Elizabeth Smart thread, September 5, 2002-?

[freedox]

"To me, he was a very choice individual, a choice son of our Father in Heaven," said Bishop David Morrow....."

Come on, Devil......you have to admit that this statement goes well beyond "I met the guy and he seemed pleasant enough." Bishop Morrow could have easily toned down his statement by using any number of words other than "choice." It seems clear to me that Bishop Morrow did indeed know Richard Ricci, and apparently thought very highly of him. Does he know things that we don't know, or is he just incredibly naive? I don't think I have enough information to make that judgment. Do you?

[Devil_Anse]

Re: Your post 651

"Am I missing something?" Not that I know of. I am rethinking the police's dribbling releases of details which supposedly come from Mary K. We now know (what we suspected before) that there is probably no forensic evidence of value from the scene of the abduction. I guess, in a sense, Mary Katherine has BECOME the police's crime scene--she, and her memory of the event. As to regular crime scenes, police don't reveal all the details, so why should they release all the details from their "crime scene"--Mary K.'s memory? So, you are not missing something--I was missing something.

About Lois being in on all MK's interviews, I still don't agree with it, if they allowed that. That's just not the way to interview any witness, even a child. "Do you think LE should still be suspicious of Lois?" Depends. I don't think they should be suspicious of Lois as having done the crime, or done some crime, but I do think they should be suspicious that Lois may hide something in order to cover up for someone else. If there is involvement by someone Lois cares about, she just may not allow herself to admit it. In other words, they should be suspicious of Lois almost the same way they should be suspicious of Angela. Either one may know something, but it may be something they don't want to tell b/c they love the person who is implicated. One glaring difference btw Lois and Angela, though is that apparently Lois is not a known liar. I feel sure Angela is a known liar, b/c I've actually seen her change her story on a point, from one TV interview to another.

Right around the time Lois announced that MK had recognized the abductor's voice, either the police or the Smarts also pointedly said that they had not made public ALL of the conversation that took place btw the kidnapper and Elizabeth. They even said there was something said (and I mean the content, not the voice or style) that would reveal or tend to reveal the kidnapper's identity to Mary K. and/or Elizabeth.

[freedox]

"I do find it interesting that his family didn't attend the funeral."

I found that interesting myself. I do recall Nancy Grace (I think) briefly mentioning that Ricci's mother is not in the best of health. However, I don't know what would have kept the remainder of the family away.

[Sherlock]

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.

This may make sense to you but doesn't ring true to me.

[Devil_Anse]

"If the defense of the LDS Church and its bishops is in your hands they may as well cash it in right now, varina."

You hit the nail on the head with that one, Sherlock.

[sandude]

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.

As I said earlier the article was poorly written. It still leaves some ambiguity. The key point in the article is that the police are taking responsibility for the problems with the crime scene. In doing so, they are in essence retracting their original statement. My guess is that the original statement came from detectives who arrived much later than the first patrolmen. The detectives found the house full of people and were dismayed at the situation. This was caused by the patrolmen not telling the Smarts to keep people off of the property. The Smarts should have thought of this themselves, but basic crime school knowledge is not a prerequisite for parenthood. Once again, the key item in the article is that LE has taken responsibility for the problem.

[sandude]

We now know (what we suspected before) that there is probably no forensic evidence of value from the scene of the abduction.

This has been reported, but it could be subterfuge. We won't know for sure until everything has been released.

[sandude]

Right around the time Lois announced that MK had recognized the abductor's voice, either the police or the Smarts also pointedly said that they had not made public ALL of the conversation that took place btw the kidnapper and Elizabeth. They even said there was something said (and I mean the content, not the voice or style) that would reveal or tend to reveal the kidnapper's identity to Mary K. and/or Elizabeth.

I wasn't aware of that. Could you or someone provide a source or a direction to look? Also, let me say this about Lois. The real implication of not wanting Lois to be present in the interview is that Mary Katherine would be intimidated by her mother’s presence to the point that she would withhold information. I think that a trained child psychologist would easily pick up that kind of conflict and would not invite Lois back to a subsequent interview. It is also possible as freedox mentioned that some of the interviews were with MK alone after she became more comfortable with the psychologist. LE wouldn't feel a need to publicize this unless they were being hounded by the press.

[sandude]

This may make sense to you but doesn't ring true to me.

I'm always open to debate Holmes.

[jo6pac]

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 concur.

I have no information on his relatives. I didn't know who wasn't at the service or why. Can't help you out on Ely, either.

[Sherlock]

I'm always open to debate Holmes.

Just that instead of some kind of investigative reporting this article comes across more to me as a press release by law enforcement with some statements from Ed Smart tacked on near the end. Without knowing what prompted it's creation we can only speculate on who initiated release of this information.

[freedox]

"The key point in the article is that the police are taking responsibility for the problems with the crime scene. In doing so, they are in essence retracting their original statement."

Well, at least you and I are getting pretty good at agreeing to disagree.....LOL!! I see nothing in the article that would amount to a retraction of the initial reports of neighbors being in the house BEFORE the police arrived. What the police are accepting responsibility for is the fact that it took them 3 hours AFTER they arrived to secure the crime scene. They cannot accept responsibility for what happened prior to their arrival.

Now, on to something more interesting......I just ran across the following in an old news article (Salt Lake Tribune, 06/06/02):

Utah's new emergency warning system for child abductions -- called the Rachael Alert -- was activated for the first time Wednesday with the disappearance of 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart. The girl's family called police at 4 a.m., and after an initial investigation, police determined Elizabeth had been abducted. Police called KSL-Radio at 7:10 a.m. and 11 minutes later, the information was disseminated to a Utah audience.

Notice that the Rachel Alert wasn't sounded until 3 hours after police arrived on the scene......at the same time the decision was made to secure the house as a crime scene. It appears you may have been correct in your suggestion that the police initially considered this a case of runaway.

[sandude]

No officers were disciplined for failing to cordon off the scene more quickly, but Dinse said the mistake has prompted more training within his department.

"The people who were responsible for controlling that have been talked to," Dinse said. "In this case, the crime scene was not well-controlled, and that's something we have to live with in the investigation. It's a matter of training and educating our officers who slipped."

I don't mean to beat a dead issue but this is what I was referring too. LE is accepting responsibility for the mess that morning.

[Devil_Anse]

"provide a source or a direction to look?"

It might be in brigette's archived articles. This info about the content of the conversation, which they won't divulge, was spoken of right around the same time that Lois came out with the statement that Mary K. recognized the abductor's voice. For some reason August 4 sticks in my mind.

[freedox]

"I don't mean to beat a dead issue but......"

LOL!! I've been known to say those words myself......

[Devil_Anse]

"Someone posted [Pomeroy] worked for the hospital."

I remember reading that on here. I also remember someone saying, of Pomeroy, something about, "this good, simple Mormon woman supports Angela." (Not an exact quote, just the gist.)

Bunk. Nancy Pomeroy, as far as I know, works for or owns a public relations firm. If she worked for a hospital, I assume that means she had a contract with the hospital to do public relations--just as she apparently had a contract with Mr. Smith (attorney) to handle public relations relevant to the Ricci case.

[Devil_Anse]

"Does [Bishop Morrow] know things that we don't know, or is he just incredibly naive? I don't think I have enough information to make that judgment. Do you?"

I don't have any more information than you do, freedox. It's just that I can't imagine a clergyman at a funeral saying anything but the nicest things about the deceased. When my relative died, I was called to meet with two church people. They asked me to talk about my relative, to tell them about any touching stories, incidents, etc., and to tell them all the good things about my relative. When the "celebrant" (for lack of a better word) spoke at the funeral, he spoke of the things I had told him. It was very nice. But our "celebrant" had only a passing acquaintance with my relative.

Ricci may have been a very nice person. I've met many people who I realized were con artists, but who were great fun to be with, and who always appeared warm and friendly. (But one would learn of things these people had done, dishonest things, etc.) It is clear that people who met Ricci liked him. Ed liked him. Lois liked him. Reportedly, Elizabeth liked him. Mr. Mitchell, his employer, liked him a lot. The stepson, Trevor, reportedly liked him. The garden shop customers liked him. Thurber liked him. Trujillo, the security guard and former prison guard, liked him. The parole officer interviewed on TV (Brassi? Bassi?) liked him.

It still doesn't change the fact that Ricci had convictions for many felonies. All of those convictions can't have been railroad jobs. Also, remember when Ricci issued the statement about his poor little boy, killed by the drunk driver? Later the mother of the boy, (Robin White?) said she was amazed to hear of the "hole in his heart," b/c Ricci had never paid a bit of attention to his little son when the son was alive. I know, I know--you're going to tell me she was a bitter ex.

Would it be understated enough for you, if I were to simply say that Ricci was not all good?

[varina davis]

I think my initial assessment of you as a petty, pedantic jerk, was accurate. Add overbearing, too.

Are you really have such delusions of grandeur that you think your "assessments" are important??!!

[Devil_Anse]

No, Varina. That wasn't my initial assessment of you.

My initial assessment of you was that you were a vitriolic harpy, incapable of putting forth anything new, remember?

I've reassessed my opinion that you were incapable of putting forth anything new. Your ideas about Dixon have been read with interest by me.