Posted on 12/26/2002 2:56:18 PM PST by Palladin
KING: All right, let's talk about the Elizabeth Smart case, which the media has kind of left now. What is your best read on that tragedy in Utah?
WALSH: I spent yesterday by coincidence with Ed and Lois Smart. I had them on "The John Walsh Show" to kind of give an update to the case. You know, Ricci, the guy that was the main suspect, died in prison of an aneurysm. He's the guy that was the handyman at the house that put 1,000 miles on his pickup truck during the two days that she was missing. He was a burglar. He also had a rap sheet, which a lot of the media doesn't understand. He spent 10 years in jail. He tried to blow the head off of a cop with a shotgun. This is a real bad guy.
I hope that he didn't take the secret of Elizabeth Smart to the grave with him. I talked to Ed and Lois yesterday. I said, don't give up hope. Justice delayed isn't justice denied.
What's killing them is the fact of the not knowing. I think they're prepared for the worst. Most parents of missing children are prepared for the worst. But their young daughter has now said that she believes that Ricci wasn't the guy in there that night, that it may have been another guy that did some work on their roof, an itinerant guy that worked at a homeless shelter, and he may be a suspect in this. And I don't want to give away a lot of breaking information here, but "America's Most Wanted" is going to take a look at the Smart case, because I know one thing, we have been able to solve crimes after 10 years.
So I gave the Smarts, you know, the best encouragement I could and said, look, don't give up hope. We'll relook at the case. It is normal for the media tension to die down, and to try to have a good holiday. This is going to be the first Christmas without this beautiful girl, and the Smarts have five other beautiful children. So they're trying to hold that family together.
I said, you know, do the best you can with your five children. Don't give up hope, and, you know what, we'll take another look at this case and try to keep it alive.
(Excerpt) Read more at silenter.com ...
Try in the address box:
www.nypress.com/static/billboard.cfm?now=6%2F16%2F02
A page will come up: Crocodile tears. Click the highlighted box: UPI reported that police were starting to have their suspicions
Sounds worse than it is, so don't everybody come unglued. Not all at once, anyway :)
as I have said before, when a relative was working in slc for a short while in sales, she said the people she ran into all thought Liz was out of the country....hmmmmm.....
being in a Saudi harem would be worse than death imo....
good to see some old faces posting here....what with Laci missing I have kind of let this case go as "never to be solved"...sadly....
163 posted on 06/30/2002 4:41 PM PDT by brigette
How does Brigette know what Moul testified to in the GJ? Of course she does not know, she was not there. She quotes Moul as testifying to the GJ that the jeep "disappeared" OR "Ricci came in to pick it up." Which one did Moul testified to? Did he say "it disappeared" or that "Ricci came in to pick it up"? And how did Brigette got hold of this secret testimony? You know what, it's not that I think she made it up, SHE MADE IT UP! Unless someone can show me that the two quotes were made by Moul at the GJ, they are invented quotes.
Later on post 173 of the same thread, brigette writes:
Please don't think I think the mechanic is lying... it seems he is confused and not sure what really happened at some points. If he gave a statement to the grand jury, where he says... Yes... Mr. Ricci came in on May 31st and I saw him there, but did not speak to him. The he gets on TV and says, well the Jeep disappeared 2 days before the kidnapping.
173 posted on 06/30/2002 4:56 PM PDT by brigette
On post 163 she says that Moul gave two contradictory statements, now on post 173 she says "if he gave a statement..." So which one is it, did Moul gave a statement or did he not? Not only brigette is not sure whether Moul testified that Ricci came in to pick up the jeep, she know says that the first statement (in post 163) that "it disappeared" wasn't part of Moul's testimony at the GJ, but only a statement that he professed on TV.
Neither I, nor brigette, nor anyone of you know what Moul testified at the JG. No one knows, except the persons that were present during his secret testimony. And you post what someone posted as sacrosant and believe it?
TO PALLADIN: thanks for the link.
What so strange or unusual about a father tucking their children in bed at night? Nothing. It shows the father/mother's love for their children.
You nailed it!
If they're doing so maybe it's because LE says it's ok to do so. How does this contradicts their trust for LE? It doesn't.
Another thing, the unknown roofer story originally came out late last here, although the pseudonym was not give at that time, and it is was NOT new as of 2/5/03.
For the record, Utah Girl's post 302 above is dated Wednesday, February 5, 2003.
What detailed description did Ed provide? Did he provide it only to you? I haven't read anything about Ed providing a detailed description of this man. Could you point us all to this info?
Utah Girl's story on post 302 states that ED worked with this men on the roof, therefore he must have some info about the roofer's description, which I'm sure he has provided to LE. Neithe Ed nor LE, however, has yet provided this description to the public. If you know of a story purpoting to give a description of the roofer, please let me know.
This story is dated 6/13/02, a mere 8 days after the abduction and most of the theories on it have been debunked.
Immediately after ES was abducted there were many theories in circulation and the hoax one was one of them. If there had been any validity to the hoax theory, it would have been followed, but nothing came out of it.
Please. Read it all & you'll see that I was commenting on Mary Katherine's "48 Hrs" interview wherein she was asked when does she think of Elizabeth. MK answered, "When our dad tucks me in bed at night." And I added something to the effect, "I'm not suggesting any hanky-panky."
Parental love, of course. But, where's mom?
The point is not the source of where you heard it, the point is that you find it unusual for a father to tuck their children to bed. I understand exactly what you're trying to say, that is, why Dad is the one tucking their children to bed. Why not Mommy too?
When MK said (paraphrasing), "When Dads tucks us/me into bed each night...", does not necessarily mean that Dad is the only one to tuck their children into bed. And, even if he were, I see nothing wrong with that. Perhaps it was customary for this family for the father to tuck their little ones into bed. I know it's a bit unusual for only Dad to tuck them into bed, but not abnormal. Perhaps what MK meant, "When Dad kisses us good night at night..." instead she used this ready-made idiomatic expression to express her thoughts. Remember that a 9-year-old girl does not distinquish between "to tuck someone into bed" and "to kiss someone goodnight."
Still, perhaps it was customary for Ed to be the one to read a story to the children or a passage from the Bible. I just don't find anything unusual about MK's statement, much less any hanky-panky about it.
No, I'm not Sherlock. I dont know who Sherlock is.
As for your other comments, forgive me, but I can't rehash this stuff anymore. 'nite
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.