Michael Tracey

New Posts

S

Solace

New Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
4,807
Reaction score
13
If anyone is interested, there is a fantastic interview with Gicax, the man who was wrongly implicated by Michael Tracey in the death of JonBenet on Crime and Justice. I came away wondering just how sincere Lou Smit is in all of this if he allows himself to be associated with this man at all.

I mean this man Tracey is low. And if there is any justice Gicax will sue and end up with a settlement. I want to know why Tracey is still at Boulder University teaching there. It is definitely worth reading.
 
Solace said:
If anyone is interested, there is a fantastic interview with Gicax, the man who was wrongly implicated by Michael Tracey in the death of JonBenet on Crime and Justice. I came away wondering just how sincere Lou Smit is in all of this if he allows himself to be associated with this man at all.

I mean this man Tracey is low. And if there is any justice Gicax will sue and end up with a settlement. I want to know why Tracey is still at Boulder University teaching there. It is definitely worth reading.
Click to expand...
thx,I wonder too.Tracey is such a slimeball.A true slimeball.(can I say that here?).I hope Gicax does sue.And LS should be ashamed for being assoc. with the R's or MT.If he's got any sense at all that is.He may very well regret it in the future.
 
JMO8778 said:
thx,I wonder too.Tracey is such a slimeball.A true slimeball.(can I say that here?).I hope Gicax does sue.And LS should be ashamed for being assoc. with the R's or MT.If he's got any sense at all that is.He may very well regret it in the future.
Click to expand...
As far as I am concerned that adjective is too nice. What bothers me about it is the fact that Lou Smit and Ollie Gray have to know this is a complete hoax by him and if they say they did not, they should have. I do not believe they did not know something was not right. So Lou Smit is hitting the skids in my book. The poor man comes home from a camping trip to find all these e-mails saying you have been named in a documentary as a suspect by Tracey. Luckily, Trish helps him and he calls someone in the Boulder PD and they tell him it is nothing and he is not a suspect.

But can you imagine this happening to you and this guy gets away with it. And what is with Erin Moriarity of 48 hours, doing the interview with Tracey. Anything for a dime I guess. Anything. Does not matter who gets hurt or whose life is destroyed.
 
Solace said:
As far as I am concerned that adjective is too nice. What bothers me about it is the fact that Lou Smit and Ollie Gray have to know this is a complete hoax by him and if they say they did not, they should have. I do not believe they did not know something was not right. So Lou Smit is hitting the skids in my book. The poor man comes home from a camping trip to find all these e-mails saying you have been named in a documentary as a suspect by Tracey. Luckily, Trish helps him and he calls someone in the Boulder PD and they tell him it is nothing and he is not a suspect.

But can you imagine this happening to you and this guy gets away with it. And what is with Erin Moriarity of 48 hours, doing the interview with Tracey. Anything for a dime I guess. Anything. Does not matter who gets hurt or whose life is destroyed.
Click to expand...
I hope Tracey gets the the pants sued off his butt.That's exactly what he needs.And I wish LS would do the right thing,too.I agree with you,he had to know better.Moriarity has had a field day with this case,not being objective at all,like Barbara Walters and LK have been.
 
JMO8778 said:
I hope Tracey gets the the pants sued off his butt.That's exactly what he needs.And I wish LS would do the right thing,too.I agree with you,he had to know better.Moriarity has had a field day with this case,not being objective at all,like Barbara Walters and LK have been.
Click to expand...
I always thought Lou Smit was sincere, but when he associates with Michael Tracey - lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas, is that what they say. Well Mr. Smit has some fleas right now. What is he doing associating with him at any point.

It is interesting that John Ramsey says the media destroyed his family but when it comes to Tracey destroying an innocent man, that is okay.
 
Nancy Drew
Chicago, IL Reply »
|Flag for Review 3 hrs ago

RiverRat wrote:
"What a perfect idea! Tracey & mame hook up to sink Fleet White! How unique! Krebs has all of the proof she needs to convince John Mark Karr Man that she is credible, so why not, mame???? "

He tried that already. She has no interest in talking to anyone unless its under oath.

Nancy Drew
Chicago, IL

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TPTMFFE84OCK24N9P/p3#lastPost
 
RiverRat said:
Nancy Drew
Chicago, IL Reply »
|Flag for Review 3 hrs ago

RiverRat wrote:
"What a perfect idea! Tracey & mame hook up to sink Fleet White! How unique! Krebs has all of the proof she needs to convince John Mark Karr Man that she is credible, so why not, mame???? "

He tried that already. She has no interest in talking to anyone unless its under oath.

Nancy Drew
Chicago, IL


http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TPTMFFE84OCK24N9P/p3#lastPost
Click to expand...

RiverRat:

Can you explain what the above is all about. I looked at your links and if you would in short explain it. Much appreciated. Solace
 
How many years do you have to listen?
 
Solace said:
If anyone is interested, there is a fantastic interview with Gicax, the man who was wrongly implicated by Michael Tracey in the death of JonBenet on Crime and Justice. I came away wondering just how sincere Lou Smit is in all of this if he allows himself to be associated with this man at all.

I mean this man Tracey is low. And if there is any justice Gicax will sue and end up with a settlement. I want to know why Tracey is still at Boulder University teaching there. It is definitely worth reading.
Click to expand...

Solace,

Lou Smit sold the JonBenet case evidence for monetary gain, he was employed by the Ramsey's to promote an intruder theory, to this end he appeared in the Tracey documentaries, presenting himself as searching for JonBenet's killer.

Assuming he is not a stupid man, he patently did not have far to look, but decided finance was more important than justice.


.
 
UKGuy said:
Solace,

Lou Smit sold the JonBenet case evidence for monetary gain, he was employed by the Ramsey's to promote an intruder theory, to this end he appeared in the Tracey documentaries, presenting himself as searching for JonBenet's killer.

Assuming he is not a stupid man, he patently did not have far to look, but decided finance was more important than justice.


.
Click to expand...

Lawd Almighty UK, we are agreeing on too many things today. I at one time did believe he was a sincere man. No longer so. The fact that he would associate with this man is evidence enough for me. I sincerely hope that Cajax (sp?) will sue him now that he was on the radio show and the emcee asked for lawyers to help him.

I also agreed with Steve Thomas' allegation that Smit felt an affinity with Patsy because his wife was also going through cancer. But the fact that he could align himself with Tracey speaks volumes.
 
Solace said:
Cant you do it in a paragraph, pleeeeeeeeeeeeese.
Click to expand...


Impossible, Sweetie!

According to Mary Suma - Professor Tracey has already approached Nancy Kreb's and her false allegations. Those documentaries of his fits right in with the story Nancy tells, so I would assume he wanted to make her the next Karr Star!
 
RiverRat said:
Impossible, Sweetie!

According to Mary Suma - Professor Tracey has already approached Nancy Kreb's and her false allegations. Those documentaries of his fits right in with the story Nancy tells, so I would assume he wanted to make her the next Karr Star!
Click to expand...


Ahhhhhhh, getting closer. I will go read it. Thank you.
 
Any future documentaries made by Mills and/or Tracey will be watched very closely by me. I REALLY object to the British public being conned with misleading/erroneous documentaries when there is no other coverage about the case here to redress the balance.

One of these days someone might be interested enough to make a decent, unbiased programme about the case here and when they do, I have a whole bunch of material for them (no charge).

It doesn't help the case when programme-makers misrepresent the facts, it just muddies the water. Someone, somewhere might know something which would break the case and if they saw the misleading programme, it might make them believe that their own information is irrelevant.

Police investigating the Yorkshire Ripper were mislead by a hoax tape which they were convinced was genuine evidence. As a result of this, they only looked at men with a "Geordie" accent bypassing the real killer several times (he killed several more women during this period).

Mills and Tracey have made several claims in their documentaries of FACTS - which are not FACTS but mere possibilities. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it - it's dishonest.
 
Jayelles said:
Any future documentaries made by Mills and/or Tracey will be watched very closely by me. I REALLY object to the British public being conned with misleading/erroneous documentaries when there is no other coverage about the case here to redress the balance.

One of these days someone might be interested enough to make a decent, unbiased programme about the case here and when they do, I have a whole bunch of material for them (no charge).

It doesn't help the case when programme-makers misrepresent the facts, it just muddies the water. Someone, somewhere might know something which would break the case and if they saw the misleading programme, it might make them believe that their own information is irrelevant.

Police investigating the Yorkshire Ripper were mislead by a hoax tape which they were convinced was genuine evidence. As a result of this, they only looked at men with a "Geordie" accent bypassing the real killer several times (he killed several more women during this period).

Mills and Tracey have made several claims in their documentaries of FACTS - which are not FACTS but mere possibilities. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it - it's dishonest.
Click to expand...

Everything about him is dishonest starting with his very large teeth.
 
Solace said:
I want to know why Tracey is still at Boulder University teaching there.
Click to expand...

Well, it took CU forever to get rid of Ward Churchill, even after it became apparent that he was lying on many issues. They don't move very quickly on anything, and they're nearly paralyzed by their need to be politically correct, it seems.
 
I missed you, too, Ames, and Solace is often rather funny. What was that one the other day that had me laughing...something about no wonder Patsy wouldn't ever admit it. That cracked me up.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
I missed you, too, Ames, and Solace is often rather funny. What was that one the other day that had me laughing...something about no wonder Patsy wouldn't ever admit it. That cracked me up.
Click to expand...

I love you both.

I was thinking of John and how easily he sits there and answers questions with that perennial smile on his face and how he does manage to convince some that he is sincere. Then I was reading the Bonita papers and came to the part where they swear Burke was not up that morning, categorically swear HE WAS NOT UP. Then I go to the Enquirer interview where they admit that he was up after Burke said so to the Grand Jury. But they preface it with we did not know he was up = we thought he was asleep - and then John says Burke was up after they made the call and then says Burke was up before the call. What I am saying is it is no problem for him to lie about it.

Also what is interesting at the National Enquirer interview Patsy made cookies for the interviewers and John and Patsy make no pretense in their depositions later on of saying the Enquirer is the lowest of the lowest. Another thing interesting about Patsy is she met with Detective Arndt several times and they got along fine - but Detective Arndt in her deposition says she believes John had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet and that he in fact killed her and Patsy aided in the coverup.

Is this family bizarre or what? I said the other day on another thread that that I did not believe Patsy knew about any incestuous relationship with John and JonBenet because I had seen a video of her trying to squirt John with a large watergun and they were genuinely having a good time.

I don't know anything about these people anymore. The only reason I can see Patsy making cookies for a reporter from the NE is to manipulate him. The only reason I can see Patsy EVER being amicable to Detective Arndt is to manipulate her. Det. Arndt comes out and says John killed JB and he had sex with her, but there is no suing going on. However, when Steve Thomas writes the book, they sue. So what was the difference between Detective Arndt and Steve Thomas. Detective Arndt said this on Good Morning America.

And the only reason one would want to manipulate a detective is to keep the detective away from the truth. And that's the truth!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 197 more.
Total: 2,658 (members: 198, guests: 2,460)

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
2,460
Total visitors
2,658
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,536
Messages
17,954,223
Members
228,527
Latest member
rxpb
Back
Top