Posted on 08/23/2006 9:01:19 AM PDT by The KG9 Kid
As the case against John Mark Karr disintegrates, attention turns to CU prof Michael Tracey, who's fingered false suspects in the past.
While the case against John Mark Karr disintegrates by the minute, New Times has learned that this isn't the first time Colorado University Professor Michael Tracey has caused a stir by fingering a "prime suspect" in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case — only to be proved wrong.
In 2004, Tracey, a British expatriate journalism professor and documentarian, produced a film about the Ramsey murder that aired on British television but not in the United States. By then, however, Tracey was already considered a notorious developer of false leads by a large group of Internet sleuths who congregated at Forums for Justice, a website started by a radio disc jockey named Tricia Griffith.
"If you know the case and you watch Tracey's documentaries, they're filled with blatant lies. It's so easily proven," Griffith says from Park City, Utah, where she does radio and voiceover work. In Tracey's 2004 documentary, Who Killed the Pageant Queen?, the professor claimed to have stunning new evidence that was leading police to a previously unidentified "prime suspect." The documentary claimed that police were trying unsuccessfully to track down the man because he had gone "underground." Tracey's film didn't name the man, but a document was shown onscreen that purported to be a police record of the suspect, with the suspect's name and address blacked out.
Griffith says an alert viewer in Scotland recorded the show and was able to do a screen capture of the police report. The image included a document number, enough information for Griffith to track down her own copy of the document.
Tracey's "prime suspect" turned out to be John Steven Gigax, who was, in fact, an acquaintance of Michael Helgoth's, who, in "intruder" theories about the murder of JonBenet, was long considered a possible suspect.
However, contrary to Tracey's claim that Gigax was underground and untraceable, Griffith found him in ten minutes with a simple Google search. "He was selling jewelry on the Internet," Griffith says.
Griffith says Gigax immediately contacted Boulder police to see if they were really looking for him.
They weren't.
"I talked to [Boulder District Attorney Investigator] Tom Bennett myself, and he said Gigax was never a suspect. Gigax can prove he was in Indiana on the day of the murder."
That sounds familiar. Two years later, Tracey has electrified the world with his fingering of another suspect who, it's looking likely, will turn out to have been in another state when JonBenet Ramsey was killed in the early hours of December 26, 1996. New Times tried to contact Tracey but was unable to do so.
After debunking Tracey's documentary, Griffith put out a news release (you can still find it at forumsforjustice.org), but she says she got no media interest from it.
In fact, when New Times phoned her this morning to ask about the Tracey documentary, she said she was getting no other inquiries from reporters.
As the rest of the media feed on the inconsistencies of John Mark Karr's confessions, they may soon turn their attention to the Colorado professor who has apparently yelled "Fire!" in this case before.
I was convinced she wrote the ransom note. This case is really weird.
Only a geek could write a note like that.
It's been so long now that the details have become lost in my mind, but it now strikes me as extremely odd that a six year-old could be found beaten and strangled to death in her home, in the basement in the absence of some easy access -- what sort of inattentiveness on the part of all those in the vicinity could allow such a circumstance?
>what sort of inattentiveness on the part of all those in the vicinity could allow such a circumstance?
Does anyone know if the place was snowed in? Maybe everybody was shut in.
I believe that I'm going to have to say 'Yes' to your question at this time.
Maybe. At least this Karr character is off the streets - a good thing whether or not he's involved in the Ramsey case.
maybe this is evidence of a new craze - pretending you're a molester and killer.
Why, those that know are not talking, the only stories we have seen are the talking heads that have not be right about anything.
Amen to that! Guy's a freak.
LOL. Hopefully Karr doesn't decide to turn around and sue this guy, or he might have to flee to England and go into hiding for a few years.
In every criminal case the media decides to turn into a "high profile" one, deluded people come forward to confess even though they didn't do the deed. If you want to get some insight into why, check out these excellent resources:
http://college.hmco.com/psychology/resources/students/news/news_20021106.html">
For whatever reason, this URL would not link correctly with the a href tag. So copy and paste it in your Address bar and hit enter/go.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/08/20/CONFESSION.TMP
I had mentioned on the roundup thread that there may be a nexus between this prof and others involved in the case that might look a little untoward. I'm glad people are finally starting to look closer at this guy.
His entire research career has been built on the topic of the MSM's unethical pursuit of information which prematurely convict's innocent people in the public eye. It is remarkably ironic that that is exactly what could be happening to JMK right now.
Breaking news:
ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Upon review of Plaintiff's Notice of Substitution of Counsel, it is this 17th day of August, 2006 hereby ORDERED that Thomas G. Connolly, Mark A. Grannis, Patrick O'Donnell, and all other lawyers of Harris, Witlshire & Grannis LLP, have withdrawn from their representation of Steven J. Hatfill, M.D. in this matter. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 08/17/06) Clerk's Office Mailed Copies..(dcr, ) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
I had mentioned earlier that PR was ambidextrous and that she submitted hand writing samples for her right hand only. Only once, that I am aware of, did she submit a left hand sample. Out of all the samples there was little disagreement amongst 'experts' that the left hand sample was an exact match. I think if she wrote the ransom note it is almost certain she did so with her left hand. What's interesting is that it is not common knowledge in this case that the LEFT hand sample was a uncontested match. Nobody is arguing about that one, as far as I've heard.
So who's the new counsel?
Wow. That sure is an unexpected turn of events. Were they representing him in all three of his lawsuits?
Well not exactly. Anyone screaming he did something is providing his own probable cause for his arrest. And from the public's point of view, none of us have to presume him innocent of anything. I just don't happen to believe his confession, but no one in their right mind would feel he's some kind of victim of someone else's zealousnaess.
OK, just heard they withdrew from Vanity Fair lawsuit only. They are still his lawyers for FBI and NYT. They withdrew because of some venue reason (they were not on the bar in that state). He has another NY lawyer helping who IS on the bar in that state.
When I saw the ransom note several years ago, my first thought was that looks like it was written by a partially-ambidextrous person using their weak hand.
I write with my left hand. When I was 11-yrs old, I fractured my left wrist, and it was in a hard cast for weeks. During that time, I learned to do everything with my right (weak) hand, including printing. By the time my left wrist had healed, I could print legibly with my right hand. The printing had a similar quality to that of the ransom note.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.