Posted on 09/16/2002 11:10:48 PM PDT by Utah Girl
Just thought I would start a new thread.
One big guess, Palladin.
Sorry to disappoint you, sandude, but that was my very own opinion (though I'm sure it's shared by many others who are not committed to a defense agenda.)
This is getting old, sandude.....for both of us, I'm sure. Go back and read what I said in post # 701. I in no way believe that MK has "fooled" the police. Rather, I think it is far more likely that the police are attempting to fool the suspect(s) into believing what they want them to believe.
As for your other "explanations" for things I found doubtful about MK's alleged story.....I simply don't buy them. Things that you find unremarkable, I do find remarkable. Things that seem perfectly logical to you do not seem logical at all to me. "Official explanations" that satisfy you don't satisfy me. I didn't find the "armed gunman" story plausible the first time I heard it, and I have heard nothing since that has removed my doubts.
I guess this puts you and me back at that "agree to disagree" point.....
Your speaking in ridles again varina.
Maybe--or maybe they really do think Ricci was a big part of it, or maybe even think he did it alone.
Maybe they are getting lazy and have just decided, well, the main guy is gone, so we don't need to do more. Maybe the FBI, on the other hand, has more funds and/or manpower available, and is raring to go.
This is not to say that SLCPD are necessarily correct if they are concluding that Ricci was it. But it does seem as though they think that.
It's entirely possible that Ed and Tom have the answers and Lois suspects what those answers are, but wants to be the good wife and believe in those she cares about -- which includes her entire extended family. What a turmoil must be going on for that poor woman!
Defense of whom? You've stated that you don't think the family was involved so you must not object to my defense of them. Who are you accusing me of defending, LE?
really ?
I'm not going to say what you already know or suspect, sandude. If you deliberately choose to ignore what could be possible, then keep on foundering about.
That's correct, I don't think the family was involved in taking her away. But they might have been involved in her decision to go.
Devil, you might as well give Ricci as rest and get on with really trying to figure out how to solve this case.
I'll let it rest at that but I am perplexed at your inability to accept what has been stated as at least possible. It's like Ross Perot shaking his finger at everything he dislikes about government but offering no solutions for the problems he has exposed. The attackers of the Smarts and LE fail to offer anything plausible to counter the official press releases other than maybe LE is lying in an attempt to catch the perp. Maybe they are not lying. One needs to at least accept that as a possibility. The bottom line is that we do not have enough information one way or another. Without the facts in the matter it is impossible for us to determine much of anything at all.
Seems to me you have had long diatribes on your "theory" of what happend , all summer long. You are now admitting that what we have is one thing?
Elizabeth Smart is not home.
"Official press releases" are written by public relations flaks to parrot canned information to anyone willing to accept it for face value. Reputable journalists rarely accept press releases as bonifide information before digging deeper into the whys and wherefores.
I believe that you are basing this on the fact that Lois was interviewed for several hours. I've done some thinking on this. I think that the FBI brought in some new investigators who had very little in the way of prior knowledge of the case. Their job was to ignore any and all previous assumptions and to start fresh. The reason behind this was to make sure that nothing was overlooked in the initial investigation. This is a very good practice in a case like this because of its complexities. Given the above it would only make sense that they would have spent an extra amount of time with Lois to clear up the types of things that you mentioned above. After all it is the family that most often is behind these things. Now to burst your bubble.
We have no idea if these new investigators found anything or not. It leads to the same kinds of wild speculations that went on early in the case. For all we know though, the new investigators my end up drawing the same conclusions that were previously reached. Until we get some more information out of LE we can only GUESS as to what they may have uncovered. It is very possible that nothing new has been found.
sandude, in order to find what has been stated as at least possible, I would have to go through the same torturous mental gymnastics that you have gone through in order to rationalize it. As I said before, I have found MK's story implausible right from the start. Until I hear explanations that satisfy my doubts, I am perfectly content to continue questioning her story. You and others, on the other hand, seem to feel the need to come up with various "possibilities" and "explanations" in order to MAKE her story sound plausible.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why some people seem to feel that MK's story must be protected at all costs.
All right Neenah, so you don't believe that Mary Katherine saw anything? Would you care to explain?
Theory?
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.