Replies

Oh, it appears to me that you're one of the ego-padding people who want the Riccis to fit a template, an artificial template, at that.

What I have maintained is that, without evidence (and, presumably, you will admit that we posters have little evidence), planting ideas of guilt regarding Richard as the kidnapper (with Angela as an accomplice), is a rather shallow and mean-spirited pursuit.

There is every reason to believe that plenty of dumb mistakes have been made by LE. Therefore, it is difficult to think anyone would "give them a pass" on what they have related as being Ricci's involvement....alas, if only that dreadful Richard would have spoken up before he died, because now we can't solve this case. /end sarcasm

At best, much of what has been fed to us from the beginning by LE, the Smarts, and media is often contradictory and/or misleading. More than three months later, nothing they have done or said has zeroed in on who the kidnapper is, and/or where to find Elizabeth!

That is everyone's goal isn't it? Well, maybe not.

Sincerity becomes an issue when one looks back. If LE & the Smarts believed the public could help locate/recognize Elizabeth's abductor through media, there was every reason to publish a composite sketch - whether Mary Katherine saw his face or not....his general stature, clothing, a description of his walk, was he left or right-handed, etc. And we're still waiting.

Ed Smart says he feels his daughter is still alive. So do I. Why? For the simple reasons stated above, and that tells me he knows very well who the abductor is. And it wasn't Ricci!

"Without evidence (and presumably, you will admit that we posters have little evidence), planting ideas of guilt regarding Richard as the kidnapper (with Angela as an accomplice), is a rather shallow and mean-spirited pursuit."

Later you said: "That tells me [Ed] knows very well who the abductor is."

If Ed does know, then that means Ed has knowledge of the crime which he is hiding, doesn't it? And isn't doing THAT a crime?

Let's try your first statement again, with just a minor change:

"Without evidence (and, presumably, you will admit that we posters have little evidence), planting ideas of guilt regarding ED as ONE OF THE CRIMINALS, is a rather shallow and mean-spirited pursuit."

Oh, look, it works with the minor change, too!

Yes, Lakey, it's all meanness to sit around conjecturing w/o evidence. So we're all a bunch of meanies for having this hobby. It's wrong to make up what-ifs, b/c that is "planting ideas of guilt." So we should all just go home and stop posting.

"There is every reason to believe that plenty of dumb mistakes have been made by LE."

Maybe so. But since "we posters have little evidence" of that, either, isn't it rather shallow and meanspirited to "plant ideas of guilt" on the part of LE?

Nobody is suggesting that Ricci had ANY obligation to say ONE WORD to the police--ever. In fact, I have repeatedly suggested the opposite.

"At best, much of what has been fed to us from the beginning by LE, the Smarts, and media is often contradictory and misleading." I agree with this, but in fairness, you should also say that WHAT HAS BEEN FED TO US BY ANGELA HAS ALSO OFTEN BEEN CONTRADICTORY AND MISLEADING.

LE had a suspect. You criticize them for that. If they had never named a single "person of interest," you'd have been raving on about how "they haven't even once come up with a possible perpetrator!"

Ed Smart says he feels his daughter is still alive. So do I. Why? For the simple reasons stated above, and that tells me he knows very well who the abductor is. And it wasn't Ricci!

Logic, Lakey! Your conclusion doesn't support your hypothesis. Just because Ed Smart thinks she is alive, doesn't mean that she is or that he knows who the abductor is. He wants to believe she is alive with all his heart. Wouldn't you? There is zip, zero, nada evidence that he knows who - in spite of your instincts!