1258 users online (244 members and 1014 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741

    The Great New Spin

    The most important piece of absolute nonsense and outright blatant spin and bull***** was Michael Tracey's reponse on Catherine Crier Live last night.

    He spoke of the bootprint from Helgoth and the bootprint from the crime scene. He stated that Helgoth had Hi Tec boots that matched the print in the Ramsey house.

    Catherine Crier responded, rightfully so with the FACT that the police have compared the two and they don't match Helgoth's boot.

    Michael Tracey's response to this FACT?????

    "THE POLICE SAID A LOT OF THINGS"

    So now we have it. We just brush aside the FACTS. We just blatantly insinuate that the police testing is all just made up stories and lies according to Michael Tracey and the RST who are all over the forums idolizing him and his every lying word.

    Like other RST members, I predict the Ramseys will (and already have in some interviews) distance themselves from Tracey as well. He is so obnoxious and blatant in his ridiculous theory to the point of just brushing aside the known facts in this case that even the Ramseys won't comment. They don't want to be known as the idiots even their staunchest supporters are.

    The boots don't match, the stun gun doesn't even match the make believe stun gun marks. Now the spin is that they just haven't found the right brand of stun gun that the RST is positive Helgoth must have owned.

    So from now on, when something doesn't agree with an RST personal theory, to hell with the FACTS. It's all made up.

    The Ramsey supporters have turned out to be the Ramseys biggest embarassment. I wonder how long it will take before their representative Lin Wood, will demand that the RST STOP defending the Ramseys.

    It's their supporters who may just land them in prison
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbara
    The boots don't match, the stun gun doesn't even match the make believe stun gun marks. Now the spin is that they just haven't found the right brand of stun gun that the RST is positive Helgoth must have owned.

    So from now on, when something doesn't agree with an RST personal theory, to hell with the FACTS. It's all made up.

    The Ramsey supporters have turned out to be the Ramseys biggest embarassment. I wonder how long it will take before their representative Lin Wood, will demand that the RST STOP defending the Ramseys.

    It's their supporters who may just land them in prison
    Barbara - re the stungun. There was a stungun the Helgoth's suicide scene photograph and the Investigators thought this was significant - except they had to concede that it wasn't the same kind of stungun that they believe was used on JonBenet.

    So - evidence against Helgoth is that :-

    1) he owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots which have brown debris on the soles which looks as though it might be the same colour as the mould on the Ramsey floor. Never mind the fact that it was in the middle of a snowy winter, and Helgoth had potentially been wearing the boots for 9 weeks before they were recovered as evidence. It is also unblievable that Tracey can claim a match with the boots yet also state that they've never been tested!!!

    2) investigator believe that JBR was stungunned and Helgoth owned a stungun. Never mind the fact that his stungun wasn't the right kind. He owned one - ergo he is the kind of person who uses one - ergo he is involved in a murder where one "may" have been used.

    3) his DNA doesn't match - but he had dodgy, scary friends - criminal types and one of these went missing after Helgoth's death - maybe it was him? They don't know for sure because they'd need to check his DNA, but he "may" have worked in the Ramsey house before the Ramseys moved in so that's a clue because he would have been familiar with the house.

    4) Helgoth and his dodgy friends were seen wearing black clothes and black fibres were found on JonBenet's body.

    5) Helgoth a video of "The SAnta Claus" where Santa wakened a little girl during the night - JonBenet was wakened during the night by her killer. (note - note sure where Santa comes into this, are they saying Mr X dressed up as Santa?)

    6) Helgoth's video of "The SAnta Claus" was interrupted in the middle by a news footage of the murder of Alie Berrelez. In the documentary, one of the investigators said this is significant because criminals often record footage of their "activities" in the middle of innocent movies - however, Michael Tracey, who made the documentary dismissed suggestion that Helgoth or Mr X were connected to the Alie Berrelez murder saying "WHOSE THE OTHER GIRL? WRONG AGAIN".

    7) John Kenady (dodgy sex offender friend of Michael Helgoth) claims that Helgoth said he was hoping to earn $50-60K doing a job with a friend. He said this just before Xmas, but after Xmas, he was depressed because he never got the money.

    8) Helgoth was a paedophile. He admitted that he couldn't trust himself around the young daughter of his girlfriend. (Yet he managed to restrain himself when he had full and elicit control over a "paedophile's dream" and made do with some fairly minor prodding with a paintbrush handle instead?)

    Barbara. I can't make head nor tail of this. I don't see that ANY of this would stand up in court. And why haven't Smit and Bennet tested the boots for mould?
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    6) Helgoth's video of "The SAnta Claus" was interrupted in the middle by a news footage of the murder of Alie Berrelez. In the documentary, one of the investigators said this is significant because criminals often record footage of their "activities" in the middle of innocent movies - however, Michael Tracey, who made the documentary dismissed suggestion that Helgoth or Mr X were connected to the Alie Berrelez murder saying "WHOSE THE OTHER GIRL? WRONG AGAIN".
    I have a copy of the first Tracey documentary, and several minutes in, it is interrupted by news footage of Slobodan Milosevic being indicted. I would take it the Ramsey private investigators are inclined to place the blame or credit on me for having gotten Milosevic indicted, with the footage acting as a souvenir of my activities as I hid it inside a Ramsey documentary.

    Oh, wait. That was an accident and I had started recording on the tape before I remembered that I had not wanted to use that particular tape. But Helgoth is perfect, and never began recording accidentally over a tape he wanted to keep, I understand that is what I am supposed to believe according to Tracey.

    I also have a tape of a movie being broadcast on one of the networks, in the middle of which is a news interruption from the night Princess Diana was killed. According to Tracey, I must be obsessed with Diana, because news of her death is "hidden" inside a movie. And yet, I am not. Unless San Agustin has analyzed the tape characteristics and can show that the tape cassette was a commercial tape, with the tab broken out to prevent being recorded over, and that Helgoth went to great lengths to repair the broken tab so that the tape could be recorded on, whereupon he then could psychically predict the news segment about Alie Berrelez was going to be broadcast so that he could advance the tape to the proper point and press the record button at precisely the right moment to catch the news segment about her, but nothing else from the same time, then I cannot go along with this theory of Helgoth's involvement, since my common-sense experience (which would be called upon were I to be a juror in the case) says that there are such things as coincidences, and in any case, until an explicit and definitive connection is made between the Berrelez and Ramsey cases, I cannot say evidence related to one is evidence of compelling involvement in the other.
    "That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too." -- Anne Elk

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    So......

    The stun gun doesn't match

    The palm print doesn't match

    The boot print doesn't match

    The DNA doesn't match

    NO mention of handwriting comparisons?

    Patsy wrote the note for Helgoth and his friend??????????????

    Yeah, that's our guy!

    Get the cuffs!

    More RST Lunacy!
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514
    Smit and Tracey are in the same category together.
    Both grasp at half-truths or sheer fantasy and then try and spin it into "evidence."

    Like Smit out and out ignoring the fact that there was a chair propped up against the door to the room in the basement where he claims the killer exited out of. He CANNOT have it both ways. He cannot assert that the window was cracked open and a suitcase was found underneath therefore that is evidence an "intruder" left the house that way - and at the SAME time
    KNOW that it is impossible as there was a chair propped up against the door on the outside in the hallway thereby rendering that scenario impossible.

    It makes me want to scream! He is so dishonest in his so-called "investigating". He simply leaves out those facts in the case that do not fit his obsessive theory that someone other than a Ramsey killed JonBenet. No wonder Alex Hunter was frustrated with him and had to warn him (early on!) to "BE OBJECTIVE LOU!"

    Tracey is no different. He is headstrong in his opinion, not objective and refuses to consider ALL of the facts of the case and what the professionals and experts (eg: FBI Child Serial Killer Unit) said after being consulted and analyzing the case. Doesn't matter to him.
    But afterall - he wouldn't be "famous" if he agreed with them now would he??
    Neither would Lou......
    This post is my opinion.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    1,911
    Quote Originally Posted by K777angel
    He cannot assert that the window was cracked open and a suitcase was found underneath therefore that is evidence an "intruder" left the house that way - and at the SAME time KNOW that it is impossible as there was a chair propped up against the door on the outside in the hallway thereby rendering that scenario impossible.
    Exactly, K777angel, and Smit himself even says so, sorta:

    LOU SMIT: The thing I'm trying to figure out in my mind then is, if an intruder went through the door, he'd almost have to pull the chair behind him... because that would have been his exit... so that's not very logical as far as....

    Ya think? I'll finish his sentence for him: that's not very logical as far as an intruder is concerned.

    But hey, no prob... we'll just make the intruder a "bizarrely clever" kinda guy... logic optional... lol:

    JOHN RAMSEY: I think it is. I mean if this person is that bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, but left all these little funny clues around, they... are clever enough to pull the chair back when they left. JonBenet The Police Files, p. 314.

    Who needs logic when you're clever, eh?

    But afterall - he wouldn't be "famous" if he agreed with them now would he??
    Neither would Lou......
    And there you go.
    The intruder is innocent! JMO

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,384
    Jayelles,
    Tracey mentioned during the CC interview that "every" critic in the U.K has given a "positive" response/review to his latestest "mockumentry"-have you read or seen one good article r/e the film???




    EDITED TO ADD: CC handled the interview the best she could(seeing as how CTV is on eggshells lest they get sued AGAIN) and you could totally tell she wasn't buying a single thing Mr.Tracey was selling (is he a pompus ass or what?).
    Last edited by VespaElf; 06-25-2004 at 01:52 PM. Reason: Added Comment
    The saints are the sinners who keep trying...

  8. #8
    In late April and early May, Smit also presented his case on NBC's "Today" show. Tracey is hoping to find an American buyer for a version of his documentary that focuses on the investigation of the case. But he isn't sure when the documentary might appear in the U.S.


    http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ram...1/11ltrac.html

    Ned: No ONE wants to buy your spin. Who the heck is this Tracey anyway?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by messiecake
    Jayelles,
    Tracey mentioned during the CC interview that "every" critic in the U.K has given a "positive" response/review to his latestest "mockumentry"-have you read or seen one good article r/e the film???
    I haven't seen any post-documentary reviews, but then I don't always buy a newspaper. There were a few pre-documentary reviews and I contacted some of the authors to ask them if they'd actually seen the documentary and if they'd mind sharing with me their research. Three replied. Two said that they had seen the previous documentaries and yes they had seen the documentary prior to it airing. The third was the only one who mentioned the Ramseys co-operation (or lack of) and she also mentioned John's new political aspirations and the handwriting experts being unable to eliminate Patsy as the writer of the ransom note. I felt it was the most balanced review of the case. The Radio Times magazine (BBC's tv magazine) said that it was policy for reviewers to actually see the programmes in advance.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,384

    The police say MANY things!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    I haven't seen any post-documentary reviews, but then I don't always buy a newspaper. There were a few pre-documentary reviews and I contacted some of the authors to ask them if they'd actually seen the documentary and if they'd mind sharing with me their research. Three replied. Two said that they had seen the previous documentaries and yes they had seen the documentary prior to it airing. The third was the only one who mentioned the Ramseys co-operation (or lack of) and she also mentioned John's new political aspirations and the handwriting experts being unable to eliminate Patsy as the writer of the ransom note. I felt it was the most balanced review of the case. The Radio Times magazine (BBC's tv magazine) said that it was policy for reviewers to actually see the programmes in advance.
    OMG!!! you mean Tracey may have LIED about his "positive reviews"?????

    HHmmmm........I'm surprisingly NOT shocked!!!
    The saints are the sinners who keep trying...


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058
    New Rumour:

    Michael Tracey and fellow scumbag Darnay Hoffman are gay lovers who take turns dressing up as JonBenet.

    Quick, inform the tabloids! Let's see if Tracey can swallow the same crap he spews.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by messiecake
    OMG!!! you mean Tracey may have LIED about his "positive reviews"?????

    HHmmmm........I'm surprisingly NOT shocked!!!
    I mean that I haven't seen any reviews. I did check the Daily Mail TC Critic the following day, but it was focused on another programme.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    I mean that I haven't seen any reviews. I did check the Daily Mail TC Critic the following day, but it was focused on another programme.

    He made it sound like the critics were shouting from the rooftops about how fantastic his latest opus was and like there wasnt a single piece like the one you mentioned that might have been BALANCED(thats what I gleaned from the interview) but he's quite obviously living in his own fantasy land..........
    The saints are the sinners who keep trying...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by messiecake
    He made it sound like the critics were shouting from the rooftops about how fantastic his latest opus was and like there wasnt a single piece like the one you mentioned that might have been BALANCED(thats what I gleaned from the interview) but he's quite obviously living in his own fantasy land..........
    The football was on another channel on the night the documentary aired - it got the lion's share of the viewing. England in the European Cup. The other two channels had a documentary about "When Daddy became Mummy" (my friend watched that and I couldn't discuss the Tracey doc with her!) and a series about Bollywood which I'd actually been following. Kind of India's answer to Pop Idol!

    A couple of people mentioned to me beforehand that the documentary was going to be on, but no-one has mentioned that they watched it since it's been on. That doesn't mean they didn't watch it - just that I haven't heard anyone talking about it. The only comments I've heard at all were about the pageants because the trailer for the documentary showed JonBenet posing in all her pageant finery. People here think the pageants are a shocking thing and I always emphasise to them that we can't judge the Ramseys for that because it's a cultural thing and just because something isn't part of our culture, it doesn't mean that it's wrong.

    Having said all of this, I've had an unusual schedule over the past couple of weeks which has meant that I've not had the usual interactions with friends and colleagues. Things are getting back to normal now and I'll make a point of asking folks whether they saw the documentary and what they thought of it. I will post all comments - good and bad.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Mid-West
    Posts
    3,868
    Michael Tracey will only show himself a delusional fool when the truth comes out.

    Where are the brave truth seeking journalists? Tracey's crap is easily dismissed with the documentation you guys have posted.
    -
    My opinion and nothing but my opinion.

    Tor:Con Index link below. Will show you the probability of a tornado happening in your area.
    http://www.weather.com/news/tornado-torcon-index

    FEMA's link for Emergency Supplies list below or what you need to survive for three days in case help is not immediately available to you.
    http://www.ready.gov/document/family-supply-list

    You can also purchase a weather radio which will inform you of severe weather even if your electricity goes out. Runs on batteries of course.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast