Found Deceased CO - Jonelle Matthews, 12, Greeley, 20 Dec 1984 *arrest 2020*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not seeing a shovel at all. Here are some additional images from the video (click each one to enlarge):

upload_2019-9-19_22-7-43.png
upload_2019-9-19_22-6-12.png
upload_2019-9-19_22-8-48.png

upload_2019-9-19_22-6-51.png

upload_2019-9-19_22-10-6.png

Source video:

The last one shows a shadow vaguely shaped like a spade but I believe it's simply the shadow of his hand on his pants. MOO.
 
Gardener1850 said:
I'm not seeing a shovel at all. Here are some additional images from the video (click each one to enlarge):

View attachment 205449
View attachment 205447
View attachment 205450

View attachment 205448

View attachment 205451

Source video:

The last one shows a shadow vaguely shaped like a spade but I believe it's simply the shadow of his hand on his pants. MOO.
Click to expand...
Could be. That’s why I said I wasn’t sure if it was an illusion. But I do see it in the last three pictures.
 
PommyMommy said:
Published on Sep 18, 2019
Full KTVB interview with former Idaho governor candidate Steve Pankey

Click to expand...
So there were people he so deeply distrusted at the church that he didn't want his 5-year-old child at the church, yet he took and continued to have a leadership position as youth pastor in that church? Why, if he thought the other "trusted adults" there were such bad people?

Kicked out of the Army? Why?

I also find it interesting he, according to him, had sex with his girlfriend and then told her he was going to tell the church she had an abortion without his permission. I am not an evangelical, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "sin" the abortion itself, rather than her doing so without Pankey's permission? I get the impression (MOO) that she told him she had an abortion and both the sexual assault and his threating to tell the church were his "punishment" for her doing something outside his control. Because why would he learn that she had an abortion, then have sex with her again, then threaten to tell the church? That makes no sense at all.

How does he remember this level of detail about seemingly mundane events 35 YEARS AGO? Like where his car was parked and whether the TV or radio was on a random winter's evening before a road trip? Or all those details about what happened with the leadership in the Mormon church in Idaho 30 years ago?

Somebody needs to question him on this whole thing about his son being murdered because I've read every newspaper entry about a shooting for the entire month of July, 2008, for the entire state of Arizona, and there is no mention of any shooting that fits Pankey's son, let alone a girlfriend being arrested and reaching a "deal" with police?prosecutors? as Pankey claims.

Comment posted by Pankey on Greeley Tribune article: "Without a deal this may never be resolved." Reporter questions him and he totally sidesteps the question.

He is really, really pushing to be examined (remotely) by a grand jury, "asked questions" and cleared. Very very confident in his powers of deception. He really doesn't want them searching physical evidence. He also says, "I don't think they're going to find anything." A slip? Because if there definitely wasn't anything, he would know.

He strikes me as a chameleon type with a lot of instability. Gay, "repents" and not gay, gay again, not gay again, then referring to himself as an openly gay candidate. At least two (heterosexual) marriages. Constantly moving from place to place around the country. Baptist, Nazarene, Mormon, now Baptist again... Seems like he tries to become whatever serves his purposes in the moment (MOO).
 
Lore Listener said:
So there were people he so deeply distrusted at the church that he didn't want his 5-year-old child at the church, yet he took and continued to have a leadership position as youth pastor in that church? Why, if he thought the other "trusted adults" there were such bad people?

Kicked out of the Army? Why?

I also find it interesting he, according to him, had sex with his girlfriend and then told her he was going to tell the church she had an abortion without his permission. I am not an evangelical, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "sin" the abortion itself, rather than her doing so without Pankey's permission? I get the impression (MOO) that she told him she had an abortion and both the sexual assault and his threating to tell the church were his "punishment" for her doing something outside his control. Because why would he learn that she had an abortion, then have sex with her again, then threaten to tell the church? That makes no sense at all.

How does he remember this level of detail about seemingly mundane events 35 YEARS AGO? Like where his car was parked and whether the TV or radio was on a random winter's evening before a road trip? Or all those details about what happened with the leadership in the Mormon church in Idaho 30 years ago?

Somebody needs to question him on this whole thing about his son being murdered because I've read every newspaper entry about a shooting for the entire month of July, 2008, for the entire state of Arizona, and there is no mention of any shooting that fits Pankey's son, let alone a girlfriend being arrested and reaching a "deal" with police?prosecutors? as Pankey claims.

Comment posted by Pankey on Greeley Tribune article: "Without a deal this may never be resolved." Reporter questions him and he totally sidesteps the question.

He is really, really pushing to be examined (remotely) by a grand jury, "asked questions" and cleared. Very very confident in his powers of deception. He really doesn't want them searching physical evidence. He also says, "I don't think they're going to find anything." A slip? Because if there definitely wasn't anything, he would know.

He strikes me as a chameleon type with a lot of instability. Gay, "repents" and not gay, gay again, not gay again, then referring to himself as an openly gay candidate. At least two (heterosexual) marriages. Constantly moving from place to place around the country. Baptist, Nazarene, Mormon, now Baptist again... Seems like he tries to become whatever serves his purposes in the moment (MOO).
Click to expand...
wow - I did not know any of this... cannot wait for the results of the search warrant - hope they are released. IMO
 
oviedo said:
wow - I did not know any of this... cannot wait for the results of the search warrant - hope they are released. IMO
Click to expand...
It's all in the interview that @PommyMommy posted (thank you Pommy!) and I replied to. It's worth a watch; I'd love to hear other folks thoughts on it, but he rambles a lot and it's long, so I advise turning the playback speed up to 1.5X.
 
Lore Listener said:
So there were people he so deeply distrusted at the church that he didn't want his 5-year-old child at the church, yet he took and continued to have a leadership position as youth pastor in that church? Why, if he thought the other "trusted adults" there were such bad people?

Kicked out of the Army? Why?

I also find it interesting he, according to him, had sex with his girlfriend and then told her he was going to tell the church she had an abortion without his permission. I am not an evangelical, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "sin" the abortion itself, rather than her doing so without Pankey's permission? I get the impression (MOO) that she told him she had an abortion and both the sexual assault and his threating to tell the church were his "punishment" for her doing something outside his control. Because why would he learn that she had an abortion, then have sex with her again, then threaten to tell the church? That makes no sense at all.

How does he remember this level of detail about seemingly mundane events 35 YEARS AGO? Like where his car was parked and whether the TV or radio was on a random winter's evening before a road trip? Or all those details about what happened with the leadership in the Mormon church in Idaho 30 years ago?

Somebody needs to question him on this whole thing about his son being murdered because I've read every newspaper entry about a shooting for the entire month of July, 2008, for the entire state of Arizona, and there is no mention of any shooting that fits Pankey's son, let alone a girlfriend being arrested and reaching a "deal" with police?prosecutors? as Pankey claims.

Comment posted by Pankey on Greeley Tribune article: "Without a deal this may never be resolved." Reporter questions him and he totally sidesteps the question.

He is really, really pushing to be examined (remotely) by a grand jury, "asked questions" and cleared. Very very confident in his powers of deception. He really doesn't want them searching physical evidence. He also says, "I don't think they're going to find anything." A slip? Because if there definitely wasn't anything, he would know.

He strikes me as a chameleon type with a lot of instability. Gay, "repents" and not gay, gay again, not gay again, then referring to himself as an openly gay candidate. At least two (heterosexual) marriages. Constantly moving from place to place around the country. Baptist, Nazarene, Mormon, now Baptist again... Seems like he tries to become whatever serves his purposes in the moment (MOO).
Click to expand...
I suspect they will find more victims of this guy--both female and male. JMO
 
Lore Listener said:
So there were people he so deeply distrusted at the church that he didn't want his 5-year-old child at the church, yet he took and continued to have a leadership position as youth pastor in that church? Why, if he thought the other "trusted adults" there were such bad people?

Kicked out of the Army? Why?

I also find it interesting he, according to him, had sex with his girlfriend and then told her he was going to tell the church she had an abortion without his permission. I am not an evangelical, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "sin" the abortion itself, rather than her doing so without Pankey's permission? I get the impression (MOO) that she told him she had an abortion and both the sexual assault and his threating to tell the church were his "punishment" for her doing something outside his control. Because why would he learn that she had an abortion, then have sex with her again, then threaten to tell the church? That makes no sense at all.

How does he remember this level of detail about seemingly mundane events 35 YEARS AGO? Like where his car was parked and whether the TV or radio was on a random winter's evening before a road trip? Or all those details about what happened with the leadership in the Mormon church in Idaho 30 years ago?

Somebody needs to question him on this whole thing about his son being murdered because I've read every newspaper entry about a shooting for the entire month of July, 2008, for the entire state of Arizona, and there is no mention of any shooting that fits Pankey's son, let alone a girlfriend being arrested and reaching a "deal" with police?prosecutors? as Pankey claims.

Comment posted by Pankey on Greeley Tribune article: "Without a deal this may never be resolved." Reporter questions him and he totally sidesteps the question.

He is really, really pushing to be examined (remotely) by a grand jury, "asked questions" and cleared. Very very confident in his powers of deception. He really doesn't want them searching physical evidence. He also says, "I don't think they're going to find anything." A slip? Because if there definitely wasn't anything, he would know.

He strikes me as a chameleon type with a lot of instability. Gay, "repents" and not gay, gay again, not gay again, then referring to himself as an openly gay candidate. At least two (heterosexual) marriages. Constantly moving from place to place around the country. Baptist, Nazarene, Mormon, now Baptist again... Seems like he tries to become whatever serves his purposes in the moment (MOO).
Click to expand...
Lore Listener said:
It's all in the interview that @PommyMommy posted (thank you Pommy!) and I replied to. It's worth a watch; I'd love to hear other folks thoughts on it, but he rambles a lot and it's long, so I advise turning the playback speed up to 1.5X.
Click to expand...
You're welcome. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to listen to it yet but after reading your post I'm bumping it up on my to-do list! Chameleon sounds like the perfect description for Pankey. MOO
 
Lore Listener said:
It's all in the interview that @PommyMommy posted (thank you Pommy!) and I replied to. It's worth a watch; I'd love to hear other folks thoughts on it, but he rambles a lot and it's long, so I advise turning the playback speed up to 1.5X.
Click to expand...
I couldn't listen to all of it. It was so long and he went on tangents. It sounds like he's trying to be careful of what he says and how he says it. JMO
 
neesaki said:
Hmmm..... I honestly don’t know what to think now, but in this interview I find him to be more believable than I did previously. I guess just call me confused.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if he's deliberately being confusing. He seems to really like being in the limelight... so he talks a lot without saying all that much. IYKWIM
Also, I think he wants to appear candid and transparent while he is trying to be careful of what he says. But, from what he does say, he doesn't strike me as an honest and forthcoming person. JMO
 
Lore Listener said:
So there were people he so deeply distrusted at the church that he didn't want his 5-year-old child at the church, yet he took and continued to have a leadership position as youth pastor in that church? Why, if he thought the other "trusted adults" there were such bad people?

Kicked out of the Army? Why?

<RSBMFF>

Comment posted by Pankey on Greeley Tribune article: "Without a deal this may never be resolved." Reporter questions him and he totally sidesteps the question.

He is really, really pushing to be examined (remotely) by a grand jury, "asked questions" and cleared. Very very confident in his powers of deception. He really doesn't want them searching physical evidence. He also says, "I don't think they're going to find anything." A slip? Because if there definitely wasn't anything, he would know.

He strikes me as a chameleon type with a lot of instability. Gay, "repents" and not gay, gay again, not gay again, then referring to himself as an openly gay candidate. At least two (heterosexual) marriages. Constantly moving from place to place around the country. Baptist, Nazarene, Mormon, now Baptist again... Seems like he tries to become whatever serves his purposes in the moment (MOO).
Click to expand...

I haven't listened to the podcast yet (I will), but I'll say this again - he is extremely disorganized in his thinking.

To me, this is scary. I keep thinking of the Oregon district shooter in Dayton, OH, when I listen to SP.

OH - 9 killed + Gunman, 16 injured, Mass Shooting, Oregon District, Dayton, 4 Aug 2019

JMVHO.
 
Last edited:
PommyMommy said:
Published on Sep 18, 2019
Full KTVB interview with former Idaho governor candidate Steve Pankey

Click to expand...

My summary of this very long interview (My opinions/personal reactions in parentheses):
  • He spells his name "S-T-E-V-E P as in Paul A-N-K-E-Y".
  • Reporter asks him to "start at the beginning" and SP starts with where he was and what he was doing on Dec 20, 1984. (Seems like he is alibi building from the beginning)
  • He was at home with his then wife and 5 year old son.
  • Their car was parked in their driveway; they lived on an acre just outside of town.
  • The car was parked in the driveway (I wonder why he repeats that info about where his car was twice?) and it was "packed to the max" to go to Big Bear Lake, CA for Christmas to visit SP's folks.
  • They were going to bed early and had put the little boy to bed early. (He repeats himself again saying the phrase "we were going to bed early" twice, I'm sensing a pattern here)
  • They had no radios, no TV's on.
  • SP looked out the front kitchen window to see the snow fall to make sure their 2 wheel drive car could get out early the next morning; they were going to leave 6-7-8 hours later.
  • An "unmarked Sheriff's car and a pickup" pulled into their driveway, turned around and left. (I wonder how he knew this unmarked car was a sheriff's vehicle? Also pretty strange to recall random vehicles turning around in the driveway while SP claims he was not aware anything had happened until 6 days later)
  • Next SP starts to say "I have had..." then changes and says he has a "gay background" - "It's all over the internet, it's well known" (o_O I'm confused on what this has to do with the night Jonelle disappeared)
  • He goes on to say he had had "multiple problems with local law enforcement" And he was thinking another "arbitrary charge" was coming. (I'm still confused-- apparently he expected to be arrested that night? Wonder why he thought that?)
  • The vehicles in his driveway "flashed their lights" towards his house and the house next to his and then they just turned around and left. (I'm not sure if he means headlights or if they turned on a police flashing light without siren? Or did they have flashlights they shined through the car windows towards the house?)
  • SP thought nothing of it at the time; they went to bed, got up at 3 or 4 AM; got the little boy up; got in the car; his wife and son were sleeping so there was no radio on as he went to CA. (Noting this is his 2nd mention of no radio being on)
  • SP says they "had a wonderful Christmas" with his parents. (As he says this his voice falters, he swallows hard and almost seems to be choking back tears? I'm not really buying he had a wonderful Christmas for some reason... It's at about 2:06 if anyone else wants to review this line)
  • Dec 26 1984, six days later, they were returning to Colorado and they heard on the news that there was a missing girl; that was SP's "first knowledge of it"; they went home, unpacked, went to bed.
(I find it incredible that SP has a lot of detail of very mundane events but the day he supposedly heard about Jonelle when he returned to town is rushed through and less detailed in the telling. Every time he repeats something twice I think it is because it is a carefully rehearsed line that he wants his audience to remember-- It's important to him that we believe: 1. His car was already packed and in the driveway 2. He went to bed early and 3. He heard no news on the radio for 6 days. He also seems to be trying very hard to paint his 1984 self as a victim who had been falsely accused by the police in the past and also an average family man who did nothing other than go away with his family for a Christmas vacation. MOO.)

  • The next day, Dec 27th SP's father-in-law came over; SP was not on speaking terms with his FIL so he was surprised that he came there.
  • FIL was groundskeeper at the cemetery; FIL told SP "a cop had come to him and said he had a body that needed to be buried in a casket and it would look bad for Steve".
  • SP says it was weirdest conversation he had ever had so he asked FIL if he was wearing a wire for the police; FIL said no and left.
  • SP called his attorney but his attorney's secretary told SP that his attorney was in Israel and would be back next week (This is again a very specific detail and I'm unsure of the relevance other than it means SP is saying he was not be able to get legal advice right way and thus delayed contacting LE-- in other words more alibi building)
  • After SP couldn't get a hold of his attorney he searched his acre and his neighbor's acre where the cops had flashed lights the week before (o_O); There was nothing there; So he was "kind of weirded out about this" (Weirded out by what? Was he expecting to find a body?)
  • SP's FIL never said the name Jonelle Matthews nor anything about a child, a man, a woman, anybody
  • SP got a copy of the newspaper and "the Jonelle Matthew's thing was all over it"; "It was the only murder in the area at that time"; He quickly corrects and says "disappearance" -- it was the only disappearance at the time that was talked about (So he thought it was "a murder" back then in 1984-- major slip of tongue there?)
  • The very next week when SP's attorney got back SP called him and said "I may have some info" but wasn't sure if it had anything to do with the Jonelle Matthew's case; The attorney said he would be concerned about "obstruction of justice" without going into it; SP owed his attorney a lot of money and the attorney's voice wasn't very friendly about this, so SP thanked him and got off the phone;
  • SP then called the Fort Collins FBI because he had a bad relationship with the Greeley Police Dept. The FBI agent SP talked to said he could meet with SP the next day. SP told the agent on the phone "I want to avoid an obstruction of justice charge"; SP didn't want to have a problem;
  • The FBI agent called SP the next day and asked to meet at the Greeley Police Dept; SP met the FBI agent there, SP told the FBI agent he had talked to his attorney and "if you get rough with me I'm going to lawyer up and that will be the end of it";
  • SP told the FBI agent that "somebody had talked to me about a body"; they never mentioned Jonelle Matthew's or any name, but SP thought the conversation was weird and he didn't totally trust the person that said it; on sleeping on it/thinking about it SP told the agent that if the person came to him again he would refer them to him
  • SP says the FBI Agent listened intently and then asked questions such as "Did the conversation have anything to do with Jonelle's older friends?"; SP denied knowing anything about her friends (Yikes-- what a sneaky way to subtly victim blame JM and simultaneously suggest alternative suspects; I've not heard anywhere else that Jonelle had older friends and I can't see an FBI Agent suggesting this either)
  • Next SP says the FBI Agents asked if the conversation had anything to do with drug dealing in the neighborhood; SP denied knowledge of "that neighborhood" and denied knowing anything about drug dealing (Once again SP is pointing towards ominous other possible suspects by bringing drug dealers up-- a very strange suggestion too since I think I read earlier in this thread Jonelle lived in a really safe neighborhood)
  • Third, SP says the FBI Agent brought up "people she knew who didn't like her" and SP replied he "didn't know anything about any of them"; SP knew the man and his daughter who were the last ones to see Jonelle; SP knew that man very well and SP had won a national laborer's lawsuit against him; (How very clever of SP to make at least 3 suggestions of other possible vague suspect pools... and make it seem as if the FBI made those suggestions not SP; then he also brings up that he had to sue the man who saw Jonelle last)
  • "That was the end of it" (I notice he likes that phrase)
  • A Greeley detective came in and asked SP what his story was; SP told the detective he had a bad relationship with the Greeley Police but he had talked to the FBI Agent and they could talk to him; Then SP left. "That was the end of it" (there's that phrase again)
  • SP: "That's the total of my knowledge of the disappearance of Jonelle Matthews"
  • SP: "That's it; There ain't nothing more"
  • (Gosh, I'm only 9:10 minutes into the interview and he talks for another 40 minutes?! Supposedly about nothing to do with Jonelle? I haven't listened to it yet but I'm not inclined to believe him about not knowing anything more... MOO)
I'm going to have to break my summary into several parts as that is all I have time for tonight. My head is spinning and I'm not even half way through this interview.

Reposting the video for future reference:
 
Gardener1850 said:
My summary of this very long interview (My opinions/personal reactions in parentheses):
  • He spells his name "S-T-E-V-E P as in Paul A-N-K-E-Y".
  • Reporter asks him to "start at the beginning" and SP starts with where he was and what he was doing on Dec 20, 1984. (Seems like he is alibi building from the beginning)
  • He was at home with his then wife and 5 year old son.
  • Their car was parked in their driveway; they lived on an acre just outside of town.
  • The car was parked in the driveway (I wonder why he repeats that info about where his car was twice?) and it was "packed to the max" to go to Big Bear Lake, CA for Christmas to visit SP's folks.
  • They were going to bed early and had put the little boy to bed early. (He repeats himself again saying the phrase "we were going to bed early" twice, I'm sensing a pattern here)
  • They had no radios, no TV's on.
  • SP looked out the front kitchen window to see the snow fall to make sure their 2 wheel drive car could get out early the next morning; they were going to leave 6-7-8 hours later.
  • An "unmarked Sheriff's car and a pickup" pulled into their driveway, turned around and left. (I wonder how he knew this unmarked car was a sheriff's vehicle? Also pretty strange to recall random vehicles turning around in the driveway while SP claims he was not aware anything had happened until 6 days later)
  • Next SP starts to say "I have had..." then changes and says he has a "gay background" - "It's all over the internet, it's well known" (o_O I'm confused on what this has to do with the night Jonelle disappeared)
  • He goes on to say he had had "multiple problems with local law enforcement" And he was thinking another "arbitrary charge" was coming. (I'm still confused-- apparently he expected to be arrested that night? Wonder why he thought that?)
  • The vehicles in his driveway "flashed their lights" towards his house and the house next to his and then they just turned around and left. (I'm not sure if he means headlights or if they turned on a police flashing light without siren? Or did they have flashlights they shined through the car windows towards the house?)
  • SP thought nothing of it at the time; they went to bed, got up at 3 or 4 AM; got the little boy up; got in the car; his wife and son were sleeping so there was no radio on as he went to CA. (Noting this is his 2nd mention of no radio being on)
  • SP says they "had a wonderful Christmas" with his parents. (As he says this his voice falters, he swallows hard and almost seems to be choking back tears? I'm not really buying he had a wonderful Christmas for some reason... It's at about 2:06 if anyone else wants to review this line)
  • Dec 26 1984, six days later, they were returning to Colorado and they heard on the news that there was a missing girl; that was SP's "first knowledge of it"; they went home, unpacked, went to bed.
(I find it incredible that SP has a lot of detail of very mundane events but the day he supposedly heard about Jonelle when he returned to town is rushed through and less detailed in the telling. Every time he repeats something twice I think it is because it is a carefully rehearsed line that he wants his audience to remember-- It's important to him that we believe: 1. His car was already packed and in the driveway 2. He went to bed early and 3. He heard no news on the radio for 6 days. He also seems to be trying very hard to paint his 1984 self as a victim who had been falsely accused by the police in the past and also an average family man who did nothing other than go away with his family for a Christmas vacation. MOO.)

  • The next day, Dec 27th SP's father-in-law came over; SP was not on speaking terms with his FIL so he was surprised that he came there.
  • FIL was groundskeeper at the cemetery; FIL told SP "a cop had come to him and said he had a body that needed to be buried in a casket and it would look bad for Steve".
  • SP says it was weirdest conversation he had ever had so he asked FIL if he was wearing a wire for the police; FIL said no and left.
  • SP called his attorney but his attorney's secretary told SP that his attorney was in Israel and would be back next week (This is again a very specific detail and I'm unsure of the relevance other than it means SP is saying he was not be able to get legal advice right way and thus delayed contacting LE-- in other words more alibi building)
  • After SP couldn't get a hold of his attorney he searched his acre and his neighbor's acre where the cops had flashed lights the week before (o_O); There was nothing there; So he was "kind of weirded out about this" (Weirded out by what? Was he expecting to find a body?)
  • SP's FIL never said the name Jonelle Matthews nor anything about a child, a man, a woman, anybody
  • SP got a copy of the newspaper and "the Jonelle Matthew's thing was all over it"; "It was the only murder in the area at that time"; He quickly corrects and says "disappearance" -- it was the only disappearance at the time that was talked about (So he thought it was "a murder" back then in 1984-- major slip of tongue there?)
  • The very next week when SP's attorney got back SP called him and said "I may have some info" but wasn't sure if it had anything to do with the Jonelle Matthew's case; The attorney said he would be concerned about "obstruction of justice" without going into it; SP owed his attorney a lot of money and the attorney's voice wasn't very friendly about this, so SP thanked him and got off the phone;
  • SP then called the Fort Collins FBI because he had a bad relationship with the Greeley Police Dept. The FBI agent SP talked to said he could meet with SP the next day. SP told the agent on the phone "I want to avoid an obstruction of justice charge"; SP didn't want to have a problem;
  • The FBI agent called SP the next day and asked to meet at the Greeley Police Dept; SP met the FBI agent there, SP told the FBI agent he had talked to his attorney and "if you get rough with me I'm going to lawyer up and that will be the end of it";
  • SP told the FBI agent that "somebody had talked to me about a body"; they never mentioned Jonelle Matthew's or any name, but SP thought the conversation was weird and he didn't totally trust the person that said it; on sleeping on it/thinking about it SP told the agent that if the person came to him again he would refer them to him
  • SP says the FBI Agent listened intently and then asked questions such as "Did the conversation have anything to do with Jonelle's older friends?"; SP denied knowing anything about her friends (Yikes-- what a sneaky way to subtly victim blame JM and simultaneously suggest alternative suspects; I've not heard anywhere else that Jonelle had older friends and I can't see an FBI Agent suggesting this either)
  • Next SP says the FBI Agents asked if the conversation had anything to do with drug dealing in the neighborhood; SP denied knowledge of "that neighborhood" and denied knowing anything about drug dealing (Once again SP is pointing towards ominous other possible suspects by bringing drug dealers up-- a very strange suggestion too since I think I read earlier in this thread Jonelle lived in a really safe neighborhood)
  • Third, SP says the FBI Agent brought up "people she knew who didn't like her" and SP replied he "didn't know anything about any of them"; SP knew the man and his daughter who were the last ones to see Jonelle; SP knew that man very well and SP had won a national laborer's lawsuit against him; (How very clever of SP to make at least 3 suggestions of other possible vague suspect pools... and make it seem as if the FBI made those suggestions not SP; then he also brings up that he had to sue the man who saw Jonelle last)
  • "That was the end of it" (I notice he likes that phrase)
  • A Greeley detective came in and asked SP what his story was; SP told the detective he had a bad relationship with the Greeley Police but he had talked to the FBI Agent and they could talk to him; Then SP left. "That was the end of it" (there's that phrase again)
  • SP: "That's the total of my knowledge of the disappearance of Jonelle Matthews"
  • SP: "That's it; There ain't nothing more"
  • (Gosh, I'm only 9:10 minutes into the interview and he talks for another 40 minutes?! Supposedly about nothing to do with Jonelle? I haven't listened to it yet but I'm not inclined to believe him about not knowing anything more... MOO)
I'm going to have to break my summary into several parts as that is all I have time for tonight. My head is spinning and I'm not even half way through this interview.

Reposting the video for future reference:
Click to expand...
Holy cannoli! :eek: :confused:

Thank you for taking the time to listen and summarize for us, Gardener. Amazing job, as always.

I can't wait to listen to this video. Wow, it's a long one, though...whew. MOO
 
Continued Summary of Long SP interview (My opinions/reactions in parentheses)

Starting around 9:10 minutes in:
  • On Aug 19th SP "voluntarily, voluntarily" gave his DNA and he thought that would be the end of it. (He does not clarify if he means this year but I assume he is talking about Aug 19, 2019)
  • SP has said that he is willing to take a "voice stress test"; they didn't want to do that.
  • SP said he is willing to take a polygraph test; they don't want to do that.
  • SP says "I flat don't know anything" and when he has been talked to about this nobody seems to want to know-- to hear anything bad--that a cop might be involved in it
  • SP used to be Youth Pastor at Sunnyview Church of the Nazarene where the Matthew's family went, so "I knew their trusted adults" (I'm not clear on which adults he is talking about here-- the Matthews family or just trusted adults in the church in general)
  • He goes on to say he didn't want his 5 year old at church because of some of the things he knew about "them"; (I think "them" is referring to the people he calls trusted adults but, again this is so convoluted and vague)
  • SP has all along had suspicions but suspicions aren't facts; his suspicion is that there was a confrontation with a "trusted adult"; it ended in injury, death, whatever. (I almost think he is implying he thinks the Matthews family harmed Jonelle and he didn't want his son going to church with them anymore after that but he doesn't outright say that; I suppose he could be referring to someone else from the church too)
  • SP thinks under the circumstances because there was a close relationship with the police, there was "a city worker going to the church and all..." (then SP seems frustrated and to be struggling for words and doesn't finish this thought)
  • The Reporter asks what Jonelle's parents did for work; SP replies by saying "according to the news media her father was a principle of a middle school". (Actually her father was principle of an Elementary School)
  • Reporter asks if SP knows what the mom did for a living; SP says he doesn't know, he has never met them, he has never talked to them, he has never seen them, "I've never any of that", he doesn't know them (that's a lot of "nevers" and he seems defensive IMO)

  • Reporter asks about SP being youth minister at the church where the Matthews went and whether Jonelle was in the youth group (good question, reporter)
  • SP answers question about the youth group with: "No, no! In 1977.. now you have to keep in mind that I had left the gay lifestyle when I got kicked out of the army in 1976, then I became-- I repented for that and became the youth pastor. A girl, I was 26, a 23 year old a woman in the church who was single, her and I were dating; she was in the choir, she played the piano; we were having sex together. She got pregnant. She went to England and had an abortion and uh... she came back like a month later and er 6 weeks later and she and I had sex again and I told her I was going to tell the church that she got an abortion, you know without asking me, and the next thing I was arrested for date rape. And that was dismissed, ok. Cause I mean, frankly it was consensual. So that was 1977. So when you are a youth pastor and you get accused of date rape, I'll tell you, you are no longer youth pastor and you are not wanted in that church. So I was out of there." and then SP laughs.

  • (Holy carp! Is this just a long winded way to say he wasn't youth pastor at the time when Jonelle went there? Why does he feel the need to air his dirty laundry to answer this simple question? He seems to be justifying every sordid detail of his past. I was so aghast I had to listen several times to quote it word for word above. )

  • SP goes on to say that "according to online information given by Jim Matthews" the father or step-father said the Matthews family started going to that church in 1978, so "they were a year after me."
  • SP repeats "I've never met any of the Matthews family, never talked to them."

  • Reporter asks why SP had a bad relationship with the Greeley Police dept. (another good question)
  • SP answers that he had been charged with 20 misdemeanors and one felony-- date rape; SP says that is a very serious charge and he would rather have been accused of murdering a man than raping a woman. ( :confused: Huh? What a bizarre thing to say. Has he murdered a man somewhere? )
  • One of the 20 charges included a Credit Union Manager who was gay and a friend of SP; The Credit Union Manager accused SP of harassing him and it went to a jury trial.
  • SP's aunt accused him of making harassing phone calls to her, that went to a jury trial.
  • SP was also charged with driving 60 MPH in a 25 MPH zone which was a misdemeanor; all three of those went to jury trials. (I'm not sure of the relevance of this but he seems to really want us to know those cases went to Jury trials).
  • All three cases the jury heard the evidence, picked a foreman and ruled SP not guilty within 45 minutes;
  • SP says he had been told things like "once a queer, always a queer"; speaking to the reporter directly SP says, "you have to keep in mind, sir, this was before your time. It was different then." ( :confused: I'm so lost and confused on the relevance of any of this...)

  • Reporter asks what SP was doing for work in 1984. The reporter misspeaks at first and says 1983 and SP looks confused and asks "1983?" but the reporter corrects himself and says, 1984 when Jonelle went missing (thank you, reporter, for trying to get the conversation back on track!)
  • SP answers that in 1984 he had a "wholesale dealer's used car license" and it was winding down, at the end of the year in December it would expire; SP only had one car left; and "that was another part of this, I was driving on a dealer tag"; SP crossed multiple states on a dealer tag so the car was subject to confiscation. (What? Er, was that really illegal back then? Is he going to claim he didn't tell police he went out of town at first because of the dealer tag? )
  • SP was watching his p's and q's and not looking for any problems with law enforcement.

  • Reporter starts to ask about the talk with the Fort Collins FBI, SP interjects and says he knew very little, Reporter asks when was the next time SP heard about the case and was brought in by LE.
  • SP answers that in 1989 they moved to Ketchum, ID and then Shoshone, ID. In Shoshone he joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. SP had a "rocky marriage" and when they were talking about "families live forever" it sounded good to him. When he got the ordination and became baptized the Bishop asked SP if there was anything he wanted to confess. SP said that when he lived in Colorado there was this girl who disappeared and he had "a weird conversation" about it and it bothered him (SP).
  • The Bishop told the State President in Carey and there was a Police Lieutenant with the Sun Valley Police Dept also in Carey. The State President contacted SP, this would have been 1992 or 1993, and asked SP to talk to the Lieutenant. SP talked with the LEO and said he was concerned. He said he had a conversation that was weird and every once and a while he "would call Greeley and check". when he left the FBI Agent he "slept really good" because he thought if it was kids that did this to another kid, kids crack really easily. It bothered SP that it wasn't solved.
  • The LEO contacted the Greeley Police and got a huge file on the case the next time they talked. SP says the LEO's attitude toward SP was either that SP is crazy, wanting attention and made up this whole thing or that SP did it. SP laughs and repeats that he "had a conversation and that's it".

  • (I'm inclined to agree with that LEO's assessment, because this is all very strange. Okay my WS friends, I only made it 10 more minutes through this convoluted interview. I'm up to 20 minutes in but the rest will have to wait for later. )
Posting the video for reference:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 71 more.
Total: 2,832 (members: 72, guests: 2,760)

Online statistics

Members online
72
Guests online
2,760
Total visitors
2,832
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,186
Messages
17,964,826
Members
228,714
Latest member
hannahdunnam
Back
Top