1284 users online (240 members and 1044 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741

    Question for Jayelles

    I am not sure this has been asked or answered.

    In the Tracey program does he or anyone mention how he was able to obtain copies of Cellmark reports and other documents?

    Did anyone explain where he was able to get all this information?

    Is it public record? I tend to think not if nobody on the forums had obtained it.

    If it is not public record, is there someone providing him with these materials illegally?

    This is an avenue I have not seen explored.

    Perhaps it is public record and they dug it up. If not, I think the public has a right to know HOW he obtained them and by WHOM

    At the very least, the authorities would/should follow up on this
    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

    Yep

    I got this on FFJ. However, for those members here who maybe don't read there, here is my response:-

    No it doesn't say where they obtained copies of these case documents.

    My guess would be that they were handed over to the Ramseys as part of one of the "deals" they did to negotiate interviews with the Ramseys.

    Alternatively, it could have been amongst the stuff Lou Smit took illegally when he resigned and was allowed to keep. Lou seems to have been very happy to show people his copies of case documentation. Michael Tracey was at pains to deny Lou's involvement for this particular documentary, but Lou has already shown lots of people his presentation.
    Of course, if Mr X's identity is exposed and he is innocent. He will have an excellent incentive to come forward, be tested and sue. He has after all been accused of two murders and a sexual assault on a 12 year old. I'm sure Darnay Hoffman would be only too delighted to represent him pro-bono and LOTS might come out at a trial. It could be very interesting indeed.
    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
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    685
    Did they mention the names of Helgoth's dogs in the documntary?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai
    Did they mention the names of Helgoth's dogs in the documntary?
    No they didn't. I think I can guess where you're coming from though! Maybe the ex-girlfriend would remember. Why not suggest the question to JSA ?(san augustin - i have to really think every time I type his name!)
    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

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    No it doesn't say where they obtained copies of these case documents.

    My guess would be that they were handed over to the Ramseys as part of one of the "deals" they did to negotiate interviews with the Ramseys.

    Alternatively, it could have been amongst the stuff Lou Smit took illegally when he resigned and was allowed to keep. Lou seems to have been very happy to show people his copies of case documentation. Michael Tracey was at pains to deny Lou's involvement for this particular documentary, but Lou has already shown lots of people his presentation.
    So, is all the info presented (documents, etc.) illegally obtained? Are the Ramseys allowed to release documents in an ongoing investigation? Is Lou Smit? Even if the evidence is their own personal copies?

    Is anybody following up on these things?

    Any lawyers out there with knowledge about this?
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Ontario,Canada
    Posts
    91
    Michael Tracey violated the Genetic Privacy Act. The penalty for violating the act is:

    LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS. -- Any person who through negligence collects a DNA sample in violation of this Act, analyzes a DNA sample in violation of this Act, or discloses private genetic information in violation of this act, shall be liable to the sample source for each such violation in an amount equal to:

    (1) any actual damages sustained as a result of the collection, analysis, or disclosure, or $25,000, whichever is greater; and (2) in any case where such violation has resulted in profit or monetary gain, treble damages; and (3) in the case of a successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by the court.

    Willfully discloses private genetic information in violation of this Act, shall be liable to the sample source for each such violation in an amount equal to:

    (A) any actual damages sustained as a result of the collection, analysis, or disclosure, or $50,000, whichever is greater;

    (B) punitive damages as the court may allow; and

    (C) in the case of a successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by the court.


    http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource.../privac3a.html

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawna
    Michael Tracey violated the Genetic Privacy Act.

    I don't think so. The Genetic Privacy Act protects individuals from someone using their detailed DNA for purposes detrimental to the individual, such as determining if they are a good insurance risk, etc. A complete genetic profile, for instance, can reveal if a person is prone to breast cancer, and therefore the DNA information must be kept confidential. It doesn't appear to protect people from simply being identifed as a specific person for LE purposes, or to be included or excluded as a suspect, etc.

    JMO

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    685

    Where do you find him?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    No they didn't. I think I can guess where you're coming from though! Maybe the ex-girlfriend would remember. Why not suggest the question to JSA ?(san augustin - i have to really think every time I type his name!)
    San Augustin....yeah, I was wondering about those four they found wandering around in a pack in July of l998 in Lyons.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai
    San Augustin....yeah, I was wondering about those four they found wandering around in a pack in July of l998 in Lyons.

    I'm wondering about Mr X breeding these dogs. IMO, he couldn't have done it etirely on his own because he spent 90 days in prison in 1996. He was also on probation for 4 years from 1996-2000. He appears to have completed this without default. So did he stop breeding the dogs BEFORE 1996? Or did he continue to do so right through?

    Or ... are JSA & co being a little liberal with the word "breed"? Maybe Mr X had one wolfdog ***** which had a litter!
    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
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    No they didn't. I think I can guess where you're coming from though! Maybe the ex-girlfriend would remember. Why not suggest the question to JSA ?(san augustin - i have to really think every time I type his name!)

    SBTC?

    Imo


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    685

    He also lived in a trailer.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    I'm wondering about Mr X breeding these dogs. IMO, he couldn't have done it etirely on his own because he spent 90 days in prison in 1996. He was also on probation for 4 years from 1996-2000. He appears to have completed this without default. So did he stop breeding the dogs BEFORE 1996? Or did he continue to do so right through?

    Or ... are JSA & co being a little liberal with the word "breed"? Maybe Mr X had one wolfdog ***** which had a litter!
    Afterall, how much land did he have to breed dogs? After looking up info on wolfdogs they come in many colors---so if in fact the hairs match either Helgoth's or Mr. X's dogs, it's an interesting link, and narrows it done a bit further. When did this guy disappear? If he made it through probation, he would have had to have stuck around, unless his probation officer ok'd him leaving...and even then someone would have kept tabs on him.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Maikai
    Afterall, how much land did he have to breed dogs? After looking up info on wolfdogs they come in many colors---so if in fact the hairs match either Helgoth's or Mr. X's dogs, it's an interesting link, and narrows it done a bit further. When did this guy disappear? If he made it through probation, he would have had to have stuck around, unless his probation officer ok'd him leaving...and even then someone would have kept tabs on him.
    I am leery of the claims made by the documentary re the wolf dog hairs matching:-

    Helgoth’s associate raised wolf dogs whose hairs exactly match those colours.
    We know that no experts would claim that anything was an exact "match". Besides, how do they know what colour Mr X's dogs were if he had "disappeared"? Besides, they were careful not to claim that the hairs were an exact match though - only in colour. Very tenous IMO.
    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