reaction score
23
Website
Visit site
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 *advertiser censored**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???????
 
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!!!!!!).
 
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.
 
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
 
K777angel said:
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.
 
messiecake said:
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! :clap:

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.
 
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.
 
messiecake said:
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 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?
 
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 :)
 
Tricia said:
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 . :D
 
Barbara said:
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

WHO IS LEAKING THIS INFO TO AN ORDINARY CITIZEN? [/SIZE] [/B]


WHY ISN'T ANYONE ASKING THESE QUESTIONS BESIDES ME???????

Rainsong
Member since 7-4-03
07-13-04, 09:51 PM (EST)

32. "RE: Another editorial"
In response to message #31

"Be damned if they are going to be proven wrong, no matter how blatant the evidence."
Yep, that about sums it up.

Rainsong




Hello Barbara,

This RAINSONG AT Susan Bennetts site makes me :furious: . It appears to me that Bennett and her posse is to be damned if they are to be proven wrong!!!!
 
TressaRing28 said:
Rainsong
Member since 7-4-03
07-13-04, 09:51 PM (EST)

32. "RE: Another editorial"
In response to message #31

"Be damned if they are going to be proven wrong, no matter how blatant the evidence."
Yep, that about sums it up.

Rainsong



Hello Barbara,

This RAINSONG AT Susan Bennetts site makes me :furious: . It appears to me that Bennett and her posse is to be damned if they are to be proven wrong!!!!


No problem TressaRing28

Don't upset yourself. After a while, we learn to expect nothing more from that ilk

I work with the mentally challenged and if there is one thing to be learned, it is that one can only reach a POTENTIAL. They have all reached theirs. They will never be more than they are now. At times, even I, knowing better give it a shot and show them the FACTS, but it is usually futile.

There are none so blind...............
 
I am not a Brit, have not seen the new Tracey doc, and have had no time to wade through the transcripts. I'm lazy I guess. Would someone please give me the Readers Digest version. Who is this guy and what does he have to do with anything?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
2,499
Total visitors
2,638

Forum statistics

Threads
590,021
Messages
17,929,101
Members
228,039
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top