Replies

Ricci never confessed to this crime.

So, we have Ricci not confessing to the alleged kidnapping, not confessing to the bank robbery and apparently LE has no evidence to link him to either case, except the word of a con trying to save his own hide. He did apparently admit taking some items of minimal value over a year ago when he worked at the smarts.

He fully cooperated with LE from day one, including polygraph, searches, etc. and still no forensic or other evidence.

Yet, almost the entire LE case was focused on this one man -- as far as the public knows -- while other potentially viable suspects walked.

The day will come when we will find out just how much LE had on Richard. He confessed to theft and burglary. After Remington gave him up the Feds investigated the bank robbery for an additional 2 or 3 weeks before going ahead with the charges. I'm sure that they had more than just Remington's word for it. What potentially viable suspect do you think is walking around? I don't know why I waste my time explaining the obvious to you over and over again. You will never accept that Ricci could have been involved. The police could have a rock solid case and you'd think he'd been framed. Why are you so enamored with this man anyway?

A couple of questions.

1. Regarding the theft of jewelry and other items from the Smart's home -- I was under the impression that LE found those stolen items in Ricci's trailer. If that's the case, then he didn't steal them to sell for drug money.

2. Angela's "addiction" to Soma -- Where has it been stated that she is/was addicted? If she has serious back pain, taking Soma when she needs it certainly doesn't equal an addiction. A dear friend of mine mentioned to me a couple of days ago that she takes Soma when her back pain gets too bad. I have no reason to suspect that she's addicted. Not championing Angela, just wondering if a reliable source confirmed her as an addict.

That's all. I'm glad that Devil Anse and others are looking waay outside the box for possible explanations and answers. It makes the forum more interesting than the usual "Ricci did it"/"No he didn't" conversation.

apparently LE has no evidence to link him to either case

We're not privy to what evidence LE has in either case. But they have made public Ricci denies he ever took the Jeep from Mouls and thus will not discuss where he drove in the 1000 miles, what he did with the items he removed from the Jeep, and who he left the repair shop with, a person matching the description of the kidnapper. The Jeep was never parked at the trailer park during the time it was in Ricci's possession from May 30 - Jun 8. His wife lied about not calling Moul on May 30. She never made another call to Moul to check on the Jeep after the call where she inquired on the status of the electronic fuel pump repair which made the Jeep drivable which she later admitted making on May 30.

taking some items of minimal value over a year ago when he worked at the smarts.

Also included jewelry, total value $3500.

He fully cooperated with LE from day one

To the contrary police said he had not cooperated, he would not answer their questions.

including polygraph

He failed the polygraph.

still no forensic or other evidence

We do not know what evidence LE has.

Yet, almost the entire LE case was focused on this one man -- as far as the public knows -- while other potentially viable suspects walked.

Police have repeatedly said they have other suspects they are investigating and most, if not all of them, link to Richard Ricci. You're wrong on all counts, as usual varina. You need to find another hobby.

"Ricci not confessing to alleged kidnapping" True.

"not confessing to bank robbery" Perhaps, but guaranteed, every witness was interviewed and probably shown photo line-up and/or given voice line-up. Gun? Possibly identifiable and maybe traceable to Ricci. Alibi? Did he have one for Nov. 1, 2001? Was he seen in Sandy anywhere nearby on that day? Fingerprints? Marked money with exploding dye pack? Traceable serial numbers on money, showing some of it used by him? Tapes, showing at least the build and demeanor of Ricci as he vaulted counter, etc.?

"He did apparently admit taking some items of minimal value over a year ago when he worked at the Smarts." Kind of futile not to admit it, when if he didn't, they'd think he took them the early morning of June 5, 2002. Among "minimal value" items: jewelry, cash. Aggregate value: $3500. Also, some of the items were found in his home, so they'd have gotten him for receiving stolen property even if he hadn't admitted to the theft.

"fully cooperated with LE from day one" Parolees have a lesser expectation of privacy than does the law-abiding citizen, when it comes to search/seizure. Polygraph? What's to lose, it's not admissible against him anyway. Did not fully cooperate,admitted limited things, gave exculpatory statement on some things, clammed up on others, which was certainly within his rights.

Other potentially viable suspects walked? You'd have defended them just as you are defending Ricci. He seems to gain sainthood by virtue of being accused.