Replies

here some proof but then again mybe not because it seems to some posters here if its not in the paper it's not proof.

Proof
Neths repair shop (whatever the his name is moul) is not the actual person that works on Ricci's cars.
The mechanic that does work on his cars was/is having an affair with Angelia.
The muddy Jeep wasn't the only vehicle with mudd on it.
The blue SUV, I know where it lives so does the FBI, Angelia does too.
That these people are involved in something but not Elizabeth.
Ed does have a chip on his shoulder because Ricci last year was not arrested for stealing things out of his house.
Police have a chip on their shoulders because Ricci was out of jail even though he carries a sawed off shotgun and likes to shoot cops.
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.
Tom is missing time on the night Elizabeth disappeared, more time than Ricci.
Tom disappears at times from the group of family members.
The story about the screen being cut got bigger and bigger.
Tom was called before police.
Ed ran to nieghbors before calling police.
Smarts state double meaning words at news conferences.
Whenever a case isn't solve its mostly because of family involvement.

All I can say is...........WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Absolutely right and there's MORE coming..

All sounds like possibilities to me, scaredkat. Tell us more about the "affair" and the "high church officials."

Who is your source for this? I've held my tongue on most of your posts cat but this is outrageous unless you can back it up.

Let me take just one of the things you mentioned:

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

I see this, here on an internet forum, and I know many will question what you say. I question what everyone says, but question what you post less and less. But, just for starters, that one in particular has a ring of truth right off the bat. I have always wondered about how Ed had to be hospitalized right after this thing happened. I have heard that sometimes people will check themselves into the hospital when they feel they are under too much pressure from some authority figure, such as the police. Seems that the hospital would be a perfect refuge. I have even read the writings of a psychiatrist or two who have documented this bit about going into the hospital, as a classic "way out" for people who are trying to be slippery about taking blame.

It makes perfect sense to me that someone who didn't want to be totally forthcoming with police would check into the hospital as a last refuge from too many questions, and too much pressure.

What can you tell us about the neighbor, Sue Ann Adams? Why was a man's shirt from her household found among Ricci's things?

I'm going to bed now. I hope to find your source when I check tomorrow.

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.