Ellique post "Whereabouts of Mr. Thomas"

Those of you who missed the John Ramsey's friend, senior citizen retired worm farmer turned legal analyst Ellique's great posts from the SHORT lived Ramsey v. Thomas case. Here's Ellique, who was first asking "Where was Petrocelli", where Petro was no where to be found in a case he was to be playing a starring role in. Then Thomas himself went AWOL, and Ellique wrote this on JW (I posted this for years on Cybersleuths, and he never complained about it):

"Whereabouts of Mr Thomas"
Posted by Ellique on 16:51:52 6/17/2001
Where is Mr. Thomas?

Is he really in Europe? What is he doing there when he is head over
heels bent on raising money in the good old USA?

If he is indeed in Europe, no way of getting him back for a civil trial if
he decides to stay there!!!!

Maybe that is why he was a no-show for the Miller trial. Is he flubbing
his nose or what?

If he turnes out to be a no-show for his own trial, his goosed is cooked
but that won't make him have to pay up of course. Wonder how much
property he owns in the USA? Bet he has "transferred" "all" his
property, just in case.

Does anyone know where Mr Thomas actually is as of this day?

What do JWers think of this ploy if It turns out to be correct?

Love,
Ellique

Who cares what the worm farmer says, we all know where he is today Candy. Does this mean you don't, LMAO?

Gosh, how desperate are you, gutter candy, when you have to drag up the ghost of gender-flipping Ellique to attack Thomas?!

Jezuz! All this fresh air is getting to your shriveled brain! Get back in that document closet...NOW...before you hyperventilate!

koldkase wrote:

Gosh, how desperate are you, gutter candy, when you have to drag up the ghost of gender-flipping Ellique to attack Thomas?!
Jezuz! All this fresh air is getting to your shriveled brain! Get back in that document closet...NOW...before you hyperventilate!

I recently read "The Garden Party" on acandyrose. The guy calling himself Ellique for that event turned out to be, if I recall correctly, Lou Smit.

I had no idea how to evaluate any of that.

Quote: I recently read "The Garden Party" on acandyrose. The guy calling himself Ellique for that event turned out to be, if I recall correctly, Lou Smit.

I had no idea how to evaluate any of that.

Ellique is not Lou Smit. I had not heard of The Garden Party you mention, so I looked it up. ACR's as big a liar as Steve. No one sent that out anonymously to anyone. That's a variation on a story Rita Johnson has told to several people, including me. When she told me, she NEVER called Ellique by his hat, she always called him by his REAL name.

Ellique was very prescient about Thomas's case, that's why the gutter, specifically KKK, who got rid of him at Websleuths, and Jayelles wanted to get rid of him so badly. He was telling the truth about Thomas, and what was going to happen with that case.

Ellique's quote in this post "If he is indeed in Europe, no way of getting him back for a civil trial if he decides to stay there!!!!" was exactly what Thomas was doing. Hiding under the bed in Germany NEVER TO RETURN until he got his deal from the Ramseys. They KNEW he wasn't coming back for any trial, he couldn't even play it straight about being SERVED, let alone, being grilled on the barbeque by Lin Wood during a deposition in HIS OWN case.

I'm posting some more of Ellique's posts that are on the net in the next posts. They aren't his best, but they are insightful about Thomas, his best were at Webbsleuths and Websleuths, and overall, those ones are not available on the web right now:

"Mr. Thomas weaves his web."

Posted by Ellique on 02:04:58 4/05/2001

I am not too fond of having to start my own thread
but Mr. L wood said something the other day on one of those early
morning talk shows that caught my ear and the idea and scenario just
doesn't go away.

As a kind of a quick and throw away comment, Mr Wood said that Mr
Thomas had spent, and I quote,
"all night long in a Kinko print store" copying police files. God !! Does
any one else think that that should be delved into. Maybe that scenario
has been talked about and I just missed it but I would like to hear more
about it, particularly from Mr. Thomas. Why would he feel the need to
do such a thing on or prior to his resignation? Who gave him permission
to do so?
Doesn't the BPD have copying machines? How do you think Steve will
respond to questioning about
such weird behavior when he is deposed? Do you think that Mr. Wood is
mistaken, or what? Surely the BPD is not that lax in confidential file
sewcurity. Do you think Mr. Thomas has the right to carry such
confidential Investigative raw file police data with him, even his own,
into retirement?

Am I the only one who thinks this is indeed a weird and telling act, if it
is indeed true.

Best to all, Ellique

"Steve was served"

Posted by Ellique on 11:02:32 7/01/2001

NOTE: This message was last edited 11:02:32, 7/01/2001

The server talked to somwone through the screen.
Was it a man or woman?

Whoever it was just better not show up in court, else the server will be
able to make a positive ID.

I believe that ST knew he was to be served and arranged a plan for
someone to be there to be spoken to by the server. That person
refused to identify him/herself or identified himself as ST.
(Don't think so to that, however)

I don't care anymore one way or the other.
I think most Americans, who are in the least bit interested in the
carrying ons in Colorado re the Ramsey case, have already seen what
this Dynamic Duo of White and Thomas are capable of and have clong
ago concluded that their varacity is not so hot.

Where is Petro?

Love
Ellique

11. "Just who was that person behind that screen door?"
Posted by Ellique on 15:58:51 7/14/2001
And what was that person doing in ST's home?
Surely THAT PERSON, whomever, Steve, his wife, mother, father, maid,
gardner, the mailman, the Orkin man, the telephone repairman, the
pizza man, or neighbor, just didn't say, "I am not Steve Thomas"
without any kind of conversation.
And surely after the server left, THAT PERSON just didn't say, What
the hell is this and toss it.

Nope, there are just to many things here that point toward Steve
knowing that he was to be served and now wants the whole thing to
go away by saying that he WAS NOT LEGALLY SERVED. Well guess
what folks, the Judge just may say, "Mr Thomas, you may say that you
were not legally served but the evidence is strong enough for me to
rule that you were CONSTRUCTIVELY served and therefore, you are
hereby fined $10,000.00 and/or 30 days in jail. OR.

The good old wise judge just may say, "Mr Thomas,
I will give you 10 days to get THAT PERSON BEHIND THAT SCREEN
DOOR in my court to be questioned as to why he or she was there and
as to fully detail their rerlationship to you. If you fail in this regard, the
court imposes the following.........
..."

Then he adds, "This court is no longer going to tolerate excuses based
on such legalistic mumbo
jumbo. I give you fair warning henceforth close attention will be paid to
what is said before this court will be weighed heavely againt the
criminal statues re perjury. Keep in mind Mr. Thomas that the court is
99% certain that you WERE served, but not 100%. The Burden of proof
is now upon YOU to fully enlighten this court as to the fact and
circumstances surrounding THAT PERSON. The court feels that you
deserve this continuance so as to give you every conceivable
chance to extricate yourself from this legal entanglement. I say all this
because I find your argumant every specious. Furthermore it is beyond
me and this court as to think that we should believe that THIS PERSON
did not inform you that an agent of the law served you papers of some
kind and that the papers JUST LAID ON YOUR DOORSTEP, completely
ignored."

Not edited for anything. Please deal with it:

Dear WY: I am so glad that you are speaking to me again. I am not
teasing you. I don't like being an outcast. If Mrs. Brady and I can bury
the hatchet, so should we be able to don't you think? SMACK, SMACK,
SMACK!!!!!!!

Love,
Ellique

14. "Tricia"
Posted by Ellique on 17:53:32 7/14/2001
NOTE: This message was last edited 17:53:32, 7/14/2001

NOTE: This message was last edited 17:44:45, 7/14/2001

Who do you think was behind that "Sgreen Door".
Tricia, please forgive me for laughing.:>) When you say that Steve is
not a tap dancer, I LOL.
So what do you think he was doing when he said, "Patsy was good for
it" based on his now proven mumbo jumbo cockamamey scenario.
Tricia, Steve could put Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Marge and Gower
Champion (sp), plus the Step Brothers to shame on one of their best
performance days. Geeeessssccccch!! I love you, nevertheless.

Love, Ellique

PS: Edited to add. Steve does not have to outright lie. He thinks all he
has to do is withhold the facts. That will not cut it however,
if the judge construes that he, in fact, got served based on the facts
presented to him(the judge) regardless who the PRESENTER of the
facts
may be. So you see Tricia, Steve can claim and swear til the cows
come home and NOT LIE til the cows come home but that doesn't mean
that the court will rule THAT HE WAS NOT SERVED. Old Steve KNEW he
was going to be called whether he "danced" around being served or
not.

My concern about Thomas starting up with his illegal, unethical leaks again, is that Lin Wood would once again use his blatently illegal acts to get the case moved from the BPD, who has custody of the case file, just like he did in 2002, because of liability from Thomas and his leaks:

City ducks lawsuit over slaying

By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
February 10, 2003

BOULDER - The decision by Boulder District Attorney Mary Keenan to take
control of the JonBenet Ramsey case might not solve a crime, but it spared
the city a major lawsuit.

On Oct. 9, Atlanta attorney Lin Wood sent Keenan a letter, protesting that
correspondence he mailed to Boulder police Sept. 16 offering new leads and
tips on the 1996 slaying had been ignored.

After lobbying for the investigation to be put into the hands of "competent,
experienced and objective homicide investigators," Wood then put Keenan on
notice about the expected Ramsey lawsuit.

Advising Keenan that the lawsuit would prove "expensive and time-
consuming," Wood wrote, "I submit that the resources of Boulder government
would be better spent investigating leads and tips than litigating" over the
Police Department's "misconduct" and "inaction" on the case.

With that expected lawsuit, Wood also planned to hold Boulder police
accountable for an alleged campaign of leaks aimed at defaming and
discrediting John and Patsy Ramsey, long the primary focus of the Boulder
police investigation.

But on Dec. 20, after a meeting attended by Keenan, Wood and Boulder police
Chief Mark Beckner, it was revealed that Keenan - with Beckner's approval -
was taking the case off Beckner's hands.

Keenan sent Wood a letter that day saying, "We will not exempt the Ramseys
from this investigation," but she also told Wood she believed "the Boulder
Police Department has done an exhaustive and thorough investigation of the
Ramseys as potential suspects."

Wood now says his threatened lawsuit won't be filed.

"One of the main goals in (potentially) filing that lawsuit was to try to
bring the case out of the hands of the Boulder Police Department and into
the hands of an objective set of investigators," Wood said. "That goal has
been accomplished."

The attorney dismissed the possibility that Keenan's taking over the case
was intended, in part, to spare the city of Boulder and its Police
Department a costly and possibly embarrassing legal battle.

However, Wood said, "I also recognize that a secondary benefit of (Keenan's
decision) was to save the taxpayers of Boulder the expense of litigation
over the last six years of mishandling of this case."
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/rams......

"those ones"? Is that a legal term Candy? You are about as eloquent as Ellique, who couldn't spell if his clairvoyant life depended on it. I agree with KK, you need to dive back into that document closet and hoard your little cluster of papers AND your box of crayons and leave the real documents to the experts like ACR. It is so against Topix TOS to bring posts over from another forum - tsk tsk tsk.

candy wrote:

"Mr. Thomas weaves his web."
Posted by Ellique on 02:04:58 4/05/2001
I am not too fond of having to start my own thread
but Mr. L wood said something the other day on one of those early
morning talk shows that caught my ear and the idea and scenario just
doesn't go away.
As a kind of a quick and throw away comment, Mr Wood said that Mr
Thomas had spent, and I quote,
"all night long in a Kinko print store" copying police files. God !! Does
any one else think that that should be delved into. Maybe that scenario
has been talked about and I just missed it but I would like to hear more
about it, particularly from Mr. Thomas. Why would he feel the need to
do such a thing on or prior to his resignation? Who gave him permission
to do so?
Doesn't the BPD have copying machines? How do you think Steve will
respond to questioning about
such weird behavior when he is deposed? Do you think that Mr. Wood is
mistaken, or what? Surely the BPD is not that lax in confidential file
sewcurity. Do you think Mr. Thomas has the right to carry such
confidential Investigative raw file police data with him, even his own,
into retirement?
Am I the only one who thinks this is indeed a weird and telling act, if it
is indeed true.
Best to all, Ellique

According to Thomas, they copied the files because they didn't want to share the "war room" with Smit and the DA anymore. They cops needed their own copy of the files. The BPD's attorney, Bob Keatley, put the charge on his credit card so it was all done legally.

Everybody knows this. Why are you wasting our time with stuff like this.

LOL! Why do you think the case was moved to the DA's office on 12/20/02, after Lin Wood subpoenaed the BPD for just about everything related to Thomas FOR HIS PLANNED SUIT AGAINST THE BPD, on 12/3/02? Thomas's illegal leaks and the liability from them were the reason the cops LOST the case to the DA's office. Now he's back here doing it again, and I firmly believe Lin Wood will try to get the case moved again, because of liability from Thomas, IF HE CAN.

When asked in his deposition, Steve didn't know where his box of Ramsey files was. Remember? I think he had a friend take them for a ride and return them later.

Whatever. I think Candy should thank all parties for any TRUTH they put out at this point to try to get this solved.

Candy has plenty of secret files - bought and paid for and all her own. She will die with them. Sad, IMO. Doesn't care if the killer is ever caught, better to own files other posters don't have. And I truly think she missed being call on to be hallmonitor when she was young - hence her efforts to play one here.

Sorry Candy, people look at you as a pest and youhave only yourself to blame. Put the case first. For JonBenet. You might be happier in the end.

jameson wrote:

When asked in his deposition, Steve didn't know where his box of Ramsey files was. Remember? I think he had a friend take them for a ride and return them later.

This is what Thomas said about it:

17 Q. How many pages of documents are we
18 talking about?

19 A. A couple hundred maybe.

20 Q. Do you have those presently in
21 your possession, custody or control?

22 A. No.

23 Q. What did you do with them?

24 A. I don't know.

25 Q. They just mysteriously disappeared?
38
1 A. No, I have moved twice in the
2 interim. We have some things in storage.
3 We, my wife moved overseas. If I still had
4 a cardboard box full of those documents or
5 materials. I'm unaware of their present
6 location.

And later:

6 Q. You knew early on when your book
7 was published that the Ramseys had stated
8 that they were going to file a lawsuit
9 against you?

10 A. I had heard through the media that
11 they had made those threats.

12 Q. You didn't think it might be wise
13 to keep up with your notes to have those in
14 the event there was a lawsuit?

15 A. Those are all available in the
16 Boulder Police Department.

17 Q. So everything that you had, the
18 200 pages is available from the Boulder
19 Police Department; is that right?

20 A. Yes, as I said, I turned
21 everything back to the Boulder Police
22 Department.

I agree that he wasn't exactly bending over backwards to help Lin Wood out. I think he despises him.

Lin Wood skillfully just kept giving Thomas the rope to hang himself with, to go on and on with. The box with no post mark, and he didn't know where he put the confidential police case material in a potential capital case. Yeah right. As Chief Beckner said, he believed Thomas just made copies himself. THERE WAS NO BOX. If there was no box, it means he stole the files himself, which he could not admit to.

Quote: Still, as he worked on a book about the case in 1999, Thomas said he received anonymous mailings containing copies of material in the case file. He assumed they came from former colleagues in the Boulder Police department.
Beckner, asked Thursday if that warrants an internal-affairs probe to find the source, said, "I take what Steve says with a grain of salt," meaning it's more likely Thomas made the copies himself before he quit.

http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2003/May/ ...

Jameson tried to use that box lie herself, when Lin Wood asked her where she got the confidential documents she sold to the Enquirer for $40,000. Why, in a NON POSTMARKED BOX she said, just like leaker Steve, of course. I posted then that Lin Wood would not be pleased about her using one of Thomas's lies that he didn't believe herself.

Correct link for Chief Beckner's quote about Thomas:

http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2003/May/...

candy wrote:

Quote: Still, as he worked on a book about the case in 1999, Thomas said he received anonymous mailings containing copies of material in the case file. He assumed they came from former colleagues in the Boulder Police department.
Beckner, asked Thursday if that warrants an internal-affairs probe to find the source, said, "I take what Steve says with a grain of salt," meaning it's more likely Thomas made the copies himself before he quit.
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2003/May/ ...

So what? That isn't a fact, it is Beckner's opinion just like it is your opinion Beckner was correct. Take your opinion and a buck fifty and go buy yourself a cup of coffee! The coffee will be worth more than your opinion or anything you have to whine about. How about answering my question from yesterday, where is he now?