CO CO - Roger Ellison, 17, Cedaredge, 10 Feb 1981 #2

[kemo]

Angel 629,

For what it is worth,

Pash went to the Cedaridge PD soon after Roger disappeared with information he believed was pertinent to the investigation. Later, he contacted the family and provided them directly with the same information. Apparently the family took exception to what Pash had told them. Neither Cedaridge PD nor Pash has ever publicly disclosed what this "information" was. There has been some speculation on this board that Roger may have written something in Pash's class that suggested suicidal ideation, but it was pure speculation.

Pash left Cedaridge in 1984 and returned to California where he resumed his teaching career. Last I checked, he was still there. Pash indicated, in an internet posting, that problems occurred in Cedaridge that caused his career there to end but I have no idea what it was.

In 1994 (approx.) someone from Cedaridge (who may have been part of Roger's family) accused Pash, in an internet posting, of having inappropriate relations with students when he was there. This involved drugs, alcohol and sex. The accuser was not certain if Roger was involved in these activities and offered no evidence that Pash was involved in Roger's disappearance but the implication was obvious.

Pash responded to these accusation with denial and was a bit snarky about his role as "person of interest". He claimed that Cedaridge PD showed little or no interest in him as a suspect and the crazy accusations coming out of Cedaridge were a bit of a joke.

Apparently Cedaridge PD did some digging in the yard of the house Pash used to own (they found nothing) but Otherwise I can't find anywhere that he was considered a serious suspect.

The "suicide angle" is purely speculative but it is certainly a possible explanation. This is a rugged, forested area and someone could commit suicide out there and never be found.

There has also been suggestion that Pash and Roger had some sort of "gay" relationship. I am aware of no information that they had ever had any contact outside of school and, while I can not vouch for Pash's sexuality, he has been married twice and has children.

I have absolutely no idea what happened to Roger but I would like this case solved. Forums like this can be an effective way for information to be "brought to light". It can also be a means of spreading rumors and engaging in personal attacks. There is a fine line between the two.

 

[Satch]

Good article on Roger's case here.

Source: The Milwaukee Journal-August 20, 1982.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAIBAJ&pg=1610,6508862&dq=roger+ellison&hl=en

Satch

 

[believe09]

Didnt Pash, or someone claiming to be Pash, post on these threads?

 

[believe09]

I answered my own question:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CO CO - Roger Ellison: Vanished from high school, 17, Cedaredge, 10 Feb 1981 - #1

 

[believe09]

Thank you for all of your concern. The reason Lori was so adiment to findinf Roger because she knew and had a gut feeling about Pash, why can't I get any help from Delta police, they just don't care
:fence:

Hi silver1sb, I have lurked on these threads for years. Have you asked coldcase1 or anyone else to petition Disappeared to produce your brother's case?

 

[believe09]

Kemo, from your post:

Pash went to the Cedaridge PD soon after Roger disappeared with information he believed was pertinent to the investigation. Later, he contacted the family and provided them directly with the same information. Apparently the family took exception to what Pash had told them. Neither Cedaridge PD nor Pash has ever publicly disclosed what this "information" was. There has been some speculation on this board that Roger may have written something in Pash's class that suggested suicidal ideation, but it was pure speculation.

JPash self disclosed in his third post here at WS the item/information he turned over to LE I believe. Here is a quote from his final rant-this bit was directed at silver1sb:

But what is even more puzzling is your lack of comment concerning the assignment that I gave the detective. Wouldn’t it be normal to ask that I tell you [privately if necessary] what was written by Roger? Unless of course, you already know what was written. And I find it rather odd to think that the detective would keep such information from the siblings, especially after the passing of the parents. Plus the written comments made by Roger on that assignment, and what the detective learned, gives understanding to the comments posted by Chief79 concerning misinformation about his life, why things are never what they seem, and finally what Roger may have been looking for.

Here is the link to that post

CO CO - Roger Ellison: Vanished from high school, 17, Cedaredge, 10 Feb 1981 - #1 - Page 5 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[believe09]

Kemo, given the way Mr Pash reacted to the online Websleuths discussion regarding him, including the comments made by classmates of Roger's, it seems likely to me that he was considered a serious suspect who felt some intense pressure and continued to feel it as recently as 2009. Which was the last time he signed on as JPash it appears.

silver1sb is committed to a scenario that includes Mr Pash. She has access to more information than we have, at least she should. That doesnt mean the theory shouldnt be debated-of course it should.

Mr Pash appears to be comparing himself to Richard Jewell, and perhaps he has lived through a similar kind of hell.

I just find it very very curious that he signed on and devoted considerable thought and energy to write vitriolic posts to a group of sleuthers. Why should he care, to be frank? People are going to think what they are going to think. Either Pash will be vindicated someday or not, but to choose WS in order to vent his spleen? Hmmm, it seems to me imvho that he chose this board because Roger's sister and friends post here. Seems a little predatory to me, but that is just my opinion.

 

[prd2bokie]

I don't find it predatory. Just wanting the people that count to know.

 

[thefragile7393]

I don't find it predatory. Just wanting the people that count to know.

who would that be? certainly not us. his actions were most curious and definitely didn't make sense.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[prd2bokie]

who would that be? certainly not us. his actions were most curious and definitely didn't make sense.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

It was said that Roger's family was known to be on this forum. Those are the people that count. I'm not saying he's innocent, just saying it doesn't seem predatory to me.

 

[thefragile7393]

It was said that Roger's family was known to be on this forum. Those are the people that count. I'm not saying he's innocent, just saying it doesn't seem predatory to me.

If he realllllly wanted anything said to the family about his innocence why would he come here and be so defensive and combative? I have seen something similar in two cases-Darlie Routier's numerous internet supporters and supporters of Marvin and Sandra Maple. Both have supporters that post anywhere and everywhere these cases are mentioned in very inflammatory ways. The whole way he worded and phrased everything set off my hinky meter...it was not the wording of someone who wanted to convey innocence to a family. Not saying he is guilty or not, but I agree it seems suspect to me of why, if he was choosing to speak to the family, why he would post in such a way instead of PM'ing or something. Instead he posted publicly and very rudely. The whole thing is very bizarre and while I don't know if predatory is the correct word, I do feel something is off.

 

[believe09]

It was said that Roger's family was known to be on this forum. Those are the people that count. I'm not saying he's innocent, just saying it doesn't seem predatory to me.

I respect your point, but there are many other ways to build confidence and bridges than this one. It speaks, imo, of someone who is interested in striking at Roger's family and friends. I think that it is fair to state that what he wrote regarding the "assignment" was a taunt.

His posts say much more about him than they do about any of the posters he directed his posts too. Again, jmvho.

 

[kemo]

Very often in this forum, a person of interest/Suspect is identified. Sometime an arrest is made and a conviction is obtained. Still there is discussion among forum members. Sometimes, as in this case, "insiders" participate. Obviously, they are afforded a great deal of credibility since it is assumed that they are privy to information the rest of us are not. What we must also realize is that in "unsolved" (and some "solved" cases) insiders/family members/concerned friends and neighbors, don't have all the facts and are operating in the same realm of speculation, opinion, gut feelings, whatever, that the rest of are. Unlike the rest of us, however, Insiders are in a position to not only guild or nudge the investigation in a particular direction, they are in a position to raise suspicion and direct negative attention.

At times, Websleuths has become a vehicle for "outing" suspected killers who have remained uncharged. The obvious problem is that these "suspected" killers are not always guilty and the information being spread is not always accurate. Particularly worrisome is situations like this where a cloud of suspicion is cast over someone without any basis given. It is one thing to state (accurately, one hopes) the evidence against a suspect. It is entirely different to identify someone as a suspect without providing any real evidence except perhaps, the suspicions of others. I personally would be reluctant to employ or otherwise associate with someone who was a murder suspect but If I had the facts, I would be able to make a judgment call.

At this point, Cedaredge insiders or family members need to come clean with whatever information the have that has not been made public. If there is no evidence/information to report; just suspicion and "gut feelings", it needs to come out as well.

 

[believe09]

Very often in this forum, a person of interest/Suspect is identified. Sometime an arrest is made and a conviction is obtained. Still there is discussion among forum members. Sometimes, as in this case, "insiders" participate. Obviously, they are afforded a great deal of credibility since it is assumed that they are privy to information the rest of us are not. What we must also realize is that in "unsolved" (and some "solved" cases) insiders/family members/concerned friends and neighbors, don't have all the facts and are operating in the same realm of speculation, opinion, gut feelings, whatever, that the rest of are. Unlike the rest of us, however, Insiders are in a position to not only guild or nudge the investigation in a particular direction, they are in a position to raise suspicion and direct negative attention.

At times, Websleuths has become a vehicle for "outing" suspected killers who have remained uncharged. The obvious problem is that these "suspected" killers are not always guilty and the information being spread is not always accurate. Particularly worrisome is situations like this where a cloud of suspicion is cast over someone without any basis given. It is one thing to state (accurately, one hopes) the evidence against a suspect. It is entirely different to identify someone as a suspect without providing any real evidence except perhaps, the suspicions of others. I personally would be reluctant to employ or otherwise associate with someone who was a murder suspect but If I had the facts, I would be able to make a judgment call.

At this point, Cedaredge insiders or family members need to come clean with whatever information the have that has not been made public. If there is no evidence/information to report; just suspicion and "gut feelings", it needs to come out as well.

Do you think Websleuths outed Mr Pash or was he on the radar of LE, among others, since the beginning?

Nancy Ekelund is an excellent example of someone whose property was dug up in the search for a missing person. In her case, the missing person was her daughter. 9 years later, the person who was last seen with her admitted to raping her, strangling her and burying her at his father's construction site.

Nancy gave consent to dig-she wanted LE to eliminate her completely and totally as a suspect.

Perhaps Mr Pash did as well.

Maybe now is the time to put everything on the table. I dont know what involvement Mr Pash may or may not have in Roger's disappearance. I just found his arrival here at WS to be very curious.

 

[kemo]

Pash's former home was searched in 1994 (he sold it in 1984). They did some ultra sound and ended up digging up a rose garden. Apparently there was some report that Pash had planted the rose garden shortly after Roger's disappearance. I do not know if there was a warrant or if it was searched with permission of the current owner. Does anyone know?

It seems to be treated as a fact in various internet reports that Pash told Rogers parents and presumably the Delta County Sheriff Dept (apparently there is no Cedaredge PD) That Roger was "deeply disturbed" and had suicidal ideation. While it a reasonable guess, I can't verify anywhere that it is true. Is there any documentation that settles this issue. It is also unclear if Pash turned over to LE the actual writing assignment in question or if he just remembered what Roger wrote or said.

The Charley Project currently Describes Pash as a "person of interest" and states, as fact, that Pash told the family Roger was Suicidal and that Roger went to Pash's home "on a regular basis" to turn in papers. Where did that come from? On one of his Websleuth posts, Pash said that students occasionally dropped assignments off at his house and Roger might have been one of them, but otherwise Roger was never at his house. Is there evidence that Roger went to Pash's house "on a regular basis" or was the information given to Charley Project inaccurate?

In 1994, s former student came forward and accused Pash of committing abuses in the early 1980's. This would have been beyond the Statue of Limitation but it would have been very significant to the investigation of Roger's disappearance. Was this investigated? Were other students found who could substantiate that woman's claim?

If there is information out there, people need to either put it out there on the table or back off theinnuendos.

 

[believe09]

Mr Pash indicated in his post that he gave the assignment to the detective.

Here are some of the things that are :waitasec: moments for me in his posts-

LINK HERE

He brought homework to my house so he could go skiing on the weekends. I cannot say he never did this. It may have occurred once, at the most twice, but not more than that.

and then he says:

So if I allowed him to do it, I would also have allowed all my students the right to do it. That is why I would have not have allowed him to turn it in at my home. It would be too easy for some students to say that they had dropped it off at my house and that I had lost it, when the fact would more likely be they just hadn’t done it.

He goes on to say that he cant say it never happened because his wife would have accepted it.

We are more than 20 years in on this case. He cant nail this little fact down? Kids turned in homework at his house or they didnt. His wife handed him homework papers or she didnt. Honestly, this isnt hard. I would have to believe that she said either way if she took the homework papers in when she talked to LE and could confirm or not the presence of his students at their home.

 

[believe09]

From the same post:

] There was a class experiment/assignment that I gave to the detective. It had 10 parts to it. The students were not aware that it would be turned in to me. One thing I had learned about having students answer questions verbally in class was that it could be embarrassing for them. So, I would have students write their answers, and then I would give examples on the board, and they could check for themselves to see what their answer might mean. That way their answer stayed confidential to themselves. However, for this particular assignment, after they finished writing their answers, I had them submit their papers. I chose one section of the assignment and put their anonymous responses on the board. That way, no one would get embarrassed. It was all I was going to do, but the students were so interested, they wanted to look at other sections. However, it was at the end of the class period, and I said we would continue the next day. So I stapled the papers together, along with the sheet which had the questions, and put it in my desk drawer.

More about the origin of the assignment and it being turned over to LE. He also indicates that in 1997 he was contacted by the Sheriff's department and:

He asked if he could come up to my house at that time. I told him that was fine. I then asked if they still had Rogers paper that I had given the detective, and his notebook.

I dont know if this means Pash turned over both to the detective, or if he knew of the existence of Roger's notebook in the hands of LE.

 

[Leprikawn]

Like we have seen in other cases.....one day an investigator or Sheriff will take over this investigation, and make a lot of progress. I hope for Mr. Pash's case he can withstand the scrutiny. Something tells me he wont....too many holes!

 

[dogperson]

In glancing back thru this thread I couldn't find whether or not the police had ever disclosed to the family what was contained in the assignment that Mr. Pash states he handed over to the police. Has this ever been addressed? Does anyone know what was in this assignment? Did LE find it to be credible evidence or was it dismissed as having anything to do with Roger's disappearance?
As far as I can tell the actual contents of the assignment have not been disclosed, at least on this thread, and I was wondering what Mr. Pash could have been referring to when he stated Roger was "looking for" something. Maybe it was just the normal thoughts of a young person looking for the meaning of life or having questions about religion or some other weighty subject???

 

[Satch]

The Charley Project currently Describes Pash as a "person of interest" and states, as fact, that Pash told the family Roger was Suicidal and that Roger went to Pash's home "on a regular basis" to turn in papers. Where did that come from? On one of his Websleuth posts, Pash said that students occasionally dropped assignments off at his house and Roger might have been one of them, but otherwise Roger was never at his house. Is there evidence that Roger went to Pash's house "on a regular basis" or was the information given to Charley Project inaccurate?

I have the same concerns. On the presumption of innocence to Mr. Pash regarding Roger's disappearance, I find it a little strange that the students were allowed to go to Mr. Pash's house to turn in papers, if this was on a regular basis. I could see if a student had been sick, or was going to be out of town ahead of time, and they wanted to consult with Mr. Pash about work they might need to study so as not to fall behind.

However, why wouldn't the students meet Mr. Pash during office hours or prep periods at school? I think going to the house, if Mr. Pash allowed the students to go to his house often, kind of pushes the envelope with regards to the professionalism of the teacher student relationship.

I mean, does Mr. Pash really have the right to visit a painfully grieving family to say that Roger was suicidal? If this was an area of school concern, wouldn't this be more appropriate for the school counselors, clergy, if Roger's family was religious, or the qualified personnel? I think Mr. Pash overstepped his bounds as a teacher. The extremelly articulate, but yet arrogant mannor in which he posted a few years ago, (if that was him) if he is an innocent man. It makes his reputation look bad.

Where do you all believe Mr. Pash overstepped his role as a teacher in this case? I can't remember if he took a polygraph or not, if he did, would like to know the results.

Satch

PS. Do you believe Mr. Pash is guilty or not? I am not sure, but I think he knows some things about the case which he does not wish to speak about.