[Sherlock]

There were also witnesses to the bank robbery.

What does this mean? Ricci was wearing a mask. He brandished his small handgun in the air and threatened to take a woman hostage.

The Jeep has, to date, yielded no DNA evidence of Elizabeth being in the vehicle. If the Jeep was loaned out, that person's DNA would be in it. If Moul vacuumed the interior, the debris would be in the vacuum's bag, and forensics would have examined it.

So you don't think he had anything to hide? Then why wouldn't he admit he had the Jeep, tell police where it had been, tell police what he did with the things he took out of it, and tell police who picked him up at Mouls? These are the key questions to the case, lakey, and if Ricci had answered them off the bat he would have gone home exonerated and the police may never have known about Remington and the bank robbery. Obviously, for whatever reason (denial, naivete, or dishonesty) lakey, you refuse to address this issue of why Ricci wouldn't answer these questions from the police because your complete mindset is to exonerate Ricci at any cost. Are you going to tell me again all Caucasians look alike to Moul?

[lakey]

Sherl, -ONE MORE TIME- of why Richard Albert Ricci would not answer the interrogation questions is PERHAPS, PERHAPS, that he did not have HIS Jeep. I don't care if Moul is cat-eyed & green with purple polka dots, he could have made a mistake. Humans make mistakes. Law enforcement sometimes deliberately sets rumors in flow.

LE needed someone, anyone, who would look guilty in the eye of the public. A flimsy reason to arrest - drinking beer while on parole when drinking beer was not on the man's list of no-no's.

Ricci admitted to the Adams crime more than a year afterwards. Why wasn't he arrested for that - there were witnesses. Because the Smart connection didn't come up until June 5th, 2002, that's why.

This isn't Iraq, Sherl, but if we allow people to be convicted of a crime simply because they are habitual criminals -convicting them without some sort of evidence - then we've totally lost our country. And I'm not too sure we haven't anyway.

So don't talk to me about dishonesty. To date, there is no factual evidence but you are still willing to convict possibly the wrong person, thus allowing the real demon to escape punishment. Worse, you are willing to make a farce of our constitutional rights and justice system.

What's that saying? Something like: They came for the Jews, and I kept silent. Then they came for me, but there was no one left to speak for me.

[Lissa2002]

I'm new to this forum, although I've been reading it for awhile. (So please bear with me on my first post!) I've also been following the case since June. I just wanted to point out that the police knew Remington was involved in the Sandy bank robbery since the day it happened. He was arrested disposing of the clothes that Ricci wore on his way to meet up with Remington and Young. Remington has been in jail since that time. I'm not sure how the police found out about the robbery--if Remington finally snitched in the hopes of getting a deal when he found out Ricci was a potential suspect in Elizabeth's disappearance, or if the DNA samples Ricci provided in Elizabeth's investigation matched up to samples that might've been taken from the clothes he wore in the bank robbery. Maybe Ricci just caved under the 26 hours of questioning. In any case, Remington has been in jail since November 2001.