[freedox]

"You don't want to take the statement of Sue Ann Adams, as quoted, as persuasive?"

Persuasive? No. Not when her statement appears to be in direct conflict with the statements of a district attorney and a number of police officers.

[Devil_Anse]

A number of police officers? What are their names? Where are their statements quoted?

Dang it, Freedox, I just know I'm going to have to actually go back and read that whole article again. That's a bad thing, I would rather be lazy and not go rooting around for it!

Just remember: Sue Ann Adams' statement was considered GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE POLICE. They used her declarations to file an INDICTMENT OF A MAN FOR THE FELONY OF BURGLARY!

[Devil_Anse]

You know, Freedox, I think we could all benefit from going back and reading Anatolfz's Post 869. There are many good points in it about judging statements by others for credibility, and ways to analyze what we know.

I don't see why we need to frame this discussion as a sort of debate, with each party saying "gotcha!" whenever they put something on the board. I hope people realize that it's not about either being in the "Ricci" camp, or the "Smart" camp. I think there's much more to this case than that. We don't always have to take sides or gang up on each other, in order to try to find the truth.