Posted on 08/31/2002 10:26:34 AM PDT by IamHD
My prayers go out to the Ricci family during this time. RR was sent up the river and used as a scape-goat. No evidence, whatsoever, linking him to the disappearance of Elizabeth.
May he rest in peace.
Sheesh.
What does the now found guilty David Westerfield have to do with this?
No one is "enthralled" with Ed Smart. Sherlock, sandude, I and many others on these threads have repeatedly said we would be the first to damn him IF there was evidence of his involvement. Where is that evidence?
He should be more forthcoming. He wouldn't even give any description of the abductor in the first interview I saw of him. (No cap, clothing, etc. The reporter had to pry it out of him, what race the abductor was.)
The Smarts have repeatedly expressed their confidence in the police/FBI. They have also REPEATEDLY held back information that the police have told them to hold back. In the recent H&C interview Ed repeatedly witheld answers to questions that he had been told to witheld. He made it perfectly clear which questions he couldn't answer and why. If you were in his shoes would you do as LE asks or wing it? He believes that his best hopes of recovering ES are to rely on LE. There is nothing decietful about that.
I just don't hold with anyone getting a free pass because they are a Church member.
Nor do I, but what evidence do you have to support his involvement? Lies and innuendo on this board don't constitute facts. Sherlock and I have repeatedly caught several posters posting outright lies in this case. Are you buying into their distortions and if so why?
But I do think he is holding back vital information as to who may have done this and that he is somehow involved with the person.
You will recall the he passed a polygraph. He is, by his own words, witholding information that LE has told him to withold. That does not mean that he is witholding information from LE.
There was some reason the police dismissed Edmunds so quickly.
Edmunds was known to be sleeping in his car in the neighborhood and the cops were hopefull that he saw something. After their interview with him in VA, LE said he provided useful information, but they have never said what that information was. Where is the evidence supporting a claim that Edmunds knew Ed?
ROFLMAO!!!
Welcome back.
Waiting for "proof positive"? Ya, right. Your previous statement (below) makes it perfectly clear that you believe that RR was being railroaded.
RR was sent up the river and used as a scape-goat. No evidence, whatsoever, linking him to the disappearance of Elizabeth.
No evidence? LE always looks for opportunity and motive. Ricci had both. He even refused to clear himself by telling where he was during the critical days. Why? Where is your objectivity? You are obviously more emotionally involved than any rational person. You don't want to believe that someone who shoots a cop (or anyone else, for that matter) is not a good person. Someone who threatens others with their lives during the commision of a crime is not a good person. Ricci was a evil person. That is a fact and there is substantial hard evidence to support that claim.
Then look at the other side. Who else had both opportunity and motive? LE has already eliminated some candidates and is working on others. Name names! Who else had opportunity and motive?
They really believe that a drug-addled burglar who kidnapped a 14 year old girl on the fly could have successfully foiled the largest manhunt in the history of Utah?
Your speculation doesn't factor in the relativity of Moul being in minor trouble (if it were true, which is a remote possibility at best) versus a child kidnapping, probable murder. Try to keep things in perspective.
This is the first I've seen of the word "roughly" in describing how Elizabeth was treated. As has been noted before, the stairway is right outside the parents' bedroom door. Seems to me that "roughly" leading Elizabeth directly past her parents' bedroom would have been risky, at best. What if she had stumbled, fallen, or made some other sound? How rough can one be with an unwilling captive and still remain silent?
Your interpretation leaves a lot to be desired. The exact quote from the paper is "no physical evidence has been found to back it up". Are you intentially distorting the article? Given that Ricci had physical access to the house prior to the abduction and that ES had access to the Jeep prior to the abduction, physical evidence, if found, would have been tainted. This is not new news! There is unlikely to be any physical evidence until a body is found. There is, however, a strong circumstantial case against Ricci. That too is evidence. I grant that physical evidence is preferable, but circumstantial evidence often convicts people. Ricci had both opportunity and motive. Who else did?
It is exceedingly difficult to find a body that has been buried - even with "the largest manhunt in the history of Utah". She may never be found.
Sherlock, sandude, I and many others on these threads have repeatedly said we would be the first to damn him IF there was evidence of his involvement. Where is that evidence?
If there was evidence, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Ed Smart continues to make statements that just don't hold up to scrutiny. He keeps changing his story on how the abductor got in.
1) through window
When the police didn't believe any man could get through the window, then
2) He left the garage door open and he must have waited for hours
3) He left the alarm off at night.
4) Ricci had a "potential" key.
None of these things by themselves are incriminating, it's the pattern that Ed Smart has of embellishing his stories over a period of time.
We also know that Tom made some very weird comments. I think he knows something too. I haven't heard him say anything in a long time. Has someone told him to be quiet?
He should be more forthcoming. He wouldn't even give any description of the abductor in the first interview I saw of him. (No cap, clothing, etc. The reporter had to pry it out of him, what race the abductor was.)
The Smarts have repeatedly expressed their confidence in the police/FBI. They have also REPEATEDLY held back information that the police have told them to hold back. In the recent H&C interview Ed repeatedly witheld answers to questions that he had been told to witheld. He made it perfectly clear which questions he couldn't answer and why. If you were in his shoes would you do as LE asks or wing it? He believes that his best hopes of recovering ES are to rely on LE. There is nothing decietful about that.
I don't believe that the police told him not to discuss the description of the abductor when he was first interviewed. The police obviously didn't connect Ricci in the beginning and the idea is to catch the abductor not play games with the public. When asked by Fox News reporter several times, he finally gave the description that the guy was "Caucasian". The first 24 hours is the most critical to solve an abduction case.
I just don't hold with anyone getting a free pass because they are a Church member.
Nor do I, but what evidence do you have to support his involvement? Lies and innuendo on this board don't constitute facts. Sherlock and I have repeatedly caught several posters posting outright lies in this case. Are you buying into their distortions and if so why?
What lies and distortions are you talking about? Many have expressed opinions on this case, not stating it as fact.
But I do think he is holding back vital information as to who may have done this and that he is somehow involved with the person.
You will recall the he passed a polygraph. He is, by his own words, witholding information that LE has told him to withold. That does not mean that he is witholding information from LE.
It was the day after he had a collaspe. I was thinking at the time, he would have access to drugs from the hospital (sedatives) that he could use to defeat any test. His brother Tom evidently didn't pass. At least that is what Tom indicated when he said he was being looked at by the police and volunteered that he had been given a polygraph. A polygraph is not allowed in court because they are notoriously inaccurate anyway and are used to scare people that are easily intimidated.
There was some reason the police dismissed Edmunds so quickly.
Edmunds was known to be sleeping in his car in the neighborhood and the cops were hopefull that he saw something. After their interview with him in VA, LE said he provided useful information, but they have never said what that information was. Where is the evidence supporting a claim that Edmunds knew Ed?
I did not claim he knew Ed Smart. I asked the question. I asked it because I would like to know what reason he had to go to the meetings (service) for Elizabeth. You would usually attend if you knew someone in the family. I am surprised that a transient would go if he did not know someone in the family. This was one of the reasons that Edmunds was a suspect because he attended this meeting for Elizabeth. The police must have originally thought it was peculiar.
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.