Posted on 10/26/2002 5:29:22 PM PDT by Palladin
You are trying to ignore the key point. Was there or was there not a chair? We know that there was. What the hell difference does it make who spilled the beans to the press?
I say I made the exact same point over two months ago.
You really have a "rich" thing, don't you? In Utah, Texas and a lot of other places where there is a culture of trust (an obviously foreign concept to you), people leave their doors, windows, and garage doors open all the time. My neighbor left his garage door open for about five years. One day his BMW disappeared. Guess what? He still leaves his garage door open most of the time.
In the Peoples Republic of California I set my home alarm all the time. In Texas I usually don't bother because of the much lower crime rate; concealed carry laws; the right to shoot-to-kill anyone on your property after dark; a vigorously enforced death penalty.
You can keep harping about Ed's "red flags" until hell freezes over, but it doesn't mean squat AND doesn't prove anything.
You really ought to start reading at the beginning of the Smart threads and catch up. You have missed a great deal - intentionally or unintentionally.
Case in point: Ricci originally took the jeep in for two repairs. One was the fuel pump which caused him to have to tow the jeep to Moul's. The other (which I don't recall - Sherlock can probably provide the details) wasn't critical to the operation of the vehicle. Ricci took it back to have that done after he took it out before repairs were complete because of an "emergency".
You are mistaken.
Ed Smart said after Ricci's death there was a good chance Ricci got a key to the house. You should keep up with the facts in the case, I notice you missing things that are well know frequently in your zeal to defend Ricci for whatever your reason is. Ricci's boasts to his buddies about what an easy rip off the Smart house was and the easy pickings there is a giveaway he knew the Smarts didn't use the alarm. Why do you try to defend the indefensible, do you think the police are stupid?
He certainly didn't get smarter, this crime was was his stupidest yet. Especially the part about parking his Jeep away from the trailer park for a week then taking it back filthy wearing a machette in broad daylight and then trying to tell police he never had it.
Because he's a moron? Bad judgement in a post-homocidal depression? He had told Moul he wanted other repairs then took it back, somehow he thought this would work into his plan of having access to the Jeep while being able to claim he never had it. Like when he loaned his buddies his truck and they robbed the food bank with it but then he got caught with the stolen food. Not the sharpest tack in the box. Unfortunately this caper cost him his life. Will be interesting to find out if they were after ransom or just a good time before going back to the big house for his drug use he had gotten caught at by his probation officer.
If I ever, EVER, made a comment on Ed's slacks, I would not have used the word "beige." Tan, a light tan, would have been my description of the color.
Secondly, JG, Elizabeth is the victim! Until LE says the family members (neighbors & friends, too) have been completely cleared, they remain persons whose actions, and lack of action, continue to need further investigation.
One of Ed's first actions is a strong reason for suspicion, not so much of Ed being the culprit, but whether a gun was mentioned at that time, plus the lack of the public being allowed to hear the 911 tape.
As for MY wild theories, I had one main theory. It hinged on Moul's accuracy. I stand by it.
From the very beginning, JG, you slammed anyone as "ridiculous," then switched to calling them "sophomoric" when their opinions didn't jibe with your attempts to sway everyone to "Ricci is guilty" when even the police couldn't tie him to the crime. Some people may have left these threads later on because of my remarks, but plenty more left early on because of your remarks.
And that's exactly the way you want it. I don't know what your vested interest is in this case, whether or not you're just a person who always wants to be an attention grabber via insults for a sense of power. Or, if you know more about the workings, finances, etc., perhaps sexual practices of higher ups, of the LDS church - have a need to protect the image, to scare off anyone who might be so inclined to give us some deep details.
As for patting yourself on the back for what you say I consider "slamming others," while good you are only pointing out "flaws in logic and common sense, and taking posters to task for smearing the victims in this case without any evidence whatsoever," JG, you overlook that you have provided no proof either of Ricci's guilt. What has been reported in media is often in error, therefore not always a source of concrete, credible proof.
difference is the source of the information. the only source for the chair, is ed. notice the difference in the quote about the chair at the wright home. "Salt Lake County sheriff's deputies reported that the screen covering the 15- year-old's window was cut and that a chair was found by the window."
Police have publicly stated that they have no evidence linking Ricci to Liz's disappearance.
they would be infinitely easier to identify in this case. the perp's smoothed fingertips would be so different than all other 'whorl prints' in the house. the perp's fingertips would be so distinctive, because he had no 'whorls'.
Of course you know the difference between a baseball cap, and a scottish style cap, is fairly extreme.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.