Recent Steve Thomas Statement

[Ames]

Below is a link to a recent statement by Steve Thomas, regarding Mary Lacey, JMK...among other things.


www.forstevethomas.com

[Athena]

He says he kept his mouth shut for five years. He should have left it shut. Personally I believe he has alot of nerve talking about someone turning something into a media event. He was the ringleader while he was investigating the case based on his bogus theory. I did get quite a chuckle out of it. I cannot believe a former law enforcement officer could even say that Lacy was not justified in what she did. He should stick to his carpentry work. Seems to me he didn't follow his own advice especially as he was the culprit who leaked erroneous info to the tabloids and Vanity Fair. JMO

"I found it entirely inconceivable, however, that the DA would have acted in such a fashion, creating such a global media event, risking such professional embarrassment to herself and her law enforcement colleagues (many with outstanding reputations), only to have returned a suspect from the other side of the planet, without a very persuasive reason for doing so.

I certainly do not fault Lacy for acting on the information. During my tenure in the investigation, detectives ran down many bizarre characters and potential suspects. However, we did it quietly, under the radar, and behind the scenes."

[sweetcharlotte]

I think those grapes must be getting more acidic as the days go by.

JMO

[bullmoose]

I have to wonder if Synthroid Steve, since he is now a carpenter,has built himself a wooden canoe to paddle up the river of tears he's shed over this case, tears of self-pity and sour grapes.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I have to wonder if Synthroid Steve, since he is now a carpenter,has built himself a wooden canoe to paddle up the river of tears he's shed over this case, tears of self-pity and sour grapes.

You took me to task thinking I had insulted the Great and almighty Lou Smit the other day. I said no his career wasn't cancelled out by his obvious failing to find an intruder in this case as of yet. However you stoop to new lows with this post. Build yourself a canoe ...guess what creek your paddling up with such sour grapes posting as your doing. C'mon don't expect courtesy to your saints till your willing to extend the same. It does the harmony on the board no good to be so negative.

[Athena]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I have to wonder if Synthroid Steve, since he is now a carpenter,has built himself a wooden canoe to paddle up the river of tears he's shed over this case, tears of self-pity and sour grapes.

OK -- I thought "Twisted Thomas" was good but now you've outdone yourself!

"Synthroid Steve" - :lol:

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Athena


OK -- I thought "Twisted Thomas" was good but now you've outdone yourself!

"Synthroid Steve" - :lol:

This is only my opinion....and itd be the same whether or not the Ramseys had anything to do with the death of JonBenet of not.
What kind of person does it take to make fun of physical illness. A disease process. Especially when a thyroid problem killed my friend ....dead age 48. Sweetcharlotte has a thyroid condition for which she takes medication and keeps it fairly under control.
What if we nicknamed her synthroidSweetCharlotte. Would that seem as uproariously funny then? My grandmother died at age 36 from a goiter which is a thyroid condition. So maybe all in all I am just a little sensitive to how serious some conditions can be. Graves disease can be fatal. Thyroid again. If you want to call him twisted go for it.....I don't care.....but a little sensitivity would go a long way right now... I miss my friend terribly. I never got to meet my grandmother she died before I was even born.

[bullmoose]

CK: I think that I have the credentials to make fun of physical illness: after all, I have MS, complete with seizures. It will probably end up killing me, although I have other ailments which might get me first. My wife has chronic depression; she has also suffered from thyroid disease for over thirty years; she treats it with synthroid. My point is this: sweetcharlotte, and my wife, and your grandmother, and me never made our illnesses part of a gassy, self-pitying public letter of resignation from a highly publicized murder investigation; but Synthroid Steve did,IMO that makes him fair game for a little well-deserved derision. He wrote the book that made me think and speak of him as the Twister, because of his penchant for distortion. Then he puts out his latest blast, which again demonstrates for us all what kind of person that he is. I do not hide behind my MS, Steve Thomas cannot take cover behind his thyroid gland to avoid criticism for the shameful way he has conducted himself these past 10 years. He leaked highly slanted info, like a collender, to his tabloid buddies during the initial investigation, to try the case in the media and to try to force the DA's office into doing his personal will in the case, instead of following the law. That having failed to reach the conclusion he wanted; he then resigned, having first tried and failed to get a medical retirement for his thyroid condition. He then writes his tell-all book to try to shape public opinion on the case. He is of course, entitled to do so; just as the Ramseys, and everyone who read it is entitled to agree or disagree with it. His health issues are fair game because he made them part of his anti- Ramsey campaign, IMHO.

[Athena]

Originally posted by bullmoose
CK: I think that I have the credentials to make fun of physical illness: after all, I have MS, complete with seizures. It will probably end up killing me, although I have other ailments which might get me first. My wife has chronic depression; she has also suffered from thyroid disease for over thirty years; she treats it with synthroid. My point is this: sweetcharlotte, and my wife, and your grandmother, and me never made our illnesses part of a gassy, self-pitying public letter of resignation from a highly publicized murder investigation; but Synthroid Steve did,IMO that makes him fair game for a little well-deserved derision. He wrote the book that made me think and speak of him as the Twister, because of his penchant for distortion. Then he puts out his latest blast, which again demonstrates for us all what kind of person that he is. I do not hide behind my MS, Steve Thomas cannot take cover behind his thyroid gland to avoid criticism for the shameful way he has conducted himself these past 10 years. He leaked highly slanted info, like a collender, to his tabloid buddies during the initial investigation, to try the case in the media and to try to force the DA's office into doing his personal will in the case, instead of following the law. That having failed to reach the conclusion he wanted; he then resigned, having first tried and failed to get a medical retirement for his thyroid condition. He then writes his tell-all book to try to shape public opinion on the case. He is of course, entitled to do so; just as the Ramseys, and everyone who read it is entitled to agree or disagree with it. His health issues are fair game because he made them part of his anti- Ramsey campaign, IMHO.

And just to clarify - this additional nickname you gave ST struck my funny bone and had nothing to do with making fun of an illness.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by bullmoose
CK: I think that I have the credentials to make fun of physical illness: after all, I have MS, complete with seizures. It will probably end up killing me, although I have other ailments which might get me first. My wife has chronic depression; she has also suffered from thyroid disease for over thirty years; she treats it with synthroid. My point is this: sweetcharlotte, and my wife, and your grandmother, and me never made our illnesses part of a gassy, self-pitying public letter of resignation from a highly publicized murder investigation; but Synthroid Steve did,IMO that makes him fair game for a little well-deserved derision. He wrote the book that made me think and speak of him as the Twister, because of his penchant for distortion. Then he puts out his latest blast, which again demonstrates for us all what kind of person that he is. I do not hide behind my MS, Steve Thomas cannot take cover behind his thyroid gland to avoid criticism for the shameful way he has conducted himself these past 10 years. He leaked highly slanted info, like a collender, to his tabloid buddies during the initial investigation, to try the case in the media and to try to force the DA's office into doing his personal will in the case, instead of following the law. That having failed to reach the conclusion he wanted; he then resigned, having first tried and failed to get a medical retirement for his thyroid condition. He then writes his tell-all book to try to shape public opinion on the case. He is of course, entitled to do so; just as the Ramseys, and everyone who read it is entitled to agree or disagree with it. His health issues are fair game because he made them part of his anti- Ramsey campaign, IMHO.

Bravo and well said!

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by bullmoose
CK: I think that I have the credentials to make fun of physical illness: after all, I have MS, complete with seizures. It will probably end up killing me, although I have other ailments which might get me first. My wife has chronic depression; she has also suffered from thyroid disease for over thirty years; she treats it with synthroid. My point is this: sweetcharlotte, and my wife, and your grandmother, and me never made our illnesses part of a gassy, self-pitying public letter of resignation from a highly publicized murder investigation; but Synthroid Steve did,IMO that makes him fair game for a little well-deserved derision. He wrote the book that made me think and speak of him as the Twister, because of his penchant for distortion. Then he puts out his latest blast, which again demonstrates for us all what kind of person that he is. I do not hide behind my MS, Steve Thomas cannot take cover behind his thyroid gland to avoid criticism for the shameful way he has conducted himself these past 10 years. He leaked highly slanted info, like a collender, to his tabloid buddies during the initial investigation, to try the case in the media and to try to force the DA's office into doing his personal will in the case, instead of following the law. That having failed to reach the conclusion he wanted; he then resigned, having first tried and failed to get a medical retirement for his thyroid condition. He then writes his tell-all book to try to shape public opinion on the case. He is of course, entitled to do so; just as the Ramseys, and everyone who read it is entitled to agree or disagree with it. His health issues are fair game because he made them part of his anti- Ramsey campaign, IMHO.

No one has the credentials because of their own issues to lack compassion for another. I have a few issues too. My husband has had 2strokes Palendromic RA and is facing being bed bound by all estimates in less than 2-3 years. If Post Polio does not do it the RA will. Fun huh getting to do Polio twice in a life time. My brother has a blockage they can do nothing about surgically in his brain. One day the lights will just simply go out if he is lucky this to top of his 5 heartattacks 4 strokes. As for me 8 abdominal surgeries and thats okay . Who am I to complain. I had an ATV accident 2 years ago and I am finally starting to walk pretty good. Thanks to donor bone and a number of surgeries which are not fully completed even yet. One more joint replacement at least I don't see how that entitles us to be less than compassionate towards anyone.

And anyone who can is creating their own kind of Karma. Even those who rally a bravo cry in support. Bullmoose You know Steve went to work and did his job. That is all that entitled him to this onslaught. He went to work and he did his job. He didn't kill JonBenet. He only tried to find her killer. I am compassionate towards your situation. However I do not see how that gives you the credentials you say you have.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by bullmoose


<snip>

His health issues are fair game because he made them part of his anti- Ramsey campaign, IMHO.

He used his condition as an excuse to bail out - rather than comprise and be a teamplayer - so was he really that interested in finding JonBenet's killer or maybe making a name for himself?

JMO

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


[...]He went to work and he did his job. He didn't kill JonBenet. He only tried to find her killer. [...]

He didn't just try and find her killer. When he believed he had, he also appointed himself judge and jury. What about the Ramsey's rights?

I don't mind he thought they were guilty. I can even understand some of his reasons. But that doesn't give him the right to steal information from police files in a murder investigation to both line his pockets and publicly declare someone a murderer. Especially with evidence as thin and subjective as it is in this case.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


He didn't just try and find her killer. When he believed he had, he also appointed himself judge and jury. What about the Ramsey's rights?

I don't mind he thought they were guilty. I can even understand some of his reasons. But that doesn't give him the right to steal information from police files in a murder investigation to both line his pockets and publicly declare someone a murderer. Especially with evidence as thin and subjective as it is in this case.

These are accusations that I am unaware of. That he stole information from police files in a murder investigation. How so? How did he line his pockets. He wrote a book after the fact. So did Schiller Wecht Hodges Sinclair ...in fact so did the Ramseys. He has largely stayed silent from then till now. How did he act as judge and jury? I saw him act as an investigating officer. That was his job. He was the investigating officer. That alone would put him in a postion to structure his beliefs about the legitimacy of their suspect status around the evidence. How did he personally violate the Ramseys rights? They never did a night in jail. He is not alone in declaring them as the main suspects in this murder investigation. I am trying to see what you are saying about him. I do not see it. I know the man lost over 40 pounds while on this case. Look at the overtime records . You see what you see when his name comes up. I have a different image of him. Regardless of outcome. Regardless if the Ramseys remain free till eternity rolls. I simply do not have the mental image of him that you do.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


He didn't just try and find her killer. When he believed he had, he also appointed himself judge and jury. What about the Ramsey's rights?

I don't mind he thought they were guilty. I can even understand some of his reasons. But that doesn't give him the right to steal information from police files in a murder investigation to both line his pockets and publicly declare someone a murderer. Especially with evidence as thin and subjective as it is in this case.

I agree Louisa.... He made copies of police files he had no right to. Every case note, every piece of paper should have been returned to the BPD upon his resignation. Then in his depo says he knows he had them but didn't know where they were. Like you said it's not his thinking the Ramseys were guilty with a rush to judgement, but my issue was his lack of integrity which has been compromised.

He was already putting the book together PRIOR to his resignation using his case files. Thomas knew better. He even admits in his own deposition after resigning he followed the case in the media and allegedly received some 200 pages sent to him "anonymously" from the BPD in order for him to complete his book based on a hypothetical theory yet to be proven or even come close.

In addition to that there were blatant statements made in his book that were lies that could have been corrected prior to the book going to publication.

Being a law enforcement officer directly related to this case he totally abused his discretion.

Even Beckner said if it was known he had possession of these police files he would have been potentially removed from the BPD. Sounds like he may have been fired anyway. JMHO

[Athena]

25 Q You were managing the detectives?
1 A Correct.
2 Q And coordinating the investigation?
3 A Correct.
4 Q Trujillo remained the lead detective?
5 A Correct.
6 Q Did Steve Thomas ever have the role of
7 lead detective in the Ramsey investigation?
8 A Not under my command, no.
9 Q Do you know whether prior to your taking
10 on the case in October of '97 Mr. Thomas ever had
11 been given the role of lead detective?
12 A I have been told no.
3 Q Was it then and does it remain the policy
4 of the Boulder Police Department to appropriately
5 investigate any officer who is thought to have leaked
6 confidential police file information to the media
7 and, if found to have done so, to institute some form
8 of punishment or penalty?
9 A Are you saying is it now the policy?
10 Q Was it then and is it now?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Am I correct that if the Boulder Police
13 Department had learned, say, in September of 1997
14 that one of the officers on the Ramsey case had
15 provided confidential police file information about
16 the case to a journalist, that at a minimum, if
17 proven to be true or admitted to by the individual
18 officer, you would have expected at a minimum that
19 the officer would have been immediately removed from
20 that particular case?
21 A If it was proven?
22 Q Yes.
23 A Yes.
24 Q With the potential to even be discharged
25 from employment?
1 A Potentially.
2 Q Has it ever been brought to your attention
3 that Steve Thomas has admitted that he in fact met
4 with Ann Bardach on four or five occasions and was
5 her police source for the Vanity Fair article that
6 was published in this case, including an admission
7 that he provided her with the content of the ransom
8 note, although he says he did not give a copy of it
9 to her? If I tell you that as fact, would that be
10 news to you?
11 A Some of it. I didn't know it was four to
12 five times. That would be new to me.
13 Q Did he discuss the contents of the ransom
14 note with her?
15 A You know, I don't recall hearing that
16 specifically, that specific.
17 Q But if Steve Thomas had admitted to that
18 information in September of 1997, he would have,
19 having admitted to it, would have either -- he would
20 have clearly been removed from the Ramsey case and
21 may very well have been fired?
22 A May have been, yes.
23 Q But clearly without a doubt removed from
24 the Ramsey case?
25 A You're asking me to answer for Chief Koby.
1 At this time I was not chief of police.
2 Q Well, under your understanding of the
3 setup as it existed then?
4 A I believe that would have happened, yes.
5 Q Because I think after Mason everybody
6 understood that they were subject to internal affairs
7 and potentially dismissal but absolutely removal from
8 the case?
9 A I believe that would have happened, yes.
10 Q There -- former Detective Thomas, and I
11 ask this because he is identified by Darnay Hoffman
12 as the Boulder police detective who will be the
13 primary witness on this case from the authorities
14 standpoint in the Wolf case, Detective Thomas said
15 that he had a working briefcase at the time that he
16 resigned in which he kept his working file papers
17 that included his own reports and notes and then
18 other reports and notes. I don't know if it included
19 the master affidavit he refers to.
20 And he said he turned that briefcase in.
21 But he said he made copies of the materials. That
22 would have been absolutely against department policy
23 for him to keep copies of the materials, wouldn't it?
24 A Not necessarily. Many officers will keep
25 second copies of reports as working copies –
1 Q In the event –
2 A -- and then put the original in the file
3 and then work off of their working copies and
4 maintain those.
5 Q But would that be true if they're leaving
6 the force?
7 A No, that should not occur if you're
8 leaving and taking those with you.
9 Q That's my point. When he resigned and he
10 turned in his working papers and before he did it he
11 said he made copies and kept them, that would be
12 inappropriate then under the department guidelines?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And he would know that, your officers know
15 that, don't they?
16 A Yes.
17 Q He then said that starting in January of
18 1999 after it was learned that he was going to
19 publish a book, that he started receiving anonymous
20 packets of police reports on the JonBent Ramsey case
21 from postmarks in Boulder and postmarks in Denver.
22 And that over the course of time, he accumulated
23 several hundred pages of Ramsey police reports from
24 these anonymous sources. Have you ever heard
25 anything about that before?
1 A No. This is the first I've heard of that.
2 MR. MILLER: Is this from his deposition?
3 MR. WOOD: It is, it is.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1...MarkBeckner.htm

[bullmoose]

CK: I agree that Thomas spent a lot of time on the case; however I wasn't aware that his work record was public record. How can I check his overtime? Is there a link I can check? And isn't it true that Synthroid Steve was 'an' investigating officer, not 'the' investigating officer for the BPD in the case?All the names of the people who wrote books on this case,to present their view of the case, have one thing different from Thomas, they werent a cop involved in the investigation that kept all his working notes on the case, like Thomas did. His claim that he received all the info, hundreds of pages of his working notes, from anonymous sources in the BPD is IMO, just another of the Twister's lies. His behavior was disgraceful; CK surely you know that he was supposed to turn in all his notes, when he petulantly quit the investigation.As for my attitude towards his illness, he made it an issue, in his book; oh yeah he tried to solve the case;he tried to pin it on the Ramseys; okay so was the rest of the BPD; but when he couldn't bend the justice system to have the result he wanted, he quit in a hissy fit with his long public letter. Then , surprize, surprize, he wrote his Twisterpiece to show the world that he was right, right, right,IMO. I'll certainly agree that we have different images of Steve Thomas.

[LadyFisher]

Originally Posted by bullmoose

CK: I agree that Thomas spent a lot of time on the case; however I wasn't aware that his work record was public record. How can I check his overtime? Is there a link I can check? And isn't it true that Synthroid Steve was 'an' investigating officer, not 'the' investigating officer for the BPD in the case?All the names of the people who wrote books on this case,to present their view of the case, have one thing different from Thomas, they werent a cop involved in the investigation that kept all his working notes on the case, like Thomas did. His claim that he received all the info, hundreds of pages of his working notes, from anonymous sources in the BPD is IMO, just another of the Twister's lies. His behavior was disgraceful; CK surely you know that he was supposed to turn in all his notes, when he petulantly quit the investigation.As for my attitude towards his illness, he made it an issue, in his book; oh yeah he tried to solve the case;he tried to pin it on the Ramseys; okay so was the rest of the BPD; but when he couldn't bend the justice system to have the result he wanted, he quit in a hissy fit with his long public letter. Then , surprize, surprize, he wrote his Twisterpiece to show the world that he was right, right, right,IMO. I'll certainly agree that we have different images of Steve Thomas.

I think ST was young, inexperienced, and arrogant concerning this case! I do believe he had blinders on, tunnel vision toward Patsy, he was judging this murder by statistics, instead of looking at the age of the parents, the fact there were no indications ever of child abuse, he went with his theory! I feel he did this family and JB a horrible injustice, that maybe will never be rectified. Because of him in my humble opinion, even when the true murderer is caught, there will be those who still believe the Ramseys are guilty. I believe we pay for what we say and do, so will ST imho! I wouldn't make fun of him for his physical ailment, my dil is suffering from graves disease right now! But...I will not be sympathetic toward this man either because of it! imho He made some huge errors, and I hope at some point in time he will come to a realization of this and apologize for the pain he has caused! This is all just my opinion!

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by LadyFisher

I think ST was young, inexperienced, and arrogant concerning this case! I do believe he had blinders on, tunnel vision toward Patsy, he was judging this murder by statistics, instead of looking at the age of the parents, the fact there were no indications ever of child abuse, he went with his theory! I feel he did this family and JB a horrible injustice, that maybe will never be rectified. Because of him in my humble opinion, even when the true murderer is caught, there will be those who still believe the Ramseys are guilty. I believe we pay for what we say and do, so will ST imho! I wouldn't make fun of him for his physical ailment, my dil is suffering from graves disease right now! But...I will not be sympathetic toward this man either because of it! imho He made some huge errors, and I hope at some point in time he will come to a realization of this and apologize for the pain he has caused! This is all just my opinion!

You say there was no evidence of abuse of JonBenet yet is it not fact that by the standards set forth today on what is considered abuse, Patsy could have been easily arrested for those sessions described by LHP in the bathroom. Patsy screaming at JonBenet, and JonBenet Crying behind the closed doors. At least today this can get you hauled in front of a judge. Back then too....only apparently no one made the call. I always wondered why LHP didn't make that call... If what she describes was true. It is true there was no evidence of JonBenet being punished out in public. In fact the opposite has indeed been spoken of over and over by friends I know who knew them. In addition to others who spoke to reporters etc. I wish I had a nickle for every time I have heard about how overindulgent they were as parents. That the kids were never reprimanded or even corrected that alone a voice raised, and everything seemed to go over the top of their heads. Simple things that most parents would set boundaries regarding. Never making the kids even pick up after themselves to where the back rooms of the home were total clutter and choas. JonBenet witnessed kicking Patsy in public at a pageant. I don't know what went on I was never there to witness any of it. However if what LHP said was true regarding the wetting herself and messing in her panties and Patsy's bathroom sessions with JonBenet .....I will leave it to each individual to determine for themselves if that was possible abuse. LHP sure made it sound like it may have been. JMO

[andU]

Originally Posted by Coloradokares

You say there was no evidence of abuse of JonBenet yet is it not fact that by the standards set forth today on what is considered abuse, Patsy could have been easily arrested for those sessions described by LHP in the bathroom. Patsy screaming at JonBenet, and JonBenet Crying behind the closed doors. At least today this can get you hauled in front of a judge. Back then too....only apparently no one made the call. I always wondered why LHP didn't make that call... If what she describes was true. It is true there was no evidence of JonBenet being punished out in public. In fact the opposite has indeed been spoken of over and over by friends I know who knew them. In addition to others who spoke to reporters etc. I wish I had a nickle for every time I have heard about how overindulgent they were as parents. That the kids were never reprimanded or even corrected that alone a voice raised, and everything seemed to go over the top of their heads. Simple things that most parents would set boundaries regarding. Never making the kids even pick up after themselves to where the back rooms of the home were total clutter and choas. JonBenet witnessed kicking Patsy in public at a pageant. I don't know what went on I was never there to witness any of it. However if what LHP said was true regarding the wetting herself and messing in her panties and Patsy's bathroom sessions with JonBenet .....I will leave it to each individual to determine for themselves if that was possible abuse. LHP sure made it sound like it may have been. JMO

Not being there, I don't accept it as truth. Was child services ever called? These calls can be made anonymous ... if someone felt that JB was abused, they had a responsibility to make the call, they (IMO) are as guilty as anyone, if she was abused for not having made the call. Personally, I don't believe it without proof.

[bullmoose]

I am not sure what sources you are using for the LHP information of Jonbenet's being mistreated. Do you have a link to an article,dated of course, of where LHP detailed this supposedly horrible mistreatment that would certainly get you hauled in front of a judge today?. If its actually true information[ I haven't seen it] then the question pops up in my mind, that if it were so outrageous, why did she, LHP ,not call child services,at the time she claims to have observed it? Or is it just another paid-for interview with the Enquirer or some similar tabloid?

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by andU

Not being there, I don't accept it as truth. Was child services ever called? These calls can be made anonymous ... if someone felt that JB was abused, they had a responsibility to make the call, they (IMO) are as guilty as anyone, if she was abused for not having made the call. Personally, I don't believe it without proof.

I have to believe that there was some truth because it was spoken of by not only LHP. And before LHP even suspected that Patsy had pointed a finger in her direction. LHP was not the only one to say there were real issues regarding JonBenets wetting and soiling herself. In fact not many who knew them were unaware of it. JonBenet would go to any adult and expect them to wipe her or help her. This at age 6. I totally agree why did no one ever make a call? I think its fear they will have to testify or something. In LHP's case sad to say she was probably more privy to the behind the closed door issues of the home being there cleaning . And why she didn't make the call..... she probably couldn't afford to loose her job? Only my opinion without knowing the facts. Its sad but what is truth is when something terrible has happened is when people come forward to say after the fact what they knew or had suspected. It seems most of the people interveiwed spoke of the potty issues with JonBenet. Now how many were privy to the yelling in the bathroom and JonBenets screaming and crying I am not sure. I know the detectives were made aware of this being an issue. How many of us have seen an incident escalating at a grocery store or somewhere and done nothing to intervene. Or heard our neighbors yelling at the kids then subsequent crying. I have finally set for myself a standard that I will at least attempt to diffuse a situation if I feel I can do so without placing a child in more harm for having done so. Like grab up a plate of cookies and knock on a door. Well timed visit. I have called police with license plate numbers. Told them intervention may be required with a tempered parent screaming and slapping in a parking lot. One day I stepped directly in front of a mother and took the slap that was intended for the child in the cart in the parking lot. So there are those of us who will do what ever is necessary to get the parent help in coping. I'd like to think in the situation I did the best I could . I had a very long talk with the parent offered to help her find help and then turned the matter over to King Soopers security. Because security was called because my getting hit was witnessed. I did not press charges. All I wanted was to see the young mother get help. You tell me what else can anyone do if they only suspect but have no actual black and blue proof? No the abuser is the responsible party. Why make it everyone elses fault when self control is lost. If if it is in fact true that Patsy was yelling and there was screaming and crying going on in these sessions. Patsy needed to have sought out help. Screaming and crying sessions behind closed bathroom doors over potty issues are symptoms of a much bigger problem. JMO.

[SnarkyCow]

It wasn't just Steve Thomas that made huge errors - everyone in LE, regardless of who's side they are/were on made HUGE mistakes. The investigation was crap from the beginning. I think ST went with his gut instint, just as Lou Smit did. At least ST used what evidence LE had to draw his conclusions - at least he didn't start inventing stun guns, etc. to make his theory work.

IDIs will never agree with ST, just as RDIs won't agree with LS. I don't know how I feel about ST's entire theory, but it seems a whole hell of a lot more plausible (sp?) than the LS's "stun-gun-wielding-kidnapping-pedophiling-killing intruder." At least ST based his theory on the evidence he had at his disposal. I'm not sure what LS based his theory on.

In any case, not everything ST or LS say should be taken as gospel - they are called "theories" for a reason, otherwise they would be called "facts."

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by bullmoose

I am not sure what sources you are using for the LHP information of Jonbenet's being mistreated. Do you have a link to an article,dated of course, of where LHP detailed this supposedly horrible mistreatment that would certainly get you hauled in front of a judge today?. If its actually true information[ I haven't seen it] then the question pops up in my mind, that if it were so outrageous, why did she, LHP ,not call child services,at the time she claims to have observed it? Or is it just another paid-for interview with the Enquirer or some similar tabloid?

Read the books its in there. I dont have a copy so you'll have to do your own reading. If I had page numbers I'd give it to you. It takes very little to be charged with child abuse neglect or such today. So don't exaggerate and try to assign to me statements I did not make. Horrible mistreatment etc. That is your statement not mine and so I feel I need to define that distinction. There were according to LHP sessions of Patsy's screaming and JonBenet's crying behind the closed bathroom doors its in the books and common knowledge the potty issues were problems. If its true and I did say IF it is true. Today that would if reported could get you the opportunity to explain it to a judge. IN MY OPINION. Most likely. Nothing written in stone or guaranteed but it certainly could. In 1950 if a child were acting out it was expected the child should be reprimanded by a parent and get a little ruffle on the backside for acting up . Today you dare not discipline a child. Not unless you want to get arrested. That is a fact. I know a family that did not even touch their daughter but was only having a verbal discussion with her and she was taken into custody for 4 days while the matter was under investigation . Protective custody is what it was termed. Actually their child was abusing them. And has for years. But they allow it so.....

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by Coloradokares

Read the books its in there. I dont have a copy so you'll have to do your own reading. If I had page numbers I'd give it to you. It takes very little to be charged with child abuse neglect or such today. So don't exaggerate and try to assign to me statements I did not make. Horrible mistreatment etc. That is your statement not mine and so I feel I need to define that distinction. There were according to LHP sessions of Patsy's screaming and JonBenet's crying behind the closed bathroom doors its in the books and common knowledge the potty issues were problems. If its true and I did say IF it is true. Today that would if reported could get you the opportunity to explain it to a judge. IN MY OPINION. Most likely. Nothing written in stone or guaranteed but it certainly could. In 1950 if a child were acting out it was expected the child should be reprimanded by a parent and get a little ruffle on the backside for acting up . Today you dare not discipline a child. Not unless you want to get arrested. That is a fact. I know a family that did not even touch their daughter but was only having a verbal discussion with her and she was taken into custody for 4 days while the matter was under investigation . Protective custody is what it was termed. Actually their child was abusing them. And has for years. But they allow it so.....

It's not in PMPT or ST's book and I think it's a safe bet it's not in DOI. :-) My recollection is she said that in either the released chapter of her "book" or an NE story.

[nuisanceposter]

LHP's statements regarding Patsy and JonBenet and the bathroom can be found at FFJ.

Regarding abuse in the Ramsey home...several of Patsy's friends, including Barbara Fernie, were planning to sit Patsy down for an "intervention" when the family returned from the cruise. They were concerned about the "mega JonBenet thing." I don't know about you, but when I hear the friends of a woman were concerned enough about how she was putting her daughter through pageants and what it was doing to the child, I'd think those friends were concerned that the child was being abused in some regard. Why else would they want to get together and sit Patsy down to talk about it?

Something was not right in the Ramsey house. It isn't normal for a child six years old to be wetting and soiling herself during the day and the night. Bedwetting, yes, but there was more than that to JonBenet's condition.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

LHP's statements regarding Patsy and JonBenet and the bathroom can be found at FFJ.

Regarding abuse in the Ramsey home...several of Patsy's friends, including Barbara Fernie, were planning to sit Patsy down for an "intervention" when the family returned from the cruise. They were concerned about the "mega JonBenet thing." I don't know about you, but when I hear the friends of a woman were concerned enough about how she was putting her daughter through pageants and what it was doing to the child, I'd think those friends were concerned that the child was being abused in some regard. Why else would they want to get together and sit Patsy down to talk about it?

Something was not right in the Ramsey house. It isn't normal for a child six years old to be wetting and soiling herself during the day and the night. Bedwetting, yes, but there was more than that to JonBenet's condition.

That is a sign of sexual abuse too, (you probably already knew that)...the soiling herself...day AND night.

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

LHP's statements regarding Patsy and JonBenet and the bathroom can be found at FFJ.

Regarding abuse in the Ramsey home...several of Patsy's friends, including Barbara Fernie, were planning to sit Patsy down for an "intervention" when the family returned from the cruise. They were concerned about the "mega JonBenet thing." I don't know about you, but when I hear the friends of a woman were concerned enough about how she was putting her daughter through pageants and what it was doing to the child, I'd think those friends were concerned that the child was being abused in some regard. Why else would they want to get together and sit Patsy down to talk about it?

Something was not right in the Ramsey house. It isn't normal for a child six years old to be wetting and soiling herself during the day and the night. Bedwetting, yes, but there was more than that to JonBenet's condition.

It was also in Steve Thomas' book I think. But you are right that this and all about the Mega JonBenet thing was surfacing. JonBenet kicked the shin of Patsy at a pageant and that was witnessed as well. Can't remember were I read that off hand but know that I did. The Ramseys lost or threw under the bus even the die hard friends like Fernies and Jay Elowsky ( Pasta Jays) In fact they were down to about one set of friends . The ones that moved to Atlanta The Stines. And Susan stine was accused and proved of doing some reall dirty stuff e mail wise if I remember correctly. I think Griffin didn't totally ever turn away from them either. Pam Griffin. Although it was to Pam Griffin she said You can fix this can't you we didn't mean for any of this to happen. I think people generally tried to be supportive to them.....but in the end as more and more came out most friendships fell away.

[bullmoose]

CK: Your quotes would provide a convincing argument if you could provides links for them; since you have provided none, the quotes cannot be verified as having a factual basis. Without a link for a quote,the time, place and motive for such a quote[if real] cannot be examined by anyone else. As I do remember reading, LHP was paid by the NEnquirer for one story, at least, which ended any belief of the veracity of her statements from that moment on. Like the Twister,once you cross that line and sell or give interviews to the tabloids, IMO, you lose all believability as an objective, honest witness. You become a tabloid 'source'.

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

LHP's statements regarding Patsy and JonBenet and the bathroom can be found at FFJ.

Regarding abuse in the Ramsey home...several of Patsy's friends, including Barbara Fernie, were planning to sit Patsy down for an "intervention" when the family returned from the cruise. They were concerned about the "mega JonBenet thing." I don't know about you, but when I hear the friends of a woman were concerned enough about how she was putting her daughter through pageants and what it was doing to the child, I'd think those friends were concerned that the child was being abused in some regard. Why else would they want to get together and sit Patsy down to talk about it?

Something was not right in the Ramsey house. It isn't normal for a child six years old to be wetting and soiling herself during the day and the night. Bedwetting, yes, but there was more than that to JonBenet's condition.

I had a seven year old step son, who got sent home from school at least 3 times a week for soiling and peeing his pants. He was in no way abused either mentally, physically, psychological or any other way. He was just a very lazy, spoiled rotten little snot.

I also had a nephew who was 13 years old before he quit wetting the bed on a nightly basis and if it was cold outside, would wet his pants on a regular basis. Again, not one ounce of abuse was ever done to this child. He just had problems. He is now almost 30 years old, and has on occasion, still wet the bed.

So, I guess my relatives are among the not normal, and we must be hiding something.

There is nothing to prove that JB was abused in any matter just because she wet or soiled herself. IMO.

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by Zoey

I had a seven year old step son, who got sent home from school at least 3 times a week for soiling and peeing his pants. He was in no way abused either mentally, physically, psychological or any other way. He was just a very lazy, spoiled rotten little snot.

I also had a nephew who was 13 years old before he quit wetting the bed on a nightly basis and if it was cold outside, would wet his pants on a regular basis. Again, not one ounce of abuse was ever done to this child. He just had problems. He is now almost 30 years old, and has on occasion, still wet the bed.

So, I guess my relatives are among the not normal, and we must be hiding something.

There is nothing to prove that JB was abused in any matter just because she wet or soiled herself. IMO.

I hear what you are saying, but there are always exceptions to the rule. From my understanding wetting and soiling during the day point to very big problems, including abuse - this is not to say that every single person who has toileting issues is abused or abnormal.

[Louisadelmar]

Is the 'soiling' during the day just internet talk or is there a legitimate source for that?

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

Is the 'soiling' during the day just internet talk or is there a legitimate source for that?

Good question - I do believe I've seen this sourced on another messageboard, but I cannot find it - I remember reading a recent article (which I've looked for and cannot find, but I'll keep looking) featuring an abuse specialist taken off the case early on saying every pair of panties in JonBenet's drawers were soiled (feces, not just urine). If anyone knows what I'm talking about and has the link handy please post it. If I am way off and hallucinating again (just kidding) please feel free to let me know.

Cheers,

Snarks

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

Is the 'soiling' during the day just internet talk or is there a legitimate source for that?

I knew about it from reliable sources who lived in that neighborhood prior to my ever even knowing there were such things as these internet forums.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by bullmoose

CK: Your quotes would provide a convincing argument if you could provides links for them; since you have provided none, the quotes cannot be verified as having a factual basis. Without a link for a quote,the time, place and motive for such a quote[if real] cannot be examined by anyone else. As I do remember reading, LHP was paid by the NEnquirer for one story, at least, which ended any belief of the veracity of her statements from that moment on. Like the Twister,once you cross that line and sell or give interviews to the tabloids, IMO, you lose all believability as an objective, honest witness. You become a tabloid 'source'.

Does this include the Ramseys when they gave an interview to the Enquirer?

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

Good question - I do believe I've seen this sourced on another messageboard, but I cannot find it - I remember reading a recent article (which I've looked for and cannot find, but I'll keep looking) featuring an abuse specialist taken off the case early on saying every pair of panties in JonBenet's drawers were soiled (feces, not just urine). If anyone knows what I'm talking about and has the link handy please post it. If I am way off and hallucinating again (just kidding) please feel free to let me know.

Cheers,

Snarks

You are not way off or hallucinating again. There was an interview done by Julie Hayden with Holly Smith who, three days into the case, was called in to investigate. She was later dismissed from the case.


http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/p...Y&pageId=3.2.1

I hope this link works. I am not sure how to do links very well!

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by Zoey

You are not way off or hallucinating again. There was an interview done by Julie Hayden with Holly Smith who, three days into the case, was called in to investigate. She was later dismissed from the case.


http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/p...Y&pageId=3.2.1

I hope this link works. I am not sure how to do links very well!

Yes I gave them this on a platter before it aired. As I had a special heads up on it. Provided the link after the interview for those who might have missed it. Few seemed impressed. I remember that Bullmoose thought the sex abuse officer was weird. I consider that just typical bias. A few just wondered how I knew of a special report days in advance when it wasn't announced till the day of airing. Just keep watching ...Julie Hayden was an investigative reporter out her abc affiliate all during the JonBenet Murder. She is now back on Fox. Not Fox news as in the OReilly Factor but Fox the station.

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by bullmoose
CK: Your quotes would provide a convincing argument if you could provides links for them; since you have provided none, the quotes cannot be verified as having a factual basis. Without a link for a quote,the time, place and motive for such a quote[if real] cannot be examined by anyone else. As I do remember reading, LHP was paid by the NEnquirer for one story, at least, which ended any belief of the veracity of her statements from that moment on. Like the Twister,once you cross that line and sell or give interviews to the tabloids, IMO, you lose all believability as an objective, honest witness. You become a tabloid 'source'.

Let me explain something to you bullmoose I have provided a lot of links on this forum. Books don't have links. As to LHP it was in I believe Steves book in particular also FFJ which nuisance poster quickly provided that info to you immediately following my post to let you know it was over there. I went through an ordeal and a half regarding links. One poster accused me of posting no links on a quote that provided a link ....!! I got rather mmmmm enlightened that what might be going on is links were not being utilized. So they responded back the link never worked. I tried it it worked great for me on my computer . So I tried to repost several more times. Same complaint. Now I am not saying I will never post a link again. I have and probably will again. Some things you must be willing to research on your own however. Shill can tell you I have links and I am not afraid to use them. C'mon Shill you can laugh with me on this one okay. I drove him nuts with links on DNA once. I believe I gave him a headache.... If your saying there is no credibility for dealing with tabloid sources however. Then ALex Hunter is ripe for that criticism as well. He knew Shapiro very well. Shapiro had an open door over there till it was found out so what nick name you got for Hunter? Now if you want a link bullmoose I'll provide one if I have it and I have a few.

[shill]

Originally Posted by Coloradokares

Shill can tell you I have links and I am not afraid to use them. C'mon Shill you can laugh with me on this one okay. I drove him nuts with links on DNA once. I believe I gave him a headache.... If your saying there is no credibility for dealing with tabloid sources however. Then ALex Hunter is ripe for that criticism as well. He knew Shapiro very well. Shapiro had an open door over there till it was found out so what nick name you got for Hunter? Now if you want a link bullmoose I'll provide one if I have it and I have a few.

Links? What links? LOL! I thought Julie Hayden was the only link you needed.

Ya, CK is not making things up. But as with all information available, we all read different things into what is being said.
So with all due respect CK, supplying a link allows one to come to their own conclusion to what the information implies.
I have lost all my links too, and I am at the same disadvantage as you CK.
We have to do what we have to do, and that's prove our point.

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by shill

Links? What links? LOL! I thought Julie Hayden was the only link you needed.

Ya, CK is not making things up. But as with all information available, we all read different things into what is being said.
So with all due respect CK, supplying a link allows one to come to their own conclusion to what the information implies.
I have lost all my links too, and I am at the same disadvantage as you CK.
We have to do what we have to do, and that's prove our point.

I have built up quite a few of my links again. Not all but alot. Now you know I drove you nuts with DNA links. Julie Hayden was not even the only link I posted on this list does anyone ever keep track. But some things are common knowledge to the case. If someone says link please because they have not seen the information before I'll hop right on it. If someone has been posting here for 3 years ....I am thinking the hook off to the side of my lip there is getting tugged know what I mean. Some things simply do not have links either. And the thing that irritates me like no other is someone who has not posted a single link that I know of since I have been on this list . Trying to demand them of others. I know you used to have a lot of links what happened?