Elizabeth Smart Thread, 9/17/02 to ???

[Utah Girl]

Just thought I would start a new thread.

[varina davis]

Am now reading Mario Puzo's last novel - the Borgias. As usual, I can't recall the title.

Excellent novel is The Peaceable Kingdom by Ardth Kennelly, about polygamy in 19th Century Utah. Novel based on true experience.

[Devil_Anse]

Naturally, that only intensified my curiosity and determination to read it, hiding it among other books on my frequent visits.

Exactly! When I was 12, a friend shoved a copy of "Reader's Digest" into my hand, pointing to the word "abortion," and snickering. I asked (out loud), "what's abortion?" My friend ran up, frantically trying to get me to whisper, but also laughing hysterically, b/c their parents were in the next room and might have heard us.

Any kid who reads a few things can usually find something out.

[lakey]

My mother belonged to a book club. She ordered "Gulliver's Travels," most likely thinking, "My daughter will enjoy this," as I was a lover of fairy tales and adventure stories, reading them over and over.

Unfortunately, this particular copy had illustrations -"dirty" ones, in her opinion, & she was furious - ripped them out of the book! I think she read a few pages & threw it away. So, I was an adult before I ever read it.

[lakey]

I shall be on the lookout for a copy. Is it a newer book?

[trussell]

We must be bored tonight.

[bonfire]

The best poster on these threads, besides UG, is Government Shrinker, who only shows up now and then.

Thanks, DA and UG for keeping these threads on track.

[scaredkat]

Okay let see, slander? Lets go back over this. (by the way I find it really interesting how you don't care what was stated about Ricci's, but the Smart its like hands off with you.) By the way I do have friends that are part of the Smart family and they do want the truth to come out, no matter who is the guilty one, because Elizabeth is gone. I have not said that any of the Smarts did it. I find it again interesting that you think I have.


Ed was NOT cooperating with the police and it almost came down to him being arrested for hindering the case.

Ed was told by High Church Officials to work with the police no matter what skeltons they would find.
These items here when I read these I didn't believe them but many people have stated these as facts. As well as 2police officers and 1FBI agent.

Tom is missing time on the night Elizabeth disappeared, more time than Ricci.
This one was stated in a newspaper column.

Tom disappears at times from the group of family members.
This was pointed out to be by LE and I have since notice this. (I only meant by this; is, If Ricci was lost for one hour everyone attacked it. So, I thought, it should be brought out AGAIN that no, his(Tom) time isn't accounted for.)

The story about the screen being cut got bigger and bigger.
Read all the news clippings first it was just cut. Then it was cut in the inside, then it was cut and a chair was outside next to the window. Then it was cut from the inside but there was a chair outside next to the window and the window was also broken.
So if this is true I would question why was it cut on the inside if everything was outside?

Tom was called before police.
This was not stated by me and it has been discussed alot on this thread.

Ed ran to nieghbors before calling police.
This is also in the newspaper.

Smarts state double meaning words at news conferences.
Read the news, the words that are stated are very unnatural I would think you all would jump on this more than you have with me and the way I type. Sometimes it is like they are talking to the media but also maybe talking to whoever took Elizabeth. (and no this does not mean they know who took her.)

Whenever a case isn't solve its mostly because of family involvement. Listent to the crime shows. John Walsh even stated this.

Ed was told by High Church Officials to work with the police no matter what skeltons they would find.
I have heard this time and time again. I finally got the confromation from an FBI agent.

Tom is missing time on the night Elizabeth disappeared, more time than Ricci. Newspaper states he was last seen at 11:00pm and first seen at 4:00am. Okay maybe he was home in bed but you don't believe Ricci was home in bed so why should the shoe not fit on the other side.

Sandude, do your research as I have you will find all of this as well, its here on the Web, in print, on news shows ect... I will not do your work for you. My meaning for posting what I did was because everyone was stating there is no proof. I guess it comes down to what kind of proof you want.

[lakey]

Well, if you two can add to the Smart thread, please do so. We wait & wait for something, any information, & there isn't anything new.

Should we let the thread drop? I'm almost there.

[anatolfz]

That's quite a bombshell, scaredcat. However, it's hard to know what to make of it without some provenance. You know people just say all kind of things.

It's hard to know what these proofs imply: other than that there is a lot of odd history with the Riccis, which hardly changes the water on the beans.

As for the Smarts - that's the sort of thing where you do really need to have a bit of backup, and shouldn't be too dificult to find if there were anything in it. You'd expect National Enquirer or one of the ranker publications would have something on this, since the family has been in the spot light for so long.

There's been a lot of talk about various theories here, and some of them are quite wild. People say "theory" when they apparently mean "hypothesis". To qualify as a theory, the explanation of a set of your observations has to be based on principles which are independent of your observations. What you've done is offer some more observations (of uncertain veracity), which seem almost intended to spawn more fanciful hypotheses. I don't say you meant to do only that, though.

About Mary Katherine's story: In general you can doubt a story, but you can't discard it unless you have some better alternative. In this case there isn't one.

About lies by the police, the family or whomever: At the very least, it's not much use to assume someone could be lying: that's actually the wrong way to find out if they're lying. If you want to find out whether someone is lying, it's better to take their story as if it were true, rather than infer otherwise, and then take each piece at its face value and see where it goes. If it is untrue, things will stop adding up pretty soon. If someone says "I was at the movies last night!" you don't say "I don't believe you", you say, "Yeah?What did you see?"

As for people here who doubt the wilder hypotheses, it doesn't strengthen the case to accuse the doubters of conscious or unconscious complicity in a coverup. The wilder (and less well-founded) a hypothesis is, the less convincing it is. Without indications of the contrary, you must assume good faith in someone's doubt.

Lastly, I was reading a book about serial murders the other day. Dreary stuff. No complex, mysterious plots. Simple, barbarous crimes, and most went unsolved for years. And how did the half-sentient animals remain at large for so long? Not because they were really clever, or their crimes incredibly devious, or the police stupid or obstructive, but just pure bad luck for the rest of us, and this won't change unless we will have 24/7 video surveillance at every street corner and every exit ramp in America.

[lakey]

Good post!

[Devil_Anse]

Well, thank YOU!

I agree with you about Utah Girl and Government Shrinker. They are always very precise about what they say, and it rings true.

If you are following this case, check out Scaredkat's Post 814. Like many of Scaredkat's posts, it knocked my socks off! She didn't say anyone in particular "did it," but just gave us several things which, if true, are very interesting. Hardhearted though it may be, I have no sympathy for the Riccis, except I do think it's sad that Richard Ricci died when he was only about 48. I have no trouble imagining him being involved in some criminal enterprise, and I have no trouble imagining his wife helping him cover things up.

But with any unsolved crime, the persons closest to the victim might as well get used to being put through the wringer. We just never know. And what a waste of Elizabeth's beautiful young life.

[Jolly Green]

We all know there are posters with dual identities -- JG, sherlock, more of that ilk.

What a crock! It is statements like this which loudly proclaim your complete lack of credibility and intelligence. Your assertion that Sherlock and I are the same poster is absurd. Though we often agree, we have had some stark differences as well. How do you explain that - in your finite wisdom?

[Iwo Jima]

I have said before that I have little respect for Ed Smart and do not believe that he is a "manly" man or that he has protected his family as he should and that he is incredibly self-indulgent and selfish. When I first heard about this case and was swallowing the officical version hook, line, and sinker, I was appalled to hear that he had checked himself into the hospital for "exhaustion."

HE'S EXHAUSTED?!?! What about his poor wife Lois who has just lost her father after nursing him through a long illness, has her mother and her father's affairs to look to, has had her oldest daughter taken from right under her nose in her very own house supposedly by an armed gunman who seeems to have a key and free reign of her house? Ed goes off and leaves her alone to cope with the emotional truama, the overhelming burden of caring for the other chidren, and the threat of a mad gunman on the loose who just might return to get Mary K at any time.

His flight to the hosital said to me right then that he had something to hide. Now, reflecting further on the matter, I believe that it shows that he never believed the story about a gunman involved in the abduction. Either that or he is just about the worst husband and father that it has been my sad misfortune to run across. Real men don't abandon their families in their hour of need.

[Jolly Green]

Because you had no proof of Ricci's guilt, h.a.

Or is it because you have not a shred of evidence supporting the involvement of anyone else?

[Jolly Green]

If it's true as rumored, that divorce was in the works, it could be that oldest daughter might have thought younger sister would be removed from harm.

More distortions varina? There is no evidence to support your "divorce" rumor in any credible published source. Regurgitating it over and over is not going to make it true.

[Yellowcat]

Scaredkat, when you first started posting you came on like someone who had just immagrated from another country and you were writing in broken english. Your spelling was terrible and you were saying things in riddles without coming right and saying what you knew. My first impression hasn't changed--it was all an act! It was a disguise, and I still wonder who you really are. I called you on it and since then your english has improved 60% and your spelling is much better.

But you are still hinting at things with mystery and inunendo and saying things that could be construed as outrageous. I believe I was right in my first assumption. Either you really do know a lot more than what you're giving us in bits and pieces or else you have an agenda for exposing......who? Is it the LDS Church, someone in the Smart family, or someone else? Or, heaven forbid, are you trying to steer people away from the real truth?

I for one would like you to just come right out and say what you are getting at. Other people have given theories about what they think could have happened to Elizabeth, but you haven't. About other things, you say this has happened or that has occurred, or this was stated in the paper, or it posted here, or the police have said such and such.

Can't you just say what you're getting at and not make us wait for the next paint by number that you see fit to give us. What kind of picture are you trying to paint and why? For instance, you have stated:

1) Ed was NOT cooperating with the police and it almost came down to him being arrested for hindering the case.

(What was he not doing to cooperate when he was in front of the cameras almost daily pleading for his daughter's return? How was he not cooperating? This is the first I've heard about him almost being arrested for hindering the case.)

2) Ed was told by High Church Officials to work with the police no matter what skeltons they would find.

(This is already known and understood by all active Mormons, so why would Ed have to be told to do it? What skeletons? Where did you hear this? What inside information do you have that you know about this?)

3) These items here when I read these I didn't believe them but many people have stated these as facts. As well as 2police officers and 1FBI agent.

(You state these things were written here by other people and that you didn't believe it. Then you add by 2 police officers and 1 FBI agent. I'm really curious. How do you know this? How come you know it and the rest of us don't?

Also, if you didn't believe it before, are you hinting now that you do believe it?)

3) Tom is missing time on the night Elizabeth disappeared, more time than Ricci. This one was stated in a newspaper column.

(How do you think Tom is involved?)

4) I have not said that any of the Smarts did it.

(You may not say it, but when you finish dribbling out the rest of the colors of the numbers to fill in the picture you are describing there won't be much doubt left.)

[Jolly Green]

It seems that there are indeed posters on here for one reason. To make sure nobody works out all the loop holes and discover what the real truth is.

This is absurd. I've been on these threads for over two months and have never seen an example of this. EVERYONE wants to see ES found and NO ONE wants a cover up - no matter who is involved. There are lots of disagreements but nothing supports your claim.

[sandude]

Sandude, do your research as I have you will find all of this as well, its here on the Web, in print, on news shows ect... I will not do your work for you. My meaning for posting what I did was because everyone was stating there is no proof. I guess it comes down to what kind of proof you want.

Just because something is in print somewhere doesn't mean that it's true. If you post something here as fact then you should back it up with a source. Then we the reader can decide for ourselves whether or not that source is credible. Sometimes this requires debate and there is not always a unanimous opinion but without knowing your source for this supposed factual information then we can make no judgment. If this is your opinion then you should state it as such instead of saying it's a supportable fact. If it is supportable then YOU need to give us source. In the schools that I went to if I wrote a paper and in the footnotes I told the teacher to "do your own research" then I would have gotten an F on that paper. Until you source your material you are getting and F from me.

[sandude]

OK lets start with Angela.

You've stated that she was having an affair with someone at Moul's garage. Is this the same grieving widow we saw on LKL?

Please provide a source for this slander.

You state that Moul was not the mechanic that worked on the jeep and that there were other muddy jeeps on the lot.

Source please.

Ed was NOT cooperating with the police and it almost came down to him being arrested for hindering the case.

I've never heard or seen this. Where are you getting this from?

Ed was told by High Church Officials to work with the police no matter what skeltons they would find.

Your supposed fact here implicates that Ed had something to hide. There is nothing that has ever been stated by police that even comes close to this. It's just so much BS if you don't back it up. You claim this came from an FBI agent. Do you know this man? Have you seen his creditials? Why would the FBI be sharing information with you?

Ed ran to nieghbors before calling police. This is also in the newspaper.

There was a lengthy article in the Tribune or Deseret News which refuted this. It states that LE was on the scene before any neighbor arrived and that the Smarts called police before anyone else. This article came out recently and was the result of some investigative research whereas the first one was more speculatory in my opinion.

Newspaper states he was last seen at 11:00pm and first seen at 4:00am. Okay maybe he was home in bed but you don't believe Ricci was home in bed so why should the shoe not fit on the other side.

Was Tom's wife somatose? Did Tom's wife ask neighbors if they saw him leaving his home that morning? Was Tom in the habit of robbing people while they slept in their home? If you are going to accuse Tom of something then at least have something to go on.

[Devil_Anse]

I don't think you will be put off too much by the demands that people on here are making for proof. At least, you never have been put off by it before.

I am hoping that you can at least partially satisfy their requests--not b/c it would warm my heart to see things shown that MIGHT implicate a family member, but just because it would mean that at last we actually KNOW something.

Whether anyone likes it or not, whether it is politically correct or not, it is a fact that a person who commits a crime like this is very likely to have done something bad before--either a crime, leading to a criminal record, or some other incident like, say, Westerfield's peeping tom activities, which were not an official criminal record only b/c his wife did not report them to police.

Whoever did this, there is something in his past, guaranteed. I seriously doubt that any man (unless this perp was actually a teenager 16 or over) would make his very first entrance into the world of crime/wrongdoing, with such a drastic, serious crime.

That is why it has always been much more believable to me that Ricci and/or his felon friends perpetrated this, rather than a man in the family. Even now, I still say that Ricci's record speaks strongly against him, and anyone who would have trusted him, knowing that record, is an absolute fool--and that includes Angela; it includes Ed, if Ed actually knew of the record.

But we can't ignore the men in the family. One thing which speaks strongly against any of them having done this is the apparent lack of any known prior bad acts, or any criminal record, on the part of any of them. But if I heard one of them had done something like peeping tom activities, I might change my mind, b/c perverts and miscreants can come from any class of people. I have not heard any such thing at this point.

We can't get around the fact that Ed seems a little weird, and so does Tom. But we certainly know far less circumstantial "evidence" (it's not really even evidence) to implicate them, than we know of Ricci, what with Ricci having known the house in spite of being an outsider, and his failure to explain the jeep and his whereabouts, his behavior the morning of June 5, and his history of burglary.

We can't discount the family, unfortunately. John List had no criminal record, yet he killed his daughter (and the rest of his family.) But if one had looked at things in the life of List b/f his crime, it would have told them that he was capable of that crime. Neither of the Ramseys has any criminal record that I know of, yet I have strongly suspected them for a long time.

And even with what little I know of her, I find it very believable that Angela could have cheated on Rick, or vice versa. Angela and Rick had both been convicted of crimes of deception. People who will lie in one situation will lie in another situation. This was what we all knew during the reign of the Impeached Rapist, but hysterical, lying, destructive scumbags like Paul Begala, Rahm Emmanuel, and that inbred mutant named after the leper colony in Louisiana, would attack everyone who tried to acknowledge this simple truth. And it is also somewhat believable that Tom might have been cheating on Heidi, although we don't know any facts about such a thing, but adultery can take place even among otherwise law-abiding people.