Steve Thomas Update 2009
First Prev
of 13
Next Last
RiverRat

North Fort Myers, FL

#1 May 7, 2009
Check his website for further details!

ForSteveThomasdotCom
TTAGPINE

Ville Platte, LA

#2 May 7, 2009
I think this is the link RiverRat is refering to.

http://www.forstevethomas.com/
RiverRat

North Fort Myers, FL

#3 May 7, 2009
Yep - I thought that links were a No-No here, but it's been a while since I've dropped by here, so it looks like it's acceptable now. Cool. Many Thanks! Ohhh, the links I could have provided in the past while proving a point.....oh well, I'm sure that there will be another annual performance and I will get my chance then!

It doesn't sound like Steve has changed his mind about any thoughts he has about the case, just that there may still be a slight chance now with the DA's office out from under Hunter's thumb.
Right On

New York, NY

#4 May 7, 2009
RiverRat wrote:
Yep - I thought that links were a No-No here, but it's been a while since I've dropped by here, so it looks like it's acceptable now. Cool. Many Thanks! Ohhh, the links I could have provided in the past while proving a point.....oh well, I'm sure that there will be another annual performance and I will get my chance then!
It doesn't sound like Steve has changed his mind about any thoughts he has about the case, just that there may still be a slight chance now with the DA's office out from under Hunter's thumb.
It doesn't sound like he has changed his mind at all and it does give me hope if he has some, albeit small. It is positive.
Right On

New York, NY

#5 May 7, 2009
Actually, I reread his "post" and he sounds very positive about it.
jahazafat

United States

#6 May 7, 2009
It is promising.

ST likely has many friends on the task force and this update was provided after their meeting. The new investigation has been public that the current focus is DNA and linguistics. From ITRMI Steve Thomas' inclination about the DNA was the panties were borrowed or loaned from a ‘friend’. I don’t understand why they didn’t check friends in Michigan or Atlanta but perhaps there was a request that was blocked like so many others.

I hope that bull’s eye arrow pierces the Ramseys.

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44
Capricorn

New York, NY

#7 May 7, 2009
RiverRat wrote:
Yep - I thought that links were a No-No here, but it's been a while since I've dropped by here, so it looks like it's acceptable now. Cool. Many Thanks! Ohhh, the links I could have provided in the past while proving a point.....oh well, I'm sure that there will be another annual performance and I will get my chance then!
It doesn't sound like Steve has changed his mind about any thoughts he has about the case, just that there may still be a slight chance now with the DA's office out from under Hunter's thumb.
I think links to other forums are the only no no, but I could be wrong
RiverRat

North Fort Myers, FL

#8 May 7, 2009
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I think links to other forums are the only no no, but I could be wrong
Thanks for that response....
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#9 May 7, 2009
I'd like to know what Thomas thinks of the focus on linguistics comment.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#10 May 7, 2009
Steve Thomas and all you groupi9es are alike, you're to stubborn to admit you're wrong.
Funny how ST has given you all a positive feeling when he is as misguided as anyone.

What a big bunch of bed wetters.
RiverRat

North Fort Myers, FL

#11 May 8, 2009
Shill - is that a Warning for us so-called bedwetters that Patsy has pulled off a Lazarus?! Everyone run!!!!!!!!!!

Why, why, why the mingling with bottom feeders here I'll never understand...

Anyhow, my educated guess for what it's worth would be that ST has to be very interested in linguistics and other dynamics that come with the Ransom Note.

Too bad that BM will now get his panties in a wad for my answering his question, but it looks like no one else had one for him, so I stalked again - Sue Me....or we could cut to the chase and I will just buy your next round.
Right On

New York, NY

#12 May 8, 2009
shill wrote:
Steve Thomas and all you groupi9es are alike, you're to stubborn to admit you're wrong.
Funny how ST has given you all a positive feeling when he is as misguided as anyone.
What a big bunch of bed wetters.
Ahh, Shill, so much for being born again.
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#13 May 8, 2009
RiverRat wrote:
Shill - is that a Warning for us so-called bedwetters that Patsy has pulled off a Lazarus?! Everyone run!!!!!!!!!!
Why, why, why the mingling with bottom feeders here I'll never understand...
Anyhow, my educated guess for what it's worth would be that ST has to be very interested in linguistics and other dynamics that come with the Ransom Note.
Too bad that BM will now get his panties in a wad for my answering his question, but it looks like no one else had one for him, so I stalked again - Sue Me....or we could cut to the chase and I will just buy your next round.
I'm sure Thomas is interested in the linguistics side of investigating the JonBenet case. It was me that turned him on to the Prime of Miss Jean Brodie stuff, he was interested in that.

What I would like to know is what he thinks of the new DA saying it was going to be a focus of the renewed investigation. All angles will be followed I'm sure, but why mention only linguistics with the DNA? Also Garnett opened up with the sentence "We have brought in a group of individuals to look at the case". He had the rn and linguistics on his mind.

My guess is Garnett and Beckner want to clean up the mess Lacy left them by having the police and the task force look at the manufactured DNA "evidence". Officially creating distance between the new DA and the old via a press conference is one thing but mentioning a line of investigation that cannot possibley be directed toward a nonexistant intruder is another thing entirely.

The mention of linguistics shows there is an active investigation of the only two people that could have written the note; John and Patsy. Fine, I'm glad to hear it but why mention it? What was the purpose of saying that out loud?
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#14 May 8, 2009
RiverRat wrote:
Why, why, why the mingling with bottom feeders here I'll never understand...

Too bad that BM will now get his panties in a wad for my answering his question, but it looks like no one else had one for him, so I stalked again -
The two biggest things to happen to the case recently are the "clearing" of the Ramseys by Crazy Mary and the return of the case to the PD by Garnett.

I'm on the leading edge of the internet sleuthers who used the written word as a focus of their investigation. And now the new DA says linguistics will be a focus of theirs. So make your way around the bottom feeders if you want to stay up with what is obviously an important part of the new investigation.

Women in Crime Inc just published an article by ME on the case. Good for them, they have a foothold on the stage concerning linguistics and a possible breaking of the case and I get on the internet somewhere else other than a crime forum.
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#15 May 8, 2009
Henri McPhee

Plymouth, UK

#16 May 8, 2009
Right On wrote:
Actually, I reread his "post" and he sounds very positive about it.
Steve Thomas has been described in the past by Lin Wood as a rogue cop and as a totally inexperienced homicide detective. That’s absolutely correct.
Henri McPhee

Plymouth, UK

#17 May 8, 2009
BrotherMoon wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure Thomas is interested in the linguistics side of investigating the JonBenet case. It was me that turned him on to the Prime of Miss Jean Brodie stuff, he was interested in that.
What I would like to know is what he thinks of the new DA saying it was going to be a focus of the renewed investigation. All angles will be followed I'm sure, but why mention only linguistics with the DNA? Also Garnett opened up with the sentence "We have brought in a group of individuals to look at the case". He had the rn and linguistics on his mind.
My guess is Garnett and Beckner want to clean up the mess Lacy left them by having the police and the task force look at the manufactured DNA "evidence". Officially creating distance between the new DA and the old via a press conference is one thing but mentioning a line of investigation that cannot possibley be directed toward a nonexistant intruder is another thing entirely.
The mention of linguistics shows there is an active investigation of the only two people that could have written the note; John and Patsy. Fine, I'm glad to hear it but why mention it? What was the purpose of saying that out loud?
Linguistics in the Ramsey case was mentioned by Lin Wood at the 2000 Atlanta Boulder police interview with the Ramseys:

MR. WOOD: Before we go there,

5 Bruce, let me say to you, I turned over to

6 Ollie two expandables of stuff that I have

7 gotten for him to look at, including, you

8 may know this, Chief, but I got some really

9 long and detailed analysis of Fleet White's

10 letters compared to the ransom notes from a

11 lawyer in New York. Are you familiar with

12 it? You may not have gotten it yet.

13 MR. BECKNER: I don't believe so.

14 MR. WOOD: He will go through it

15 and get it all to you. I am trying to

16 keep up with it to go to Ollie. It is two

17 expandables of different tips on leads.

18 MR. BECKNER: What type of

19 analysis is it?

20 MR. WOOD: It's a linguistic

21 analysis of the public letters that Fleet

22 White and Priscilla White have written about

23 the case, and they have taken that and done

24 an analysis of the ransom note. So I am

25 not making any suggestions except to describe

0025

1 it.
BrotherMoon

Denver, CO

#18 May 8, 2009
Henri McPhee wrote:
<quoted text>
Linguistics in the Ramsey case was mentioned by Lin Wood at the 2000 Atlanta Boulder police interview with the Ramseys:
MR. WOOD: Before we go there,
5 Bruce, let me say to you, I turned over to
6 Ollie two expandables of stuff that I have
7 gotten for him to look at, including, you
8 may know this, Chief, but I got some really
9 long and detailed analysis of Fleet White's
10 letters compared to the ransom notes from a
11 lawyer in New York. Are you familiar with
12 it? You may not have gotten it yet.
13 MR. BECKNER: I don't believe so.
14 MR. WOOD: He will go through it
15 and get it all to you. I am trying to
16 keep up with it to go to Ollie. It is two
17 expandables of different tips on leads.
18 MR. BECKNER: What type of
19 analysis is it?
20 MR. WOOD: It's a linguistic
21 analysis of the public letters that Fleet
22 White and Priscilla White have written about
23 the case, and they have taken that and done
24 an analysis of the ransom note. So I am
25 not making any suggestions except to describe
0025
1 it.
Exactly, the rn compared to the writings of a known person.

Guess why there can be no comparison between the rn and the writings of the Intruder?
TTAGPINE

Ville Platte, LA

#19 May 8, 2009
Henri McPhee wrote:
<quoted text>
Linguistics in the Ramsey case was mentioned by Lin Wood at the 2000 Atlanta Boulder police interview with the Ramseys:
MR. WOOD: Before we go there,
5 Bruce, let me say to you, I turned over to
6 Ollie two expandables of stuff that I have
7 gotten for him to look at, including, you
8 may know this, Chief, but I got some really
9 long and detailed analysis of Fleet White's
10 letters compared to the ransom notes from a
11 lawyer in New York. Are you familiar with
12 it? You may not have gotten it yet.
13 MR. BECKNER: I don't believe so.
14 MR. WOOD: He will go through it
15 and get it all to you. I am trying to
16 keep up with it to go to Ollie. It is two
17 expandables of different tips on leads.
18 MR. BECKNER: What type of
19 analysis is it?
20 MR. WOOD: It's a linguistic
21 analysis of the public letters that Fleet
22 White and Priscilla White have written about
23 the case, and they have taken that and done
24 an analysis of the ransom note. So I am
25 not making any suggestions except to describe
0025
1 it.
What, no linguistic analysis of Patsy?
candy

East Lansing, MI

#20 May 8, 2009
You're right Henri.

Quote: I'm sure Thomas is interested in the linguistics side of investigating the JonBenet case.

Doh! Don't you remember the trouble Thomas singlehandedly brought to the case with DONALD FOSTER? For God's sakes, the man had to pay Dr. Steven Hatfill AND APOLOGIZE for LIBELING the man as the Anthrax killer. LINGUISTICS IS NOT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE EVEN IN CIVIL COURT. It isn't coming in as any type of evidence in a criminal case, except as "evidence" of the charlatans Thomas used.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ransom Note vs Patsy's Writing 54 min berrytea333 20
My theory 2 hr Anti-K 1,559
Intruder theories ONLY 4 hr Latisha 67
Missing Strand of Christmas Lights! 4 hr Jolamom 7
Random thought about the Stines (Jan '15) 6 hr DedRed 92
The Evil Super Family 6 hr DedRed 708
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 9 hr DedRed 665
Patsy Ramsey x Christmas Day 18 hr Spraguestephens 88
More from around the web