And wait one fine minute, Sherl. You're skewing things a bit in saying, They wouldn't have thrown him in jail and kept him there for drinking beer on parole." They would have let him out if he had told him where the Jeep was.
No, no, no, no, no. Aren't you forgetting the bank robbery?
Can't have it both ways, Sherl. Drinking beer was the ruse for an arrest. LE needed someone in custody that the Smarts knew. If they didn't nab someone "logical", they would have had to come up with the 911 phone call tape and a composite drawing.
If he would have been able to answer the questions on the Jeep he wouldn't have gotten busted on the bank robbery, that came later.
lakey, you have always been in denial of the central point in the case, that Ricci's lying about not having the Jeep and thus failure to give an account of where he got it muddy, what he did with the stuff in it, why it wasn't parked at his trailer, and who picked him up at Mouls scream of his guilt.
Ricci's MO is all over this case. 1) The hiding the Jeep or letting someone else use it thing, like when he lent his vehicle to the gang that robbed the food bank, the Jeep was not seen at his trailer the week he had it and he told the police it was at Mouls, 2) middle of the night break in, like he broke into the other house he worked at on the same street also in the middle of the night, and he told his friends he was going to break into the Smart's home and burglarize it in the middle of the night for the easy pickins there sometime and tried to enlist their help, and 3) use of small hand gun as weapon like in the bank robbery (do you think MK or Ed just made this up and happened to luck onto Ricci's MO?).
lakey, is it denial, or are you just exceedingly naive?