Replies

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.

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.)

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.

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.

Thanks for your new posts on this case. You've put out a lot of interesting stuff.

Some of it, I have been saying all along and some of it was brand new to me.

I especially liked the way you analyzed the "cut screen". Thanks. I hadn't thought that part through that much.

Sacredkat's post on the screen:
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?