Michael Tracey - fingered false suspects in the past.

Tracey is Candy?

 

Peter Boyles was calling Tracey another Ward Churchill on his show...the "white Ward Churchill."

Peter had guests call in, and I believe they "get it" in Boulder.

 

Even more dangerous is the likelihood that his office has a bazillion telephone books, and he's only up to the 'K's

:nervous:

 

Calling All Skeptics...

I heard that Sandrock guy from the Boulder Camera being interviewed. He claims HE was the one who put Tracey on to Karr. His body language was screaming throughout the interview, "I am a bonafide member of the Boulder Liars Club."

Sandrock says he just "happened" to be in Paris at the same time as Karr...researching Ernest Hemingway...(I thought these types usually go to Key West to research Hemingway)...and he just "happened" to bump into John Karr at the bookshop (I bet he did)...and just "happened" to mention Michael Tracey. Then Karr immediately opened up (er, pun intended)...

WHAT IF The Boulder Camera, which collaborated in the elaborate Nancy Krebs/ Mystery Woman hoax, decided it was time for another hoax. WHAT IF Tracey had already been in touch with Karr via the internet pedophile chatrooms both frequented and knew he would be in Paris that week, at that place. WHAT IF Tracey and his friends at The Camera set up the whole "random" meeting as a first step in the entrapment of John Karr.

 

Does anyone know if Peter Boyles discussed Tracey's false documentary implicating innocent people?

 

Not Peter Boyles - Craig Silverman mentioned that he had falsely fingered someone before.

 

Peter Boyles to Cover Tracey III Hoax

Tomorrow. I'm just listening to his interview with Mr Klass. Mr Klass brought up the fact that Tracey had made the documentary adn Boyles said "That's right - we're going to cover that tomorrow"

Sorry if this has been mentioned already. I've not been reading much today - too busy.

 

Anyone? Mods?

What happened to that funny thread about the LKL Show with Wood and Tracey? I can't seem to locate it.

 

Here it is, Lurker.


"Heads Up re Tracey on LKL"

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7227

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2148089

(snip)

Tracey, the producer of three documentaries on the JonBenet case, is motivated, he says, by the desire to show how overblown the coverage is: "I don't regard JonBenet's murder as an important story." He is publicizing it to demonstrate its insignificance and to illustrate what is wrong with American journalism.

~~
What a crock.

 

Lurker

Sandrock said he was in Paris covering a bike race - he was researching Hemmingway at the library where he says he "ran into" Karrina. He talked to him several times and the put him in touch with Tracy.

Now, Tracey claims he only recently learned Karr's name - puhleeeeese give me a break. His good friend is going to give a code 6 wingnut Tracey's email without finding out who he is. :nono: NO

 

I found this strange too VP,he said he spoke to him a few times which means they had more than one meeting?

And the other thing I can't get by is why would Tracey/Gray wait 4 years before notifying Lacy? I know they have all been in cahoots, but I did hear Gray state that he coached Tracey in how to handle Karr.

And the name "Karr" never came up on the radar, so I guess the FBI or Sonoma County never notified Boulder about the 2001 porn incident and Wendy Hutchens tapes. Actually, I just listened to a few seconds and it's pretty sickening. They are all on KRON San Francisco's website.

 

If we hadn't done a little bit of sleuthing and found Mr X, just think how this might have panned out. Tracey III might have been shown in the US in it's British format. Then some person or people - possibly the tabs, would have done what I did, found out Mr X's identity and gone public with it. More likely Tracey would have been sued.

 

I'm proud of you Jayelles!

Tracey must be laughing how he's twisted the media around his little finger (didn't any reporter ask WHAT the previous documentaries were on?) and to boot, Tracey has the taxpayers of Boulder to fund his suspects via the DA's office.

Heck Tracey doesn't have spend his money.... doesn't even matter that the previous documentary victims were innocent...Tracey will get his fame and money while pointing the finger at the media for being so OBSESSED with JonBenet's murder.

 

That horse-toothed hypocrite!

 

Over and over, Tracey says, he ran into people who believed the parents were guilty. But when asked why, they could give only superficial, oddball reasons — Patsy Ramsey's smile was evil or John Ramsey had an incriminating twitch. from the Daily Camera article upthread

Patsy's smile was evil or John had an incriminating twitch?? That's why we think they are involved? Not because of the ransom letter or any of their lies and lack of cooperation? Or the pineapple? Or the logic of the situation?

It's really insulting.

 

Now Tracey is calling the forums "online underworld"

http://www2.dailycamera.com/bdc/county_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2423_4948836,00.html

Michael Tracey, a University of Colorado professor who helped lead investigators to Karr, has said the Ramsey tragedy is insignificant compared with the hundreds of child murders each year.

But as the case remained open year after year without any apparent movement, curiosity got the best of countless Web sleuths. Tracey, who's made three documentaries on the case and exchanged hundreds of e-mails with the man now fingered as the case's prime suspect, said he's spent little time delving into the online underworld of amateur Ramsey investigating.

"I don't go there," he said.

 

If it's so insignificant to him, why isn't he making documentaries about these hundreds of other child murders?

Deary me....

 

He doesn't go there? :scream: HE DOESN'T GO THERE?
He should! At least if he came here he'd know the truth about the ransom note AND the Ramsey's.

 

Libel

Michael Tracey is staunchly defended at jameson's forum. They have no criticism of the fact that he made a misleading and inaccurate documentary fingering the wrong man for JonBenet's murder. They have no criticism to make of the fact that Tracey didn't bother to check some fundamental facts before airing the documentary. They have no criticism of the fact that Tracey's documentary claimed that his Prime Suspect had "disappeared" when a simple Google search would reveal that he hadn't (wouldn't even have had to go to page 2 of a Google search).

Thay ARE critical of the fact that following a combined effort between myself, Why_Nut and Tricia. The Prime Suspect was easily identified, located and informed about the documentary - and it couldn't be shown in the US because it was shown to be badly researched AT BEST. Also, on hearing about the documentary, Tracey's (last) Prime Suspect immediately contacted the Boulder DA's office and asked for a DNA test to clear his name - he was told he wasn't a suspect.

So why should these ultra-pro-Ramsey sleuths be critical of people who expose the very worst kind of misinformation like this? Perhaps a clue lies in the fact that Margoo (for one) is scornful of the fact that Mr X is a convicted criminal. One wonders whether she believes that anyone with a criminal history doesn't deserve the same presumption of innocence as people like her "beloved" Ramseys (and I use the word "beloved" because Margoo is one of a group of people who appear to idolise the Ramseys and believe them capable of no wrong). Does Margoo think it's OK to make a documentary fingering someone for a brutal child murder if that person served 3 months in prison for assaulting his wife?

There is something seriously wrong with the thinking of people who defend a documentary which builds a case of murder(s) against a man based upon the "word" of convicted child molesters (were these guys paid to take part in this documentary?)......YET AT THE SAME TIME, they criticise anyone who accepts the "word" of this suspect when he says he was at home, thousands of miles away with numerous alibis and asks "Can I have a DNA test immediately because I want to prove my innocence".

Also - jameson's members seem to think Michael Tracey did nothing wrong because he didn't actually name his suspect.....

Perhaps they should read this:-

Tracey's Prime Suspect was identified by TWO DIFFERENT pieces of documentation which were shown on screen.

If we hadn't done what we did, someone in America would have done it when the documentary aired there. If that had happened, what would the consequences have been?