New Tracey Documentary

[why_nutt]

I will gladly scan or even post a hard copy to any one calling Jay a liar. It's no good Tracy stamping his feet, that is what it says in one of the most popular magazines in the UK. If he wants to have a tantrum about "disinformation" he should start with whoever is doing his company's PR.

Betting windows are now open, wagers are being taken on whether the subject will now be dropped Elsewhere like a lead balloon.

 

[Shawna]

Did you know Michael Tracy thinks rapper Snoop Doggy Dog inspires poor people around the world to launch communist revolutions? I wonder what he thinks about Eminem?

http://www.causecommunications.com/whoweare/westword.html

 

[Cherokee]

Okay, TV TIMES 12-18th June (David Beckham on the cover). On pages 22-23 ,right slap-bang in the centre is a photograph of Lou and quotes either side saying (on the left of picture) "We now have evidence that will tell you who the killer is" and on the right "Probing detective Lou Smit (far left) believes Michael Helgoth (left) and an accomplice killed Jonbenet."

I will gladly scan or even post a hard copy to any one calling Jay a liar. It's no good Tracy stamping his feet, that is what it says in one of the most popular magazines in the UK. If he wants to have a tantrum about "disinformation" he should start with whoever is doing his company's PR.

YES! Jayelles is vindicated! :woohoo:

Thanks, Enola, for confirmation of what Jay posted. I, for one, would like to see that scan.

Tracey got caught shooting his mouth off ...

or shooting himself in the foot ...

or sticking his foot in his mouth ...

or shooting himself in the foot IN his mouth.


IMO

 

[Jayelles]

Okay, TV TIMES 12-18th June (David Beckham on the cover). On pages 22-23 ,right slap-bang in the centre is a photograph of Lou and quotes either side saying (on the left of picture) "We now have evidence that will tell you who the killer is" and on the right "Probing detective Lou Smit (far left) believes Michael Helgoth (left) and an accomplice killed Jonbenet."

I will gladly scan or even post a hard copy to any one calling Jay a liar. It's no good Tracy stamping his feet, that is what it says in one of the most popular magazines in the UK. If he wants to have a tantrum about "disinformation" he should start with whoever is doing his company's PR.

Thank you Enola! You are a star I sent Michael Tracey an e-mail offering to send him a copy of this magazine and telling him that I was disappointed that a University Professor would allow himself to be quoted on his comments on something he hadn't checked into first. I also told him that I found his comments about "genetics" to be childish and not what I would expect from someone of his standing.

I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply. He should know better than to align himself with the likes of jameson. As it stands, he would appear to have a little egg on his face.

 

[Enola]

YES! Jayelles is vindicated! :woohoo:

Thanks, Enola, for confirmation of what Jay posted. I, for one, would like to see that scan.

IMO

Okay, I've scanned it into my computer and apart from the usual problem of scanning information that's right on the fold (just like any info you want in a map book!!) it can be quite easily read. PM me you're email address and i can mail it to you.

 

[Barbara]

Michael Tracey is nothing more than a BAD tabloid reporter without a newspaper so he makes crocumentaries.

Michael Tracey is a parasite who has jumped on the JonBenet Ramsey bandwagon to make some $$$$ without any facts.

The NE at least gets it right much of the time.

Michael Tracey is a moron. Is it genetic???? Is he related to Smit?

It's morally wrong to mention Michael Tracey and Jayelles in the same sentence.

Yep, must be genetic!

 

[Jayelles]

jameson said:-

That man is someone who we have NOT discussed before - his name will be new when you hear it.

According to two of the programme articles I've read, Lou Smit's perp will NOT be named because he has not been charged. This is in keeping with the UK pro-judice laws. Perhaps he will be named by the US press coverage of the documentary?

I think this is irresponsible BTW. It could drive him further underground and prejudice a future trial.

 

[Jayelles]

The articles about the documentary say that investigators believe the perp is responsible for an assault on another young girl. The TV TImes article reported that a vital clue is a video of news coverage of the murder of a little girl 3 years before JonBenet's murder.

Tracey appears to be denying any suggestion that the perp killed another young girl in his e-mail to jameson (not entirely sure why news coverage of her murder should be considered a "vital clue" in that case):-

> They believe that the unnamed person also murdered Michale Helgoth and another young girl.

WHOSE THE OTHER GIRL? WRONG AGAIN

So that leaves us with an assault. Are they thinking of the 14 year old whose mother interrupted a man assaulting her? There were palm prints collected from that scene and police were reported to have compared them.

GERALDO RIVERA, host:

John Ramsey made that emotional statement back in May, again vigorously repeating the consistent denial that he and his wife, Patty, had absolutely nothing to do with their daughter, JonBenet's, horrific death.

Now, for the first time in three and a half years, there is a real new development that could conceivably--maybe that's a stretch, but I think, you know, conceivably support the couple's claim of innocence. Police in Boulder, Colorado, are testing evidence from an attempted assault on a teen-age girl who attended the same dance studio as JonBenet. NBC's Leanne Gregg says authorities are looking for any connection between the two crimes.

LEANNE GREGG reporting:

The crime scene: a basement of the Ramsey home where JonBenet's body was found. Police in Boulder are running more tests on evidence found here. They're checking to see if palm prints at the Ramsey crime scene match prints found at the scene of a sexual assault of a 14-year- old girl that happened after JonBenet's murder.

 

[Sabrina]

Usually if someone is "wanted" and "is on the run" in conjunction with a murder, their name is released so that the public can assist in finding them.

If there is a "manhunt" with specific evidence, enough to arrest, there are warrants issued. If not, and someone is just wanted for questioning-- people in law enforcement, and OFTEN, the public know.

I do not believe there is a "manhunt." Except in someone's imagination.


Michael Tracey aligned himself with this Kenady character, who is a two bit criminal with a rap sheet a mile long. Kenady is in it for the money and the fame-- mostly the money. They (one or both) sold information to the tabloids for the recent bootman article.
It appears Smit helped Tracey with this croc, but has to remain out of it for obvious reasons, but his name and photo pops up with the advertising.....

It's amazing that C.U. tolerates this unprofessional behavior, if they even know. Aren't professors held to the same ethics as real journalists?

 

[Jayelles]

I got a reply from the author of the TV Times article this afternoon.

She too had a preview of the documentary in order to write her review. She is also very interested in the case and has researched it thoroughly. She didn't say how she knew Lou Smit believes in the Michael Helgoth + accomplice theory, but she did confirm that Smit isn't in the documentary.

 

[Shylock]

Doberson has the proof with a high degree of medical certainty that a stun gun was in fact used, and he should know---he missed stun gun marks in the Boggs case, and when he went back and did his homework, the stun gun found in a suspects trunk matched stun gun marks on the victim. Doberson didn't just come up with this off the top of his head.

Doberson has no proof. Doberson is a meathead with an opinion that is always structured around what will get him the most publicity at the time. He's already impeached anything he has to say on this matter since he first opened his mouth to the press saying you really can't tell from photographs and without exhumation. Now the fool thinks he can tell from photographs...DUH.

Here Maikai - read it yourself and weep:

"The only definitive way to tell if electrocution was involved in JonBenet's death is to re-examine her body and look for "very characteristic" changes in skin tissue. You really can't tell from a photo," Doberson said."
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/01/13-1.html

 

[Camper]

I got a reply from the author of the TV Times article this afternoon.

She too had a preview of the documentary in order to write her review. She is also very interested in the case and has researched it thoroughly. She didn't say how she knew Lou Smit believes in the Michael Helgoth + accomplice theory, but she did confirm that Smit isn't in the documentary.

---------------Jayelles, I am hoping that you sent the author a link to Tricia's site, on JR's truth etc.

 

[Nedthan Johns]

Thanks for your signature, what a reminder that anyone that doesn't see the simularities Between Patsy’s writing and the ransom note has to be a complete idiot IMO. This KEY piece of evidence clearly shows her involvement.

 

[Jayelles]

TELEVISION: WE'LL SOLVE THE RIDDLE OF JONBENET'S MURDER Jun 13 2004


PICK OF THE WEEK: New police team close to cracking beauty queen case

With Steve Hendry



Real Crime: Who Killed the Pageant Queen(ITV1 Tuesday, 9pm)When the battered body of child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey was found in the cellar of her parents' home on Boxing Day 1996, America was horrified.

Eight years on, the brutal murder and sexual assault of the six-year-old still has not been solved but that could change thanks to a new investigation explored in Real Crime: Who Killed The Pageant Queen?

After JonBenet's murder, her parents John and Patsy were demonised by the American media for pushing their daughter into the pageant circuit.

No charges were brought against them but with police investigators stating they were satisfied no intruder entered their home, there's little doubt where the finger of blame was pointing.

But when the District Attorney in Boulder, Colorado, ordered a new team of investigators to look at the case last year, they discovered some astonishing blunders in the original investigation including the fact that mystery DNA found on JonBenet's underwear within days of the murder effectively cleared the parents.

They also reveal they may finally be on the trail of JonBenet's true killer. Private detective Ollie Gray, who has worked on the new investigation, said: 'I'm very upset about it because the Boulder police put the Ramsey family through hell they knew in January 1997 the DNA found on the child was not any of the Ramsey family.

'I had the distinct feeling they had no interest in anything that took them away from the theory that John and Patsy Ramsey killed their daughter.'

The programme features exclusive interviews with members of the public, whose information could finally lead to the killer. It also reveals details of how an apparent suicide just weeks after JonBenet's death could hold the key to the mystery.

Boulder salvage yard owner Michael Helgoth was believed to have taken his own life hours after a press conference in February 1997 which warned JonBenet's killer he was close to being caught. The tactic was designed to put pressure on the culprit and Boulder mechanic John Kenady, who knew Helgoth, believed his suicide was no coincidence.

He claims he repeatedly called the police with information linking Helgoth to the murder but claims no one was interested. The new investigation team took Kenady's lead seriously and discovered Helgoth was infatuated with young girls, had the same type of stun gun used to subdue JonBenet and was a known stalker.

They believe they can also link him and an unnamed accomplice to a series of burglaries before JonBenet's death in which little or nothing was taken and which stopped after the murder.

Police now suspect Helgoth may have been murdered by an accomplice in the JonBenet killing.

Ollie Gray said: 'If Helgoth and this associate we identified were involved in the burglaries, they could have been involved in the murder. There were just too many associated items that could tie him to it that means he has to be eliminated. We need DNA from him wherever he might be.'

Tomorrow night's the night. All will be revealed....or will it?

 

[Nedthan Johns]

I'll find him in 30 days or less.


Name???

 

[Jayelles]

I'll find him in 30 days or less.


Name???

No names Ned. British pro judice Laws won't allow the suspect to be named because he hasn't been charged with any crime. I am sure the name will leak out after the documentary is shown here though. It just won't be via British TV or newspapers.

 

[Nedthan Johns]

I can hardly wait. Love to eliminate this perv. so we can get back on track

 

[Cherokee]

I'll find him in 30 days or less.


Name???

Ned -

His name is Red Herring.



IMO

 

[Jayelles]

What I simply do not understand is WHY Tracey is being allowed to expose the prime suspect in this way.

Is this documentary being made with the approval of the official investigation team?

Isn't there a danger that this unnamed perp will be driven further underground?

Mightn't it prejudice a future trial?

If they know who he is, can't they obtain DNA from a relative? Or prints from some object or dwelling place?

This just seems all too weird to me. No matter that they don't actually name this guy. Someone will recognise him from the documentary descriptions and he'll be named. Then if he is ever caught, he can claim that a future jury pool have been influenced against him.

If, as the pre-view blurbs say, they are very close to getting their man, WHY go public with it and risk everything?

 

[Maikai]

Doberson has no proof. Doberson is a meathead with an opinion that is always structured around what will get him the most publicity at the time. He's already impeached anything he has to say on this matter since he first opened his mouth to the press saying you really can't tell from photographs and without exhumation. Now the fool thinks he can tell from photographs...DUH.

Here Maikai - read it yourself and weep:

"The only definitive way to tell if electrocution was involved in JonBenet's death is to re-examine her body and look for "very characteristic" changes in skin tissue. You really can't tell from a photo," Doberson said."
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/01/13-1.html

Whay are your credentials in determining they're not stun gun marks?

Doberson explained that statement....at the time he didn't have a specific stun gun to use in experiments. When Lou Smit gave him ALL of the info, he pursued the research.