I bought most of the newspapers yesterday and today. There are various bits and pieces and I will be posting them on my Delphi forum.
The Sunday Times Magazine has a sympathetic piece by a young reporter called Martin James. FWIW, James also mentions that
One officer, however, believed in the innocence of the parents and helped by private detectives, delved further. They identified remarkable failures in the procedures of the original investigation and unearthed facts compellingly pointing in an altogether different direction.
Is the "officer" in question Lou Smit? If so, why is he talking to private detectives - who in turn are talking to Michael Tracey? Something stinks about this. If this guy is a serious suspect, why are they making a documentary about him? Are they making this documentary WITHOUT Lou SMit's approval? Won't this documentary potentially compromise a future trial?
HoraceMills typed the Times article up and posted it at Purgatory and I see jameson has copied it along with some other stuff that other from my forum that someone took the time to type up. jameson credited Horace with his transcript, but she didn't give any credit for other articles which she swiped from my forum. No probs, she won't get the chance to swipe any of the other stuff that will be getting posted there over the next few days.
I am hoping to speak to the author of the TV Times article tomorrow.
Now for the amusing part. jameson says:-
The reporter then comments on how a program made TWO YEARS AGO made public Lou Smit's theory. The BORG is trying to make this into some recent interview and cooperation in making THIS documentary. Jerks. Typical BORG attempt to discredit people, libel them.
No dummy. What gave the impression that Lou had been involved in the making of this documentary is the FACT that his photo appears in the article with the caption "Lou Smit believes that Michael Helgoth and an accomplice killed JonBenet". You don't need to take my word for it now, you've posted the scans of the article for all to see it!
Methinks that jameson and Tracey are making "much" ado about this ..... one wonders why. I am hoping the reporter will shine some light on it.
jameson also says :-
The reporter did a fair job - - but clearly is not a Ramsey addict and made an error. No big deal in my mind but the BORG will jump on anything.
Actually, I got the impression that of all the articles I have read about this documentary, THIS one appeared to have most background knowledge of the case. Again, I will be interested to chat with her and find out what she knows about the case. None of the other articles mention the handwriting experts, the polygraphs, the lack of co-operation, John's political aspirations.
Were these covered by the documentary?: Possibly, but I doubt it. Tracey's other documentaries didn't touch on these. I only found out about them when I began to study the case independently.