Posted on 09/04/2002 8:39:12 PM PDT by IamHD
Only because she hasn't been asked!
Actually the probably didn't talk on the phone because they knew the conversations would be monitored and there was a good chance they would slip up and say something they'd wish they hadn't.
Have you quizzed them about Ricci's guilt or innocence after advising them that he once shot a cop? I thought not.
Would you expect anyone giving a eulogy at a funeral get up and recite the deceased's long criminal and violence record? I would bet Morrow struggled with finding words to say.
"I found that Richard was a very loving individual, a very sweet individual, easy to talk to and easy to be around," Bishop Morrow said.
"To me, he was a very choice individual, a choice son of our Father in Heaven," said Bishop David Morrow, of the LDS Kearns 10th Ward into which Ricci's stepson was recently baptized. "He certainly is not the type of individual that has been played up in the news media."
This eulogy is above and beyond boilerplate. He is either lying or he knew the Riccis better than you suspect. It is not uncommon in Utah for a bishop to get to know inactive members and even non-members in their wards.
LE has already given a credible explanation as to the reason's they had a revised version of what MK saw on that night. I've explained the reason why they didn't release the new details so I really don't see any problem here. Am I missing something? Why would they say that MK saw something she didn't? What part of this do you think is unlikely for her to have witnessed?
If Lois was in every interview of Mary Katherine, that was not good practice, IMO. I can understand her wanting to be nearby. I wish Lois could have stood just outside during her interviews, though.
I think that the psychologist would want Lois nearby so that Mary Katherine would be relaxed. They conducted at least 4 interviews over a several week period. I think that the first people looked at in this kind of investigation would be the family. If Lois would have come under some kind of suspicion after the first or second interview then LE would have told the psychologist that Lois could no longer sit in. So the obvious conclusion is that they do not suspect Lois of anything improper in this affair. Do you think that LE should still be suspicious of Lois?
You may know this, but I believe it's been said by either police, or Ed and Lois, that there was a clue to the abductor's identity not just in the sound of his individual voice, but also in the content of what he said within MK's hearing. They have not told the public all that was said.
To my knowledge nothing has been reported as to the actual message that was given to Elizabeth by her abductor. We have been told it was a threat and that he was rough with her as they went down the stairs. Perhaps the perp used a distinct dialect or some colloquialism was used. Maybe some profanity or language that would be used by a street thug. Perhaps the opposite, proper and gentlemanly. We just don't know but it is interesting that this hasn't been release yet.
The police are using their public statements as a means of communicating with the perpetrators in this case. Perhaps it serves their investigative purposes to leave the perpetrators unaware of what MK has actually told them.
As one who has worked in child-related investigations, I would be very surprised if it were true that Lois had been present during all interviews with MK. Once again, perhaps the police have reason to want the perpetrators to believe that MK has only spoken with them while in her mother's presence.
I realize that my approach of questioning everything that the police say publicly doesn't serve to answer many questions. However, I very firmly believe that their statements are designed to convey a message to the perpetrators......NOT to keep the public informed on the actual facts of their investigation.
They didn't publish it, a newspaper did. One of the biggest controversies in this case has been the possible contamination of the crime scene. I am surprised it took some reporter this long to dig the truth of the matter out. The reporter interviewed the neighbors and found out that the police were there first. What was the SLPD supposed to say when the reporter questioned them? As embarrassing as it was, I think the truth is better here because it would serve no purpose to stonewall the press on the issue. Any defense lawyer would have discovered the same as he interviewed the people involved.
As to why it happened I suspect that most policemen would think "runaway" first rather than thinking of the home as a crime scene. As the police reviewed this fiasco they discovered that their officers were improperly trained. They have admitted to us that perhaps there's a bit of Keystone in the department and that they are going to correct it. It doesn't mean that they are insincere in their quest to solve the crime.
I agree with you that the reporter did not do a good job on this article. It left some confusion for sure. If only the arriving officers would have told the Smarts to not let anyone onto the property then the scene would have been secured. As to LE downplaying the impact we could make some inferences. One would be that they have substantially cleared all of those whose DNA or fingerprints they found. Another would be that they have found some unidentified hair that belongs to no one who would have been in the house. We know that the Tribune article said that no DNA or fingerprints were left behind. Could that be misinformation by LE. Once again, we don't know for sure. I think that they are hopeful of finding where Elizabeth’s body is before they make their arrests. They may know exactly who is behind this.
Well, not exactly.....what they found was one neighbor (Suann Adams) who said the police were there first. Nowhere in the article do the police retract their original statements about neighbors being present in the house when they arrived. In fact, the district attorney's comments at the end of the article clearly suggest that he believes neighbors were present when police got there.
Your suggestion that the thought of this being a runaway case might have delayed the police in securing the scene may be correct. On the other hand, I think it is possible that the police found themselves in the presence of some very influential people when they arrived, and they were reluctant to start issuing orders.
(And before you ask, no I do not have a "guest list" of the people who were present......this is simply speculation based upon knowledge of the Smarts' social status and the general affluence of the neighborhood.)
I agree with you here that this Bishop's remarks were sincere. There are some indications that Richard had a good side and that is what he would have presented to someone from the clergy. He certainly wouldn't be unique in that. I'm sure that there was good in his life but that doesn't remove him from suspicion in this case. I do find it interesting that his family didn't attend the funeral. The area of Nevada that they are from (Ely I believe) is several hours away (you tell me how far Joe, I don't want to fight) and perhaps they couldn't get away.
I agree with you here and perhaps there are things about the interviews with MK that we know nothing of.
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.