Previously unknown facts now available: Good or Bad Idea?

[radar1979]

Ponder this for a moment if you would please;

Since UM ende its regular network run in 1997, it honestly never had to seriously consider the impact of the WWW on many of the cases it presented. I seriously doubt that the Cosgroves and Meurers were thinking, even then, of people like all of us who take what time we have and delve far deeper into these stories, beyond what was made available in the segements themselves. Simply put, the information about the cases and stories just was not as easy to locate independantly at the time as thus the show itself proved to be the sole source of information for most people.

11 years later, we all know that this is quite a different story. Here we all sit...many of us simply here as fans, some of us with vicarious involvement as is my case, and others who were directly involved in/with the cases...and we are able to access FAR more information than was ever imparted or meant to be imparted to us at the time.

To clarify, I am refering to the widespread dissemination by many law enforcement, "missing person" type groups, and others of key facts pertinant to specific cases that were NOT included in the original segments themselves...for a reason. I recall that in 1992, this was explained by one of the female co-anchors of the "Live From the Telecenter" episode as a tactic used as a means of checking or confirming whether or not a caller or lead was promising or not.

Examples: We can now jump to one particular site and view evidence and files from the 1982 Twin Colorado killings including news articles, case file data, and period photographs. Included here is MUCH evidence not shown in the UM segment.

Via the DOE network and its many counterparts, we can now keep up to date with the latest info...or lack thereof...on cases that have yet to be solved. In many cases, previously unreleased (Or perhaps only not released on UM) facts are now available for everyone to see. This has even served to alter or scew many previously held opinions on various cases. IE Angelo Desideri. Many links directly from this site can swiftly take us to other, often ellusive sites, where in-depth information on many former UM segments is available in some form or another.

So, the question I would like those of you who read this to consider is this: Is this widespread dissimination of previously unreleased, and highly detailed information, a good thing or a bad thing?

Sean M

[wiseguy182]

I think it's a good thing. the more info you give out, the more good leads you get I would imagine. Being that criminals often drastically alter their appearance, viewers may not recognize them on tv. But if they mention they had a distinctive tattoo, for example, the viewers may go "yes, I've seen that before." Although the more info you give out would also increase the amount of bad leads, I think that the telecenter folks did a pretty good job in terms of recognizing "hot spots" I think they called it (pinpointing a criminals location by realizing that a lot of calls were coming from a certain area.)

I see that you are from St. Albans, WV. I recently did a game show trade with someone from there.

[true]

Honesty is the best policy.

Knowledge begets knowledge and specific knowledge kind begets its own.
Disinformation will beget its own.

The question is not one of a black or white answer.

Perhaps its more a question of for who is it a good or bad idea to withhold valid information and/or put out disinformation?

A case not closed is good for who? Sales of Unsolved Mysteries?
A case not closed is good for who? The victim or the criminal?

Willing participants:
A person vanishes into witness protection.
A person vanishes to just change their life and in doing so file privacy desires with the police. Someone who may or not have been a victim.

But what then of such people who then use their position to intentionally cause others problems?

Who becomes the victim?

Just because a person vanishes does in no way prove they are innocent. In fact those who vanish by choice, lack consideration for those who cared about them. Not a quality of an innocent person.

This paints a bigger picture of the possibilities and in doing so it shows the real forest that exists regarding the question. Where it can be hard to see the forest for the tree you are looking at in front of your face.

Of course any mystery unsolved is gonna naturally be good for a show about such unsolved mysteries. This is or should be obvious. So the bias would be ... guess!

I could refer to a case I'm personally knowledgeable about, but the threads get quickly locked after I post. Perhaps this is a good thing, when my post is not deleted, as it provides a conclusion in this case that the so called authorities are not allowed to communicate due privacy request of the non-victim vanisher.

Cowards hide and if you know the law, you can use it to hide by while you cause others hardships, emotional distress, harm, etc..

To answer the question is to apply principles that have been time tested and proven, such as the ones mentioned at the beginning of this post. Had honesty been applied in this case from before it happened, it perhaps would not have happened at all. But that was not what was applied, instead illusion, assumption and the manipulation of the law, etc., were applied. And in this case the holographic image (where ever part of the item, thing, information piece contains information of the whole) communicates illusion, assumption, manipulation of the law, etc. where even genuine information had intentional and ignorant efforts to dismiss it, applied to it, even by law enforcement.

Knowledge begets its own kind.

How smart is that?

[radar1979]

Very smart and very profound indeed. I had not even really considered the impact of such revealed facts upon the innocent or immunized participants.

I think I have an inkling of the case to which you are refering and if I am correct it WAS one of the ones that lept to mind when I posed this question.

If you could be so kind...just to satisfy my obvious curiousity...would you send a private message confirming just which case you are alluding to. That way it has no chance of being brought back into the limelight and drawing the anger of others.

Thank you for your insight and I hope others will expand on this as you have done.

Sean M

[radar1979]

Trying to think if I know anyone here who is a Game Show lover. LOL. But no one is coming to mind.