Replies

"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!"

From some of your posts, I've noticed that you are aware of committing the same offense of which you accuse me. That's a plus!

We are in agreement that Ricci had no obligation to say anything to the police.

However, what we have witnessed of Ed Smart & family, and LE, is not conjecture. If you can say that you have heard Angela contradict herself from one interview to the next, I take that as fact. Does she do it to deceive, or is she merely filling in vacant spots, something she previously forgot, or has come to see in a different light? That's what you really do not know.

We have given leeway to the Smarts for their early lapses. We have granted that LE has the right to withhold evidence from the public. But how far are we supposed to go with this when it has become so obviously comparable with another unsolved case - the Ramseys? One big difference is that they had a body.

I haven't read one post on any of these many threads from "Ricci lovers," building a scenario of guilt on any member of the Smart family. Not one neighbor has been accused by us that I've seen.

Yet we all know this type of crime is more likely to have been committed by someone close to the victim.