Michael Tracey Thread
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
New Posts
-
IL - Child, 9, charged in fire deaths of 5 people, Goodfield, 6 Apr 2019 #2
- Latest: imstilla.grandma
CW
Former Member
Tricia,Jayelles and Why_Nut the three of you have done a awesome job. You have exposed Tracey and his scams to the world. Your hard work has truly paid off.
Jack
New Member
While watching I think Paula Zahn last night there was someone on there with a few choice things to say about tracy. I'm having a bit of trouble remembering who it was though, maybe Mark Klaas or John Walsh. He said that it wouldn't be a surprise if tracy had somehow inadvertantly given jmk that "unknown to the public" info about the condition of JB's body.
Edited to add:
Oh wow! I just read that article and I must say I never knew all that even though I've been a member here for years... Good going Tricia..
Edited to add:
Oh wow! I just read that article and I must say I never knew all that even though I've been a member here for years... Good going Tricia..
Cypros
Well-Known Member
Congrats on getting recognition for a job well done, Tricia!
One question: I know that the Tracey documentary was originally aired in the U.K. but didn't it show in the US as well? Two nights ago, Court TV aired the documentary that I thought was Tracey's. I was so annoyed that they would do this despite the fact it was shown to be a bunch of hooey. I turned it off.
One question: I know that the Tracey documentary was originally aired in the U.K. but didn't it show in the US as well? Two nights ago, Court TV aired the documentary that I thought was Tracey's. I was so annoyed that they would do this despite the fact it was shown to be a bunch of hooey. I turned it off.
Love_Mama
Rest In Peace
Couldn't believe what you guys have done. I'm sending off the article to both LA Times and the AP........since I was photo stringer for them years ago..........well, they won't know who I am anyway!
Tricia, had no idea you were in Radio........! My late husbands business for years! I'm very proud of all of you.....
xxxxxxxxxxxxxooooooooooo
mama
Tricia, had no idea you were in Radio........! My late husbands business for years! I'm very proud of all of you.....
xxxxxxxxxxxxxooooooooooo
mama
englishleigh
Authentic Southern Belle
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
- Messages
- 7,116
- Reaction score
- 163
Way to go, Tricia!!!! Will do my part in distributing the article.
Jayelles
New Member
The FACT is (and I really mean FACT) - Michael Tracey is not a reliable source. He may have access to inside information, but he has not demonstrated any degree of logic in piecing it together.
He has made three documentaries each of which was shown first in the UK and then in the US. The first two differed slightly from each other. The third documentaries were completely different - by necessity.
Two years ago, Tracey III was shown here in the UK. It promised to reveal details of a "Prime Suspect" in the Ramsey case. As one of the few diehard British followers of the case, I prepared to follow every detail of the forthcoming broadcast so that I could relay them to my fellow case followers in the US.
The first signs of "trouble" (not the best word, but I'm trying to work quickly here) was when I posted the details of a preview/review which had been written about the programme. It stated that the programme would link Jonbenet's killer to the murder of another little girl in Colorado and the article bore a photo of Lou Smit and quoted him about his intruder theory. I was just the messenger for this article - just passed on what it stated. Next thing, jameson started a thread saying that she had e-mailed my post to Michael Tracey and this was his reply (copied and pasted - all spelling errors are presumably Tracey's):-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_station
Anyway, I digress. In his snotty, shouting, badly-spelled e-mail, Tracey insulted me and claimed that he idn't know who the "other girl" was and he also claimed that Lou SMit wasn't involved in the making of the documetary - it was clear from his response that he didn't do his homework and wasn't even familiar with the facts of his own documentary!
1) In fact, it was the person who wrote the preview who quoted Lou Smit - I only reported what she wrote. The fact that she had done so in her preview (and there was even a photo of Lou Smit as Enola will testify - she posted a scan of the review) was highly suggestive that SMit was in the documentary. Had Tracey done his homework, he would have realised that.
2) His documentary included a clip of John San Augustin stating that murderers often record vidoe of tv coverage of their crime - and Helgoth had tv coverage of the murder of little Allie Berrelez in the middle of a TV movie. The implication was perfectly clear. They were offering this as evidnce that hegoth was a murderer. If murderer's record news footage of their crimes - what wa the significance of Hegoth havign news footage of Allile Berrelez's murder????
This first encounter that I had with Michael Tracey made me think that this Professor of Journalism sounded a bit like a buffoon to me - someone who made rash judgements without checking his facts.
I e-mailed the person who wrote the preview and asked her if she'd actually watched the docuemtary before writing her preview - she said she had.
Then I got to see the documentary. I transcribed it for the forum and that took me a few hours. I double checked it for accuracy and posted it. Then I set about getting some screen captures. I had actually bought a dvd recorder specially for this purpose!
We knew in advance that the documentary was going to offer Michael helgoth as a suspect in the ramsey case - but case followers knew that there was nothing to tie him to the scene. He owned Hi-tec boots and may have owned a stungun which didn't match the marks on Jonbenet's body - but apart from the fact that he committed suicide on the day after Alex Hunter's speech, that was all.
In fact, the documentary offered the theory that Michael helgoth HAD been involved in the murder, but that he wasn't actually the killer -he was just an accomplice. The *real* killer was not named. The documentary inclued footage of some friends of Hegoth describing a bad man - someone who frightened them all and who had gone to jail for assaulting his wife in the May of 1996.
However, one thing immediately troubled me about the documentary. It seemed to present Ollie Gray and John San Augustin as though they were the official investigators in the case - and I knew they were Ramsey-hired PIs.
Overall, the documentary suggested that Mr X and Hegoth were responsible for:-
Boulder midnight burglaries
Possible invovlement in the murder of Allie Berrelez
the murder of JonBenet Ramsey
Then they suggested that Mr X murdered Hegoth and that he was the attacker in a later case - known as the DanceWest case in which an intruder broke into a house and assaulted a young girl.
Most intriguingly, the investigators claimed that this bad man - Mr X had "disappeared" ....
My own first reactions about the documentary are well documented - I was excited and thought the theory was compelling. I wondered who this guy was.
As I set about doing screen captures, I watched as documentation was panned on the screen - documetation pertaining to Mr X. his name was blacked out, but there were other details which weren't. One was a physical escription of him. I still-framed it and peered at the tv. I could make out that his physical description said he was in his 50s, that he was 6ft 0/1 and that he had brown eyes and hair. I could also make out some other details - code numbers pertaining to his arrest and case numbers.
I then went online and did a search which revealed that it was possible to search a database in Colorado on these details for a small fee. On doing so, I returned two separate documents with the same guy's name on them! Was this JonBenet's killer?
I didn't know what to do with this information. I am a stickler for integrity - having been a research assistant for some years and I knew that it was important to have the information independently validated. So I e-mailed Why_Nut and Tricia and told them that I might have the name of Mr X but that I really wanted them to independently verify what I had done. So I sent them copies of the documentary on DVD and screen captures of the documentation. Soon I had e-mails from both of them confirming the name of the guy whose details I had. There was no doubt that this was Tracey & Co's "Prime Suspect". I had also proof that anyone could have obtained that information if they had seen the documentary.
Tricia then bit the bullet. She found out more about Mr X and tracked him down very quickly. If Tricia wishes to discuss her communications with Mr X, she can do so herself, but it was quickly evident that this guy:-
a) hadn't disappeared
b) hadn't been in Colorado at the time of the murder and was claiming to have several alibis (he was actually on probation in another state and records show he did not default on this).
c) wanted very much to clear his name and offered to take a DNA test
d) was pretty angry about the whole thing!
Another thing became apparent - no attempt had been made to contact Mr X - not by Tracey or by the Ramsey PIs who took part in the documentary. This guy had an unusual name which turned up on a Gogle search. his website had contact e-mail and telephone details - both of which DID contact him. So why did they claim he'd "disappeared"? Were they so incompetent? Or were they afraid that they would find he wasn't involved and spoil a good theory?
Either way, I had a closer look at the documentary and discovered yet another discrepancy. The documentary linked the Dancewest assault with the Ramsey case. I looke up details about the DanceWest case and discovered that there was a witness description of the perp - he was described as being in his 20s, about 5ft 7 with blonde hair and a jutting out chin. Remember the physical description of Mr X on the documentation which Tracey and Co had - in his 50s, over 6ft tall with brown hair and eyes....
He couldn't be more different!!!!! That was like having a crime committed by someone resembling Leonardo di Caprio and offering up Elvis Presley as a possible match!
There was a furore after Tricia revealed Mr X on the forum. The RST were critical and blamed us for exposing the man when kind Mr Tracey hadn't (no - he'd only made a documentary accusing the man of multiple homicides!). Mr X wasn't annoyed with us - he rightly blamed his false accuser.
Having proved to be a horrendous piece of nonsense at best, Tracey's documentary had to be completely re-worked before it could be shown in the US. The American version made no reference to Mr X.
Now we have Tracey claiming to have been in e-mail contact with John Karr for 4 years and Ollie Gray is involved yet again. can anyone blame us for wondering about the Michael Tracey element? A man who makes snotty responses in e-mail about a report he hasn't read, a man who makes a documentary accusing a man of multiple murders and claiming that he has mysteriously disappeared when all he hd to do was type the man's name into Google and he'd get a phone number which would enable him to ask the man where he was in December 1996???
I am very glad to see that Peter Boyles has Tracey's number and is asking all the right questions! I hope he read this.
He has made three documentaries each of which was shown first in the UK and then in the US. The first two differed slightly from each other. The third documentaries were completely different - by necessity.
Two years ago, Tracey III was shown here in the UK. It promised to reveal details of a "Prime Suspect" in the Ramsey case. As one of the few diehard British followers of the case, I prepared to follow every detail of the forthcoming broadcast so that I could relay them to my fellow case followers in the US.
The first signs of "trouble" (not the best word, but I'm trying to work quickly here) was when I posted the details of a preview/review which had been written about the programme. It stated that the programme would link Jonbenet's killer to the murder of another little girl in Colorado and the article bore a photo of Lou Smit and quoted him about his intruder theory. I was just the messenger for this article - just passed on what it stated. Next thing, jameson started a thread saying that she had e-mailed my post to Michael Tracey and this was his reply (copied and pasted - all spelling errors are presumably Tracey's):-
The last sentence "and it's not a tv station it's a network" tells me a lot about Tracey. My calling it a tv station was perfectly correct. Network is an American term - we call them tv stations here. He should know that:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_station
Anyway, I digress. In his snotty, shouting, badly-spelled e-mail, Tracey insulted me and claimed that he idn't know who the "other girl" was and he also claimed that Lou SMit wasn't involved in the making of the documetary - it was clear from his response that he didn't do his homework and wasn't even familiar with the facts of his own documentary!
1) In fact, it was the person who wrote the preview who quoted Lou Smit - I only reported what she wrote. The fact that she had done so in her preview (and there was even a photo of Lou Smit as Enola will testify - she posted a scan of the review) was highly suggestive that SMit was in the documentary. Had Tracey done his homework, he would have realised that.
2) His documentary included a clip of John San Augustin stating that murderers often record vidoe of tv coverage of their crime - and Helgoth had tv coverage of the murder of little Allie Berrelez in the middle of a TV movie. The implication was perfectly clear. They were offering this as evidnce that hegoth was a murderer. If murderer's record news footage of their crimes - what wa the significance of Hegoth havign news footage of Allile Berrelez's murder????
This first encounter that I had with Michael Tracey made me think that this Professor of Journalism sounded a bit like a buffoon to me - someone who made rash judgements without checking his facts.
I e-mailed the person who wrote the preview and asked her if she'd actually watched the docuemtary before writing her preview - she said she had.
Then I got to see the documentary. I transcribed it for the forum and that took me a few hours. I double checked it for accuracy and posted it. Then I set about getting some screen captures. I had actually bought a dvd recorder specially for this purpose!
We knew in advance that the documentary was going to offer Michael helgoth as a suspect in the ramsey case - but case followers knew that there was nothing to tie him to the scene. He owned Hi-tec boots and may have owned a stungun which didn't match the marks on Jonbenet's body - but apart from the fact that he committed suicide on the day after Alex Hunter's speech, that was all.
In fact, the documentary offered the theory that Michael helgoth HAD been involved in the murder, but that he wasn't actually the killer -he was just an accomplice. The *real* killer was not named. The documentary inclued footage of some friends of Hegoth describing a bad man - someone who frightened them all and who had gone to jail for assaulting his wife in the May of 1996.
However, one thing immediately troubled me about the documentary. It seemed to present Ollie Gray and John San Augustin as though they were the official investigators in the case - and I knew they were Ramsey-hired PIs.
Overall, the documentary suggested that Mr X and Hegoth were responsible for:-
Boulder midnight burglaries
Possible invovlement in the murder of Allie Berrelez
the murder of JonBenet Ramsey
Then they suggested that Mr X murdered Hegoth and that he was the attacker in a later case - known as the DanceWest case in which an intruder broke into a house and assaulted a young girl.
Most intriguingly, the investigators claimed that this bad man - Mr X had "disappeared" ....
My own first reactions about the documentary are well documented - I was excited and thought the theory was compelling. I wondered who this guy was.
As I set about doing screen captures, I watched as documentation was panned on the screen - documetation pertaining to Mr X. his name was blacked out, but there were other details which weren't. One was a physical escription of him. I still-framed it and peered at the tv. I could make out that his physical description said he was in his 50s, that he was 6ft 0/1 and that he had brown eyes and hair. I could also make out some other details - code numbers pertaining to his arrest and case numbers.
I then went online and did a search which revealed that it was possible to search a database in Colorado on these details for a small fee. On doing so, I returned two separate documents with the same guy's name on them! Was this JonBenet's killer?
I didn't know what to do with this information. I am a stickler for integrity - having been a research assistant for some years and I knew that it was important to have the information independently validated. So I e-mailed Why_Nut and Tricia and told them that I might have the name of Mr X but that I really wanted them to independently verify what I had done. So I sent them copies of the documentary on DVD and screen captures of the documentation. Soon I had e-mails from both of them confirming the name of the guy whose details I had. There was no doubt that this was Tracey & Co's "Prime Suspect". I had also proof that anyone could have obtained that information if they had seen the documentary.
Tricia then bit the bullet. She found out more about Mr X and tracked him down very quickly. If Tricia wishes to discuss her communications with Mr X, she can do so herself, but it was quickly evident that this guy:-
a) hadn't disappeared
b) hadn't been in Colorado at the time of the murder and was claiming to have several alibis (he was actually on probation in another state and records show he did not default on this).
c) wanted very much to clear his name and offered to take a DNA test
d) was pretty angry about the whole thing!
Another thing became apparent - no attempt had been made to contact Mr X - not by Tracey or by the Ramsey PIs who took part in the documentary. This guy had an unusual name which turned up on a Gogle search. his website had contact e-mail and telephone details - both of which DID contact him. So why did they claim he'd "disappeared"? Were they so incompetent? Or were they afraid that they would find he wasn't involved and spoil a good theory?
Either way, I had a closer look at the documentary and discovered yet another discrepancy. The documentary linked the Dancewest assault with the Ramsey case. I looke up details about the DanceWest case and discovered that there was a witness description of the perp - he was described as being in his 20s, about 5ft 7 with blonde hair and a jutting out chin. Remember the physical description of Mr X on the documentation which Tracey and Co had - in his 50s, over 6ft tall with brown hair and eyes....
He couldn't be more different!!!!! That was like having a crime committed by someone resembling Leonardo di Caprio and offering up Elvis Presley as a possible match!
There was a furore after Tricia revealed Mr X on the forum. The RST were critical and blamed us for exposing the man when kind Mr Tracey hadn't (no - he'd only made a documentary accusing the man of multiple homicides!). Mr X wasn't annoyed with us - he rightly blamed his false accuser.
Having proved to be a horrendous piece of nonsense at best, Tracey's documentary had to be completely re-worked before it could be shown in the US. The American version made no reference to Mr X.
Now we have Tracey claiming to have been in e-mail contact with John Karr for 4 years and Ollie Gray is involved yet again. can anyone blame us for wondering about the Michael Tracey element? A man who makes snotty responses in e-mail about a report he hasn't read, a man who makes a documentary accusing a man of multiple murders and claiming that he has mysteriously disappeared when all he hd to do was type the man's name into Google and he'd get a phone number which would enable him to ask the man where he was in December 1996???
I am very glad to see that Peter Boyles has Tracey's number and is asking all the right questions! I hope he read this.
Jayelles
New Member
I have a document which has more details of this. It was drawn up for Mr X's legal counsel.
Nehemiah
Well-Known Member
Jayelles said:
Thanks for posting your work on the Mr. X situation, Jayelles. I know that many here now were not here at that time and may not be aware of all that transpired. I remember when I first found out Mr. X's true identity I googled his name and immediately got his personal info! For Mr. Tracey to have said that Mr. X was being sought and couldn't be located (my own words here) was an outright misrepresentation.
This whole case has been a circus from day 1.
Enola
Active Member
Jayelles said:
Just a couple of things I wanted to add:
1) As the person wh actually scanned and sent the tv preview I was amazed that anyone could doubt it's existence...It was a cutting from one of the top selling weekly magazines in the UK, about a programme on one of only four channels that every TV here can pick up! Short of being mentioned in Parliament, I would imagine it's hard to get a higher profile , yet Jayelles was ripped apart for repeating the facts as if she had written and printed the article herself. I think that made me realise just how much some people have invested in 'their truth'. It was quite an eye-opener.
2) Micheal Tracey likes to consider himself quite the expert on UK TV, but usually manages to make a comment that leaves him with egg on his face. The 'it's not a a station, it's a tv network" comment is a great indicator of that. An even better one is his 'expert' prediction (while Head of the Broadcast Research Unit) that, "Satellite TV in Britain will be a flop." (Sunday Times Dec. 1, 1988) If he can make such poor predictions and comments in an area where he is 'the expert', why on earth are so many people so willing to give him a pass on his murder theories?
3)Tracey likes to express his view that documentary television in Britain has "been touched by the beauty of truth." He does this while producing a documentary proclaiming one set of suspects and at the same time emailing another. Let's just borrow his analogy and say that his documentary was ugly, in every way possible.
Once again, Kudos to those exposing him for what he is.
Jayelles
New Member
Thank you for confirming the preview/review thing Enola! And another thank you for 2 and 3! I hadn't seen those comments before.
Everything I seem to read about Tracey suggests that he is a man who doesn't check his facts or do his homework.
Everything I seem to read about Tracey suggests that he is a man who doesn't check his facts or do his homework.
Stan
New Member
Tricia said:
.... Great work, Tricia, Jayelles and Why_Nut!! The only ones to benefit from all this is the media, they have something to write about. Unfortunately, poor JonBenet still won't see justice. Maybe something will become of this!
debann
New Member
Now we have Tracey claiming to have been in e-mail contact with John Karr for 4 years and Ollie Gray is involved yet again. can anyone blame us for wondering about the Michael Tracey element? A man who makes snotty responses in e-mail about a report he hasn't read, a man who makes a documentary accusing a man of multiple murders and claiming that he has mysteriously disappeared when all he hd to do was type the man's name into Google and he'd get a phone number which would enable him to ask the man where he was in December 1996???
Here's an interesting story on how Tracey became involved in the email exchange with Karr.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4929588,00.html
Here's an interesting story on how Tracey became involved in the email exchange with Karr.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4929588,00.html
luvbeaches
New Member
Jack said:
I heard that comment. And it wouldn't surprise me a bit if Tracy was involved.
Then...remember they said something like...Tracy better be careful, he might end up on the suspect list...or something like that. It was weird. Tracy is really an odd duck.