|
Post by Scumhunter on Apr 10, 2018 22:42:56 GMT -5
Still debating whether I will make social media pages for "In Pursuit", considering I was already debating whether to keep the Facebook pages I ALREADY had for America's Most Wanted Fans and The Hunt with John Walsh LOL.
While this site is my baby and you guys/girls (Sometimes girls LOL. I've complained in the past we need more female sleuthers, and I don't mean that in some sort of creepy way but for their perspectives on crime stories), social media, especially/specifically Facebook is a different story and I find often more trouble than it's worth. Part of me would want to do pages so no one beats to me to the punch and it is a good way to share some stories for our site to help get justice for others (and admittedly a vehicle to help promote our site as well). The other part of me realizes how much of a headache those pages can be, and there will be plenty of promotion for JW's new show on ID's social media anyway.
Guess I'll worry about it when the time comes, but selfishly part of the reason I'm happy John Walsh is moving to ID is I had been looking for an excuse to stop doing the Facebook pages and this potentially will allow me to do so LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on May 28, 2018 0:38:48 GMT -5
Ok not sure where to put this but an article about Unsolved Mysteries and similar shows mentions America's Most Wanted as a show that did good but "also managed to get a lot of people profiled despite the fact that they were found innocent later on." www.tvovermind.com/tv-news/shows-like-unsolved-mysteriesEven someone edited America's Most Wanted's Wiki page to complain about suspects later being found innocent: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Most_WantedFirst of all: 1. The show profiled THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of fugitives. It was a mathematical impossibility that every single suspect would be found guilty once caught! The point is these fugitives were accused of serious crimes and fled rather than fight their charges. Perhaps some had good reason to flee. Nevertheless, AMW simply profiled the cases. It was up to the U.S. jury system, although flawed, which is/was still better than other countries to ultimately determine guilt or innocence. 2. Being found not guilty does not mean the defendant is actually not guilty! Sometimes the jury acquits the defendant because they truly believe the defendant is innocent, but often the jury feels the prosecution simply did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. (This may be a controversial opinion of mine but I believe not guilty was the correct verdict in the Casey Anthony trial. She was probably responsible for Caylee's death in some way but unfortunately the prosecution's case did not present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt). And of course, sometimes a defendant just simply gets away with it. 3. Everyone is innocent. Don't you know that? Sorry had to get a Shawshank reference in there. (Morgan Freeman's recent controversies notwithstanding). AMW did a lot of good, and I even created an Innocent Project section on our forum for those wrongfully convicted, but I'm tired of the crap they get for the like 5 percent of suspects that turned out to be "innocent."
|
|
|
Post by 912thamwuser on May 28, 2018 1:44:04 GMT -5
Ok not sure where to put this but an article about Unsolved Mysteries and similar shows mentions America's Most Wanted as a show that did good but "also managed to get a lot of people profiled despite the fact that they were found innocent later on." www.tvovermind.com/tv-news/shows-like-unsolved-mysteriesEven someone edited America's Most Wanted's Wiki page to complain about suspects later being found innocent: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Most_WantedFirst of all: 1. The show profiled THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of fugitives. It was a mathematical impossibility that every single suspect would be found guilty once caught! The point is these fugitives were accused of serious crimes and fled rather than fight their charges. Perhaps some had good reason to flee. Nevertheless, AMW simply profiled the cases. It was up to the U.S. jury system, although flawed, which is/was still better than other countries to ultimately determine guilt or innocence. 2. Being found not guilty does not mean the defendant is actually not guilty! Sometimes the jury acquits the defendant because they truly believe the defendant is innocent, but often the jury feels the prosecution simply did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. (This may be a controversial opinion of mine but I believe not guilty was the correct verdict in the Casey Anthony trial. She was probably responsible for Caylee's death in some way but unfortunately the prosecution's case did not present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt). And of course, sometimes a defendant just simply gets away with it. 3. Everyone is innocent. Don't you know that? Sorry had to get a Shawshank reference in there. (Morgan Freeman's recent controversies notwithstanding). AMW did a lot of good, and I even created an Innocent Project section on our forum for those wrongfully convicted, but I'm tired of the crap they get for the like 5 percent of suspects that turned out to be "innocent." And I might be going further than you on this, but... If a suspect is acquitted, where do these commenters get off blaming it all on America's Most Wanted just for profiling the case? And I don't want them to get me started on the distinction between direct and empty captures!
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on May 28, 2018 3:20:44 GMT -5
Also wanted to add that AMW also profiled Lawrencia "Bambie" Bambenek despite John Walsh thinking she was innocent so there could be resolution in the case, not because they were gung-ho about capturing her. Walsh spoke up for her and advocated that he thought she was innocent after her no contest plea deal. And of course, they devoted an entire hour to Dale Helmig to try to prove his innocence.
Also, whoever edited Wikipedia complains Walsh never apologized or issued a retraction for suspects being found innocent. Why should he? If he believed they simply got away with it, there was no need him to retract. And aa you said, AMW simply profiled the case and what was alleged.
And finally, whoever edited Wikipedia complained about the time Walsh said "let's get these scumbags" without mentioning the presumption of innocence for the post-9/11 most wanted terrorists episode. Oh what a horrible man for not stressing the people who committed the worst mass murder in United States history were technically innocent! Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by 912thamwuser on May 28, 2018 13:35:37 GMT -5
Also wanted to add that AMW also profiled Lawrencia "Bambie" Bambenek despite John Walsh thinking she was innocent so there could be resolution in the case, not because they were gung-ho about capturing her. Walsh spoke up for her and advocated that he thought she was innocent after her no contest plea deal. And of course, they devoted an entire hour to Dale Helmig to try to prove his innocence. Also, whoever edited Wikipedia complains Walsh never apologized or issued a retraction for suspects being found innocent. Why should he? If he believed they simply got away with it, there was no need him to retract. And aa you said, AMW simply profiled the case and what was alleged. And finally, whoever edited Wikipedia complained about the time Walsh said "let's get these scumbags" without mentioning the presumption of terrorists for the post-9/11 most wanted terrorists episode. Oh what a horrible man for not stressing the people who committed the worst mass murder in United States history were technically innocent! Ugh. It wasn't John Walsh's responsibility to vouch for the 2 dozen or more terrorists' entitlement under American Law to presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. The only reason John Walsh shouldn't have made that episode is because he had to have known AMW didn't have a snowball's chance in a volcano to solve any of those manhunts. He was just making those episodes to answer a personal request from Dubya, who unfortunately should've been looking for a resource better suited for tightly guarded terror suspects halfway around the world.
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on May 28, 2018 13:49:26 GMT -5
Perhaps little or no chance, but I think AMW as a true crime show that advocated for victims of crime, they pretty much HAD to do a show once 9/11 happened, Dubya's request or not. You can't on your first show back on air (or one of your first shows back on air) since the attacks not address the attacks and people wanted for them, snowball's chance in hell or not. I think pakman said they actually did somehow almost capture one of the 22 MW terrorists as well. Nevertheless, at least we're both in agreement it wasn't John Walsh's responsibility to vouch for terrorists' presumed innocence.
|
|
|
Post by 912thamwuser on May 28, 2018 18:12:56 GMT -5
Perhaps little or no chance, but I think AMW as a true crime show that advocated for victims of crime, they pretty much HAD to do a show once 9/11 happened, Dubya's request or not. You can't on your first show back on air (or one of your first shows back on air) since the attacks not address the attacks and people wanted for them, snowball's chance in hell or not. I think pakman said they actually did somehow almost capture one of the 22 MW terrorists as well. Nevertheless, at least we're both in agreement it wasn't John Walsh's responsibility to vouch for terrorists' presumed innocence. If Pakman ever reads this, I'd be interested to know which of the Most Wanted Terrorists AMW came close to busting as a Direct Result.
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on May 28, 2018 18:13:52 GMT -5
He said it (on the old amw forums I think) I just forgot which one.
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Jun 9, 2018 17:39:10 GMT -5
Like how people are using the Facebook fan page honoring Anthony Bourdain to private message me asking when The Hunt is returning. (Even though I know the answer- it is in bad form so I purposely didn't reply). This is part why I'm so torn as to whether or not I'm going to make social media unofficial fan pages for In Pursuit or not. (I want to help people and admittedly it would help promote our site but the extra stress and aggravation I wonder if it is worth it especially since we already have this site anyway).
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Nov 27, 2018 18:37:24 GMT -5
Made a four paragraph post on The Hunt/In Pursuit Facebook page explaining once again although we are more than willing to help we are only a fan page and not John Walsh.
The VERY first reply was "Thank you God bless you Mr. Walsh!" LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Dec 11, 2018 0:57:05 GMT -5
John Walsh made a new post about how he's coming back next month. Half the replies are "Bring back America's Most Wanted!".
I f-ing loved AMW but it's not coming back (ok perhaps it could come back one day, but John Walsh likely would not host it), Fox cancelled it and then priced it out of the market.
Just shut up and support the new show.
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Jan 13, 2019 2:27:25 GMT -5
So I removed our unofficial fan page for The Hunt and In Pursuit on Facebook a month or so ago. I mentioned in the past the only reason our site had a Facebook presence was I unsatisfied with the social media coverage on Facebook when John Walsh's show primary show was The Hunt. There was no official "The Hunt with John Walsh" page and it was limited to CNN and Mr. Walsh's status updates while any other presence did not update enough and/or alread inaccurate information.
However it became too annoying as much as I love you guys everyone on Facebook are not always the true fans of the show, a lot of nutjobs messaged me and a lot of people kept messaging me asking "John Walsh" for help despite the numerous disclaimers that we were not the actual show and the title of the page being "The Hunt with John Walsh- Unofficial, not actual show." And then somehow they'd get upset when I told them I wasn't John Walsh like it was my fault for their lack of reading comprehension. (I was still willing to help them despite not being John Walsh, but some would get upset).
Thankfully In Pursuit having it's official page gave me an excuse to take us off Facebook which was additional unnecessary stress I didn't need. The site still has a presence on Twitter which I feel is calmer and more laid back.
Just wanted to comment because I saw someone comment on In Pursuit's OFFICIAL Page- how do we know if this is the actual show?
So in summary- my page puts UNOFFICIAL in the title, in our default away messages and numerous postings, and people still think we're John Walsh.
John Walsh's ACTUAL show with postings and official videos from John and Callahan comes on Facebook and someone accuses it of being a fake page
You've got to be kidding me. Damned if you do...
|
|
|
Post by HeadMarshal on Jan 13, 2019 17:02:54 GMT -5
People are posting on the Investigation Discovery page that JW is taking too much credit for the 1400+ captures that AMW, The Hunt and the Justice Network had accomplished.
People are forgetting one small thing. For AMW to have been aired as long as it did, the host who is the star of the show has to be marketable and appealing to TV viewers over the long run. I would make the argument that one of the other host choices in 1988 would have gotten less long-term viewers.
I mean why do people think Robert Stack got the long term role as host of UM?
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Jan 13, 2019 23:23:02 GMT -5
This is exactly what I said in general discussion although I did say itborobably belongs in this thread lol. But I'll repeat what I said there and that is that what John Walsh did was give credibility to the show as a public victims advocate and his assurances that you could remain anonymous and talk to their operators who were not law enforcement. which in turn got viewers to tune in every week and want to help catch bad guys.
It is a team effort, law enforcement does. a great job at tracking down fugitives from the show based on viewers tip and the viewers help tremendously.
But John Walsh himself is also a large part of AMW et al's success just by being who he is.
|
|
|
Post by ninja108 on Mar 21, 2019 18:43:53 GMT -5
The comments that always have annoyed me the most over the years have always involved parental abductions because it shows a double standard way too many people have when it comes to parents who kidnap their kids. If the father does it,the child's life is in danger and we have to find him before he harms his kid(s) and if AMW has to profile him every week,so be it. If the mother is the kidnapper though,she must have a good reason for it and how dare AMW/The Hunt etc. profile her when they could be chasing after fugitives who are a true danger to the public. Sad to say but as we've all seen over the years on AMW,just because a woman gives birth it doesn't mean she's a mother. Yes,there have been the rare cases where a mother is taking her kids because they will be harmed if dad has access to them but virtually all of the cases of parental abduction male or female boil down to one thing and one thing only. Revenge against the other parent. Someone who does that doesn't have their child's best interests at heart and should be viewed as a danger to them.
|
|