Steve Eller

United States

#86 Oct 19, 2012
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> Absolutely untrue. They answered all police questions without attorneys present all through the day on the 26th. It was on the advice of their friend Mike Bynum that the attorneys became involved and made the decision on behalf of the Ramseys that no interviews would be granted at that time. The Ramseys simply followed their attorneys' advice as it had become evident to the attorneys that the BPD was hostile to the Ramseys. They were trying to keep the Ramseys out of jail because there was a very real danger they'd be arrested. Understandably, the Ramseys did not want to be arrested for a crime they did not commit. That would have been counterproductive in finding their daughter's killer as all further police investigations would then have come to an end.
Lou Smit was far too professional to allow himself to be coerced by any means. His commitment was always to finding justice for the victim. There is no way he'd have covered for two killers, no way at all.
On the 26th they informally spoke with Police about a 'kidnapping'. Immediately after JonBenet's body was found they refused to speak with Police initially on flimsy pretexts such as being too distraught, after they realized that the Police were willing to accommodate them, they found a panoply of excuses as their high powered attorneys delayed questioning for FOUR MONTHS after the murder. Linda Hoffman Pugh had far more to lose was not a blood relative but was far more cooperative. In the most benign scenario Lou Smit was duped emotionally.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#87 Oct 19, 2012
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
We know that a stun gun was not used. Theoretically you will always find people affirming that something is 'Possible'. A higher threshhold of proof is needed as a bare minimum in forming an alternative theory on what happened to JonBenet. The test on the pigs failed miserably,making marks that were nothing like what was found on JonBenet. The makers of the only device made that could come even remotely come close to thinly resembling the marks on JonBenet's Body pubilcly confirmed that those marks could not have been made by their device. The coroner noted that there were abrasions and not burns. Unfortunately Lou Smit was following his heart or his wallet but not the facts of the case.
We know the stun gun was not used. That is a fact, which is why we know it. There are people who still refuse to face the facts of the case

It makes for a better Saint Ramsey story

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#88 Oct 19, 2012
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
On the 26th they informally spoke with Police about a 'kidnapping'. Immediately after JonBenet's body was found they refused to speak with Police initially on flimsy pretexts such as being too distraught, after they realized that the Police were willing to accommodate them, they found a panoply of excuses as their high powered attorneys delayed questioning for FOUR MONTHS after the murder. Linda Hoffman Pugh had far more to lose was not a blood relative but was far more cooperative. In the most benign scenario Lou Smit was duped emotionally.
EVERYONE who was asked and questioned cooperated fully and EVERYONE investigated cooperated more than the family. That is a fact as well. The Ramseys had more demands blah, blah blah and finally, four months later, they agreed WITH CONDITIONS to help the investigation. Who does that?

We have heard that they didn't cooperate because they "knew the BPD was out to get them", "they suspected the Ramseys and their lawyers told them what to do" and the excuses go on,....BUT

In DOI in their own words and by their own story, they had no idea they were suspects until they were already in Atlanta. That takes away THAT excuse, so what's left?

We know

The IDI are just deluding themselves and the saddest part is that there are theories out there that believe the Ramseys to have guilty knowledge of the crime but to "protect" someone stayed silent. Somehow that is supposed to be okay, but not in my book.

That is just being an apologist for a murderer...or two.
Henri McPhee

Houghton Le Spring, UK

#89 Oct 19, 2012
The Ramseys never refused to answer questions when properly called upon to do so, unlike Fleet White who ended up in jail once for refusing to turn up in court and answer questions at the Ramsey case relevant Tom Miller case in, I think, 2001 or 2000.

It's true that the initial Ramsey private detective Ellis Armistead was quoted once as seeing his job as keeping the Ramseys out of jail. Armistead didn't make much effort to find any real culprits in the Ramsey case.

Lin Wood parted company with Armistead when he took over as the Ramsey lawyer. Ollie Gray continued as a Ramsey investigator which later seems to have become unpaid pro bono work by Gray's private detective firm.

Ollie Gray never seemed to take any interest in Fleet White, unlike the real homicide detectives, and Ollie Gray later became heavily involved in investigating Helgoth and John Mark Karr, who might or might not be connected to the Ramsey case.
Henri McPhee

Houghton Le Spring, UK

#90 Oct 19, 2012
This matter of Ramsey police interviews was mentioned in a Boulder Daily Camera article in 1997:

Ramseys send DA scathing letter
Family says police canceled parents' interviews this week
By ALLI KRUPSKI
Camera Staff Writer
Thursday, April 24, 1997

In a scathing 2-page letter Wednesday to Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter, attorneys for John and Patsy Ramsey said the Boulder Police Department on Tuesday suddenly canceled two separate interviews scheduled with the parents of the slain beauty queen.

Lawyers Hal Haddon and Pat Burke expressed "profound dismay" with the investigators' abrupt decision.

"It is apparent that the leadership of the Boulder Police Department lacks the objectivity and judgment necessary to find the killer of JonBenet Ramsey," the attorneys said.

The letter marks the most aggressive declaration to date from the Ramsey family in the four-month investigation. Except for a New Year's Day interview on CNN, John and Patsy Ramsey have not talked with the police or the media about their daughter's murder.

In a statement, police officials said they continue to re-

quest interviews with the parents, and "their reluctance to provide witness information continues to hinder the police investigation into the murder of their daughter." The Ramseys have no legal obligation to submit to questioning unless police formally name them as suspects.

Authorities also declined a proposal from the Ramsey lawyers to permit retired detective Lou Smit and any member of the district attorney's office to interview the couple.

Hunter, who recently identified the parents as the focus of the investigation, declined to comment.

Haddon and Burke described Tuesday's cancellation as the "latest in an inexplicable series of events which appear to be senseless efforts to intimidate and smear the Ramseys without any valid investigative purpose."

In the most "insensitive and outrageous action in this case," for instance, authorities refused to release JonBenet's body for burial unless the parents agreed to "a hostile interrogation" with investigators at the Boulder police station, the lawyers wrote.

Law enforcement officials have launched a "cowardly smear campaign" against the Ramseys, the lawyers added. "We will no longer endure these tactics in silence," the letter said. "It is beyond comprehension that ... authorities prefer to leak information rather than interrogate the persons who they characterize as "suspects"in this investigation."

Detectives began requesting interviews from the couple shortly after John Ramsey and a friend found the 6-year-old strangled in the basement of the Ramseys' Boulder home on Dec. 26. About eight hours earlier, Patsy Ramsey discovered a ransom note demanding $118,000 and called police.

After the homicide, investigators extensively interviewed the parents on Dec. 26 and John Ramsey on Dec. 27, Wednesday's letter said. The Ramseys also offered to submit to another interrogation with detectives on Jan. 18.

At that time, the Ramseys insisted investigators interview the couple together for one hour in a doctor's presence at the family attorney's office, according to city spokeswoman Leslie Aaholm. In addition, the parents hoped to select the detectives conducting the session, Aaholm said. For those reasons, police declined the proposal."
Henri McPhee

Houghton Le Spring, UK

#91 Oct 19, 2012
More:

"Haddon and Burke said in their letter that police rejected the January interview because "the time for interviewing John and Patsy as witnesses who could provide critical information that would be helpful in the initial stages of our investigation has passed."

On April 11, authorities agreed to hold audio taped interrogations at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday with John Ramsey and at 1:30 p.m. with Patsy Ramsey at a Boulder office building. Police, however, canceled the two-hour interviews at 4 p.m. Tuesday, after the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit concluded the Ramseys' conditions would not facilitate a productive interrogation, city officials said.

"It was a no-holds-barred question-and-answer session," said Pat Burke, Patsy Ramsey's attorney. "No questions were off limits. It was at a neutral site."

But police disliked the location and the specified length of the interviews, sources said.

"The building might have favored them, and we might not have had enough time to ask them everything we wanted to," a source close to the investigation said. "(The Ramseys) have tried to help in some other ways, though."

The couple, for example, agreed to allow authorities to search their Boulder home again without a warrant, test material at the house and identify Patsy Ramsey's prior writings, the letter said."

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#92 Oct 19, 2012
Henri, please read post 86 again, or for the first time, whichever is applicable.

The actual "PROPER" time would have been the afternoon of the 26th, because if it had been you or me, we would certainly have been occupyng a seat in an interview room on the 26th at thr BPD for 2 reasons. First because we would have wanted to help with the investigation in any way possible, and second because that is how it is done. NOT 4 months later after your attorney has set so many conditions on the interview that it ends up being benign and useless for all concerned.
Henri McPhee wrote:
The Ramseys never refused to answer questions when properly called upon to do so, unlike Fleet White who ended up in jail once for refusing to turn up in court and answer questions at the Ramsey case relevant Tom Miller case in, I think, 2001 or 2000.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#94 Oct 19, 2012
What does misuderstanding mean? Is it something to do with cow's tits?
Steve Eller

United States

#95 Oct 19, 2012
Ole South wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had read (and understood what you read) my post in its entirety there would have been no misuderstanding when I stated:
"So while I'm not really concerned with knowing anything about your private life, I do wonder (as well as others do) if you are using your real name and if there is any connection between it and the names mentioned. Thanks."
Since you ARE apparently new here, IMO we IDIs have just as much right to question you as the RDIs do to make unfounded accusations against new IDI posters. And while I don't know exactly how long Lynette has been posting here (although it has been a couple of years, at least), Capricorn still throws up in her face what she THOUGHT was her backing another poster who said some things about Cap. And incidentally for many months Cap tried to say that Lynette IS that poster, franky, one of her favorite accusations, but she now seems to be happy just accusing her of backing franky. But anything to keep the pot boiling!
Anyway, I can't care less about your personal life but since you came here so full of "knowledge" about the case and how evil the Ramseys are/were, I believe since the RDIs take such great delight in their accusations against new IDI posters like Mama2, saying they are people they are NOT, then I feel we should be able to at least ASK new RDIs who they are and what brought them here. Especially when they appear here bearing a handle like YOU have.
But now it's obvious you're not so full of knowledge about the case (as we have shown). All you're full of is your narrow-minded opinion apparently formed after reading Kolar's book. But it's clear also that you've absorbed some of the animosity spewed by the RDIs here at Topix. So now, knowing these things that you've demonstrated by your recent posts, it matters not to me where you came up with you hat.
I was probably right the first time.
I did not know that there were actually 'camps' maybe in your own little world there are. I came to this Forum with an open mind and do my best to afford everyone with the same respect and courtesy that I would require for myself. I have gone to great lenghts to refrain from any personal attacks, but judging from your jeremiad against me personally, it is now painfully obvious that there is much that is wrong with you on an emotional level. Depsite not ever averring as to the extent of my knowledge on the case, everyone can read my posts and judge for themselves. I have read several books about the Ramsey case and would be delighted to be proven wrong --although that won't happen unfortunately. I am not concerned with your perceived 'slights' against people whom you consider to be part of your 'camp,''team' or wannabe 'gang'. Everything I write is based on the evidence and established facts. Unlike you, I don't need to manufacture whole cloth fantasy scenarios and have to keep expounding tales when they don't initially fit the facts of the case. Focus on the case, go back reread the scholarly literature on this case, take a fresh look and stop trying to be a bully. It doesn't suit you and it is getting you no where.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#96 Oct 19, 2012
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>Randy Simons was interviewed and gave hair blood samples lived 100 miles from Boulder. The Police actively pursued all leads. If these were cursory investigations, I guess a rubber hose and a dark room would have been the step after 'cursory'. The Police pursued all of the far fetched 'suspects' and the the evidence kept coming back to the people being protected by the Colorado Establishment. NEXT!
Are you certain Simons gave blood and hair? I have not come across any information that this POI was investigated fully....at all. If Simons was investigated, then I would be thrilled to learn this. So, please, share your source.

The disturbing excerpts below are from "Presumed Guilty", by Stephen Singular:

(p. 109)
"'As time went on after the murder, Randy just became hysterical. It was odd because I'd [Pam Griffin] never heard him cry before about anything. He began calling me late at night and saying that people were going to come out to where he lived and kill him. He had a wild, scary sound in his voice. Then he said something that really stopped me.'

'What was that?'

'He said that he didn't have an alibi for the night of last December 25.'Why do you need an alibi' I asked him. He wouldn't answer that question. I asked him where he was on Christmas night. He said that he didn't want to talk about it. In the past, he's always wanted to talk about everything.'
...
(p. 115)
Two days after I spoke with Hunter about Randy Simons, Pam Griffin told me about a photograph Simons had taken of her daughter. It showed Kristine with a kite Simons had made himself. Attached to the kite was a white, nylonlike material bearing some resemblance to the cord that had been tied around JonBenet's wrist. During one of Simons' panicky late-night calls to Griffin, he had asked her if she recognized the material on the girl's wrist." (Singular, 1999)

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#97 Oct 19, 2012
Steve Thomas didn't seem to be interested in interviewing, nor did he have knowledge of, many witnesses, POIs, and possible suspects. In fact, he was unaware of some POIs living in the same neighborhood in which the Rs resided. Also, ST's lack of knowledge about the Whites' Californian house guests is quite disheartening. Cliff Gaston and Bill Cox, along with their families, were visiting the Whites in the days directly preceding AND following JonBenet's murder.

An excerpt of ST's depo in the Chris Wolf libel Suit, 2000:

Q. Did you ever seek to interview the Richardson twins who lived with Melody Stanton?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Because I was unaware of these people.

Q. Did anybody in the Boulder Police Department make an attempt, to your knowledge, to interview the two 30-year old twins, the Richardson twins, that lived with Melody Stanton?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. How about the two friends of Fleet White that were there, did you all ever get any non- testimonial evidence from those two individuals?

A. Which two friends are you referring to?

Q. The ones that were with him on Christmas and were at the Ramseys on I believe the party of the 23rd; do you know who I'm talking about?

A. Mr. Fleet White's house guests at the time?

Q. Yes. His friends that were house guests, did you all ever get any non-testimonial evidence, hair, DNA, handwriting from Mr. Cox or Mr. Gaston?

A. I believe Detective Harmer received that assignment and made attempts to conduct that investigation. And I'm not sure whether or not she was successful in those attempts.
The Truth Hurts

Detroit, MI

#98 Oct 19, 2012
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> I was going to respond to Seuss' post, Mama, but you've said it so well, there is nothing further for me to add.
Lovely to see you posting, BTW. Your knowledge, intelligence and common sense are invaluable to the IDI and very much appreciated. Thank you.:)
Get a room. Geeze.
The Truth Hurts

Detroit, MI

#99 Oct 19, 2012
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> Thank you very much for setting the record straight about Mama2, Ole South. I don't believe Candy acted out of malice, but she's very much mistaken. Mama is a lovely person, always respectful and polite, and doesn't deserve to be discredited by having untrue things said about her.
LMAO!!
The Truth Hurts

Detroit, MI

#100 Oct 19, 2012
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you, as well, for starting this thread. Lou Smit was an incredible investigator and an EVEN better man....with such integrity. Truly, Lou, was a man of admirable character.(It's difficult to find time to post, but life has slowed down a bit. KNOCK ON WOOD!) <3
Really? Did you know him personally?
He STILL didn't solve the Ramsey case. That's the only thing that's important here.
Oh...that and the fact that he distorted the facts in this case to suit his own means whenever possible. That is admirable INDEED!
Steve Eller

United States

#101 Oct 19, 2012
Mama2JML wrote:
<quoted text>Are you certain Simons gave blood and hair? I have not come across any information that this POI was investigated fully....at all. If Simons was investigated, then I would be thrilled to learn this. So, please, share your source.
The disturbing excerpts below are from "Presumed Guilty", by Stephen Singular:
(p. 109)
"'As time went on after the murder, Randy just became hysterical. It was odd because I'd [Pam Griffin] never heard him cry before about anything. He began calling me late at night and saying that people were going to come out to where he lived and kill him. He had a wild, scary sound in his voice. Then he said something that really stopped me.'
'What was that?'
'He said that he didn't have an alibi for the night of last December 25.'Why do you need an alibi' I asked him. He wouldn't answer that question. I asked him where he was on Christmas night. He said that he didn't want to talk about it. In the past, he's always wanted to talk about everything.'
...
(p. 115)
Two days after I spoke with Hunter about Randy Simons, Pam Griffin told me about a photograph Simons had taken of her daughter. It showed Kristine with a kite Simons had made himself. Attached to the kite was a white, nylonlike material bearing some resemblance to the cord that had been tied around JonBenet's wrist. During one of Simons' panicky late-night calls to Griffin, he had asked her if she recognized the material on the girl's wrist." (Singular, 1999)
I had read in a few different places that he did provide samples eventually. In Perfect Murder Perfect Town it is written that aside from being questioned his hadwriting was analyzed and his saliva did not match any of the DNA found at the crime scene.

Since: May 11

Seattle, WA

#103 Oct 19, 2012
since we're wondering, I wonder if Dr Beuf's DNA was tested? Anyone find that in the books?

Since: May 11

Seattle, WA

#105 Oct 19, 2012
The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been wondering that for ages. If it hasn't been, it certainly should be now.
Hi Truth:D
Love how an IDIot finds that inquiry incendiary, it just tells me there's smoke coming from Beuf's teepee (or toupee) and he must be sacred as a Ramsey.
I would think he'd be tested since he was Johnny on the spot at the Ramsey's beck and call when most legitimate doctors aren't available for house calls..especially at Christmas. But hey, he was "right down the street" and the Ramseys had a "good insurance plan", but since when do pediatricians carry tranquilizers?
Dr Beuf saw JonBenet so often, maybe his DNA was still on her. LOL

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#106 Oct 19, 2012
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not know that there were actually 'camps' maybe in your own little world there are. I came to this Forum with an open mind and do my best to afford everyone with the same respect and courtesy that I would require for myself. I have gone to great lenghts to refrain from any personal attacks, but judging from your jeremiad against me personally, it is now painfully obvious that there is much that is wrong with you on an emotional level. Depsite not ever averring as to the extent of my knowledge on the case, everyone can read my posts and judge for themselves. I have read several books about the Ramsey case and would be delighted to be proven wrong --although that won't happen unfortunately. I am not concerned with your perceived 'slights' against people whom you consider to be part of your 'camp,''team' or wannabe 'gang'. Everything I write is based on the evidence and established facts. Unlike you, I don't need to manufacture whole cloth fantasy scenarios and have to keep expounding tales when they don't initially fit the facts of the case. Focus on the case, go back reread the scholarly literature on this case, take a fresh look and stop trying to be a bully. It doesn't suit you and it is getting you no where.
I suggest in the future if you have anything to say about any of my posts that you refer specifically to comments I've made and not conjure up in your biased mind what you would like to brain wash others to believe YOUR VERSION of WHAT I say (not).

In the first place, I just pinned your ears back on your remark that Lou Smit must have done something illegal in order to get to speak before the GJ (putting your accusation in a nice way). I proved that he went through proper legal channels and won. THAT is why he got to speak to the Grand Jury. So you call this "fitting the facts" of the case?

And I have read your posts and that is why I can see that you came here with a preconceived notion of the Ramsey's guilt. You've made that very clear from your very first post till now.

As for my manufacturing whole cloth fantasy scenarios, since you're so admittedly new to this forum, how can you know ANYTHING about my scenarios regarding the case? Or do you claim to have ESP now? But if you do, you would know that what I've said regarding the case DOES fit the facts, far moreso than any scenario put forth by James Kolar in his book of lies. And I daresay the perp who broke into the Ramsey home that night and viciously tortured and murdered an innocent child was no scholar or very learned in your so-called "literature" but did seem to be well schooled in the art of EA and other methods of showing off his sadism.

I don't need to take a fresh look at this case. Every time there is another child slaughtered like Jessica Ridgeway was, I see more examples of the cruel inhumane nature of some beast who is thought to be a human being and slips through the fingers of law enforcement. So why look in the same places you'd have me look for such a person. I know how LE has wasted the last nearly 16 years chasing what their "scholarly logic" has led them to -- the innocent parents. While the beast is still out there laughing.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#108 Oct 19, 2012
realTopaz wrote:
since we're wondering, I wonder if Dr Beuf's DNA was tested? Anyone find that in the books?
What about Dr 'X', the therapist treating Jonbenet and Burke? The relationship between the kids and him or her was far more intimate than they had with Dr Beuf.

Since: May 11

Seattle, WA

#109 Oct 19, 2012
moonjack wrote:
<quoted text>
What about Dr 'X', the therapist treating Jonbenet and Burke? The relationship between the kids and him or her was far more intimate than they had with Dr Beuf.
Oh? Do you take your clothes off for your therapist? I mean, she wasn't 'talked to death'.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
John Andrew Ramsey Said What?? 59 min Non-state Actor 149
Challenge to Ak and Henri 1 hr Non-state Actor 78
Where's the Poop? 1 hr Spraguestephens 17
It always leads back to Burke (Oct '11) 1 hr Anti-K 2,034
My theory 1 hr Anti-K 366
Say Cheese 2 hr DedRed 3
Ramsey Diet-pasta Joe's or Spam & White Rice? 2 hr DedRed 8
I don't know how I missed this 3 hr DedRed 89
More from around the web