Stephen Singular Interview

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by VP, Oct 13, 2004.

  1. VP

    VP Member

    I looked high and low and didn't see this posted, if I missed it, I apologize. I just saw this today...

    Date: October 12, 2004
    Source: Crime Library

    http://www.crime-research.org/interviews/704/

    Stephen Singular is a highly regarded journalist and freelance writer. Apart from his book Presumed Guilty � An Investigation into the JonBenet Ramsey Case, The Media and the Culture of Pornography,

    Q: When you first went to Boulder, Colorado in January 1997 following JonBenet's murder, did you, like the hundreds of other journalists drawn to the area at the time, have any pre-conceived ideas regarding who might be responsible for the crime?

    I try not to have pre-conceived ideas about murders, but to discover what my ideas and perceptions are along the way. Even if you know what happened in a case, you still want to know why it happened. So you're always searching for that. By February 1997, when no arrest had been quickly made in the Ramsey case, I began to think that it was a more complicated homicide than the media was portraying it to be. The longer the case went on without an arrest, the more convinced of that I became.

    snip

    Q: How did you make the connection between the JonBenet Ramsey case and child pornography?

    I didn't make the connection as much as I felt that this area should be investigated by the authorities because of the similarities between what I'd seen online and the child's murder. And because I'd been told by cyber-crime specialists that JonBenet was precisely the kind of child, because of her beauty pageant experience, who could be sucked into the world of child porn. She was a natural candidate to attract attention -- and pedophiles. Once it became apparent, from the cops' investigation, that the Ramseys did not seem to be involved in abusing their child and this was not an obvious case of a parent raping or killing their little girl, then the next place to investigate was the subculture of exploitation and violence that JonBenet was exposed to through her success in the pageant world. If you can determine that her parents had no criminal past or even criminal tendencies, and you can also determine that a child was connected to things that hold criminal behavior, why wouldn't you investigate those things and that behavior?

    Q: You were responsible for focusing Alex Hunter and his team on another suspect weren�t you?

    Yes, I told Hunter that a photographer (Randy Simons) who'd taken JonBenet's picture and who, according to some pageant moms in the Denver-Boulder area, had asked if he could photograph their girls nude or semi-nude, had freaked out following the murder and had acted very suspiciously ever since. I was not suggesting that Simons participated in the death of JonBenet but that he might well have knowledge of the kinds of activities and subculture I was telling Hunter about. At the time I told the DA this, he'd never heard of Simons, which indicates just how much the Boulder police resisted investigating the murder outside of the family and how little they knew about the world JonBenet had been exposed to through her
    pageant connections.

    Q: What was the result of those investigations?

    The police never truly investigated Simons or anyone else who raised the possibility of a different scenario for this homicide. They were, to use Hunter's word, "fixated" on the Ramseys and still are.

    snip

    Q: In February this year, a Californian woman came forward and, through her counselor, advised the Boulder police that she had previously been molested at the hands of a pedophile ring that she thought was also responsible for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. How significant was her evidence and do you think Alex Hunter and the BPD treated it seriously?

    I think much of what she said -- and I was present during several of her interviews -- is very significant. The Ramseys have gone on TV and begged the public for information about this murder. They have presented a profile of their daughter's killer: a pedophile in Boulder who knew their family. This woman came forward and talked about a pedophilic group in Boulder with connections to their family, and she suggested that this group might have played a role in their daughter's death. The Ramseys wanted absolutely nothing to do with her -- even though she was talking about things that appeared to exonerate them in the murder of their child. What does this tell you? They don't want this pedophile door opened even one crack. The secrets of the case, I believe, lie in there and they (or at least one of the parents) don't want anyone to explore this realm of child exploitation, abuse, and pornography. It is better to be accused of being a murderer than to have other things come out. Hunter took her seriously, but the BPD, which interviewed her and was the agency that should have investigated her claims, dismissed her the same way they've dismissed everyone and everything that haven't fit their scenario. For the Ramseys, or one Ramsey, there appeared to be a worse scenario than having both Patsy and their young son Burke being publicly accused, for the past three years, of killing JonBenet. That scenario had to do with making their daughter the victim of a child sex ring in Boulder. Why was this more threatening than having your family members accused of the most terrible thing a person can do?

    snip

    Q: Why do you think those closest to the case and the general public were so quick to implicate John and Patsy for JonBenet�s death?

    Because it's easy. People need to hate other people and the media feeds this need. It's in the business of creating demons and selling them to the public. None of this has anything to do with solving murder cases. It's just dollars and cents. As for the cops who were so certain the Ramseys were guilty, they were merely looking at the statistic that says in 10 out of 11 cases in which a child is found dead in the house, a parent did it. They were going by the book. But nothing in this case -- nothing at all -- comes close to fitting the book.

    Q: If JonBenet hadn�t been involved in child beauty pageants, do you think the case would have drawn the same amount of media attention?

    The images that drew everyone into the case are, in my view, the same images that drew JonBenet's killer to her. She was a marketable commodity so she was going to be exploited for someone's gain. It is very interesting that we are all drawn to look at those images, over and over again, yet there has been great resistance to the notion that someone outside the family would also have been drawn to the child and participated in her death. We don't like to admit, as a society, how troubling the sexualization and exploitation of children is, so we've tried to lay this entire case off on JonBenet's mother. It is an example of extreme denial.

    Q: Why do you think the Boulder authorities failed to indict John and Patsy Ramsey?

    Because the hard evidence points away from them. Given that, they could never win a trial against the Ramseys.

    Q: Do you think the polygraph test that the Ramseys took was a valid test? If not, why not?

    The test is valid but that is not the main point. Who created the questions, why were they fashioned exactly as they were, and why were the parents not asked the same things? Why wasn't John Ramsey asked about the creation of the ransom note? The fact that they were asked different questions, and that the Ramseys set it up that way, signifies a conflict of interest between the parents and that they each know different things. They passed the test because I don't believe that they killed their daughter or know exactly who did. They could answer those questions safely. But could Mr. Ramsey safely be asked about his involvement with the note or the aftermath of the crime? That is a question the media has never posed to him and it needs to be asked by both reporters and the police.

    snip

    Q: According to reports in the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post, the Boulder police seem reluctant to meet with the Ramseys. Do you have any idea why?

    The Ramseys aren't going to tell them anything more now than they have since the case started. So a meeting most likely won't go anywhere. It is all public relations. That's all the case has been about so far. No one has wanted to look behind the ugly door of what is being done to children in many different places and recognize that this is not a simple crime of a mother gone bad, but a social crime that has left the entire legal system and media looking foolish. Until the police start asking the Ramseys different questions, I don't think another interview will produce any results."

    Snipped cuz I have to :(
     
  2. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    ha ha

    This guy is asked why the grand jury failed to indict the Ramseys and he answers that the hard evidence points away from them. It would have been nice if the interviewer had asked what hard evidence he was refering to! :loser:
     
  3. Show Me

    Show Me FFJ Senior Member

    Sorry I don't like Singular at all...and I think his book is lame.For Singular it's making profit off JonBenet's death and nothing to do with justice. Who is he trying to kid?

    As far as the police being reluctant to meet with the Ramseys...well yeah sure they were. The Ramsey spin team made so many demands...Patsy could only be interviewed for one hour and with her doctor. The Ramsey's didn't want to go to the police station for an interview, instead they suggested a place comfortable for them.... you know the kind of things us can collectors would never ask of our LE.

    The big bad cops can't ask the Ramsey's to do something everyone else would do in their place, like co-operate with the police in their daughter's murder. Noooo, the Rams need 'special' privledges.
     
  4. Niner

    Niner Active Member

    EXACTLY what I thought when I read that statement... WHAT hard evidence?? :yuck:
     
  5. Niner

    Niner Active Member

    exonerate them? - Uncle Johnnie? I don't think so! :laffbig:

    also this quote from VP:
    could that one Ramsey be Uncle Johnnie?? :gum:
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice