Elizabeth Smart Thread, 9/26/02 to ???

[stlnative]

NEW THREAD - PING WHOM EVER YOU LIKE - I DON'T PING ANYMORE - SORRY

[freedox]

"the discovery of the cut screen story is one more bit of evidence of coverup. there are 3 different versions from 3 different family members....."

Thanks for bringing this up......again. I agree that things like this deserve more consideration in our discussions of "evidence."

[freedox]

"I am just questioning if the PD has stated they told Mr. and Mrs. Smart not to talk to their daughter. I think that is important."

Thanks for asking this again, Neenah. I, too, think it is important.

[Neenah]

there are 3 different versions from 3 different family members;

Thanks jandji....I know. And by posting it, and questioning it, one is accused of hating. So sad.

These are the reason's why people all over the country still paying attention to this, are doing the questioning. It speaks for itself , and it is available to look up to prove it. Thanks for the post.

[Neenah]

AMEN!!

[Utah Girl]

Oh yeah, druggies are very logical about getting their next fix.

[Sherlock]

if they knew he commited burglary april 2001, and possesed booze, or hadn't been to rehab,.. why didn't they book him on june 5th, 2002, when they interviewed him?

I've always said that is the blunder of the case. It sounds to me like they didn't bother checking out his background before they visited him on Jun 5. If he was one of the first people on their shortlist why didn't they do a background check on him and know his record on Jun 5? If they had taken him into custody or started tailing him on Jun 5 Elizabeth may well be back at home safe today. This was a horrendous blunder.

An ex-con with an in home business relationship with the family, the Jeep deal, fired by Ed Smart, etc. I don't know if Ed Smart told them about the Jeep deal but if he did if they had tried to track down the Jeep's whereabouts on Jun 5 (it wasn't at the trailer park) that would have probably cracked the case right there. Ricci would have either had to take them to the Jeep or started lying about it and giving them reason to suspect him right away, let alone all the aforementioned factors.

[Sherlock]

"They weren't dealing with some Mormon bishop here, they were dealing with some crazy ex-con with a gun."

you mean on the morning of the kidnapping they already knew it was an ex-con who did it?......my, my, my...

that was quick....

Obviously the wit of this remark went over your head, I'll try to gear my comments to a more sophomoric level for the cases where it's necessary.

[Neenah]

or an amazing coincidence.

I vote for amazing coincidence, FR.

[Sherlock]

My problem with Ricci having done this has mainly been that the height thing was wrong. (The age thing was wrong, too, but a little girl would not be able to tell an adult's age that accurately.)

I don't think Ricci was the kidnapper, do you?

[FR_addict]

Doesn't look like your prediction below came true. We haven't heard anything from Henry Lee either.

Elizabeth Smart thread, August 24-31, 2002
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/738506/posts

To: spore-gasm
Instead of Henry Lee, Ed Smart should have brought in Mark Furhman. He helped solved the 20 year old Martha Moxley case that no one else would touch.

Furhman evidently has very good investigative skills and that is what is needed to find out what happened to Elizabeth. I would love to see him "hound-dog" this case.

724 posted on 8/30/02 6:50 AM Pacific by FR_addict

---

Elizabeth Smart thread, August 31-September 7, 2002
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/742500/posts?q=1&&page=601
To: All
PREDICTION - Within one week Ed Smart will hire Mark Furhman and Fox News Channel will move their broadcasting to Salt Lake City.

611 posted on 9/3/02 7:21 PM Pacific by Sherlock

[Devil_Anse]

Tom was home in bed with his wife.

HOME IN BED WITH HIS WIFE???????? AND YOU EXPECT US TO BELIEVE THAT ALIBI???? /sarcasm

[partialpressures]

Do we know that Richard was using drugs of late? I've not found any source for this. Please share yours.

[Devil_Anse]

I don't think Ricci was the kidnapper, do you?

At times I think Ricci was the kidnapper. We have only the word of a KNOWN LIAR, Angela, to account for his whereabouts from approximately 8 p.m. June 4, to 8 a.m. June 5. Oh, well, we've also got the word of another KNOWN THIEF/BURGLAR/DECEIVER--Ricci himself--to account for that 12 hour period.

Why do I call Angela a known liar? Two reasons: first, she was convicted of forgery in the past. That sort of deception is a species of lying, in my book--and according to the general law of evidence, too. Second, I've seen with my own eyes, Angela tell one story on a question in one TV interview, then tell another story on the very same question, in another TV interview.

Jandji makes a good point that Ricci's mustache would be very distinctive. While I know of no public pictures of Ricci from the month of June, to show if he had a mustache at that time, it really looks like he probably always wears it. But then many people have come to the conclusion that Mary K. never really got a look at the kidnapper's face, in which case she wouldn't have seen the mustache anyway.

What, really, do we know that would definitely rule out that Ricci went into that house that night? The description has some problems, but the description has never been very clear thanks to the obfuscation by the Smarts and the police. Which brings me to another possibility which I sometimes consider: that maybe Elizabeth's father is somehow involved. How sad that would be.

If I had to vote just on whether it was Ed or Rick, though, I'm still leaning more towards Rick. If I were a juror of his (and he still alive) though, with only what I know as the evidence, I'd have to acquit him. There's not enough known to us, the public, to decide this question either way.

[Devil_Anse]

Do we know that Richard was using drugs of late?

In an article, or a quote from an article, on this thread, it was stated that one of the grounds for revoking Ricci's parole was failure to complete drug treatment/testing as ordered. The ONLY reason he would have made this failure would have been if he was using drugs.

[Utah Girl]

He was drinking alcohol, which is a drug, and that was violating the terms of his probation. As far as other drugs go, no, except for the fact that he wasn't going to his drug treatment programs. That was in the SL Tribune article I posted yesterday. So, no, I don't have a source on other drugs besides alcohol, but generally speaking, not going to rehab is a sure sign that one has slipped back into drug use. And if that is jumping to a conclusion, then I jump to that conclusion.

[Devil_Anse]

How insufferably above-it-all you appear sometimes. So what if Sherlock said "within one week" about Fuhrman and about "Fox News Channel will move their broadcasting to Salt Lake City"? That second part was obviously deliberate hyperbole, anyway.

You can pick a person's posts apart any way you want, but at least the poster you are mocking has tried numerous times to tie what we know together, and is willing to defend his/her views.

You needn't remind me that Sherlock has called some people names. Frankly, when I see some of the sarcastic posts sometimes, my first impulse is to go off. (That should be acknowledged, from the way I first entered this forum.) For example, you could say I called you "above-it-all," which I just did.

But your attitude of coldness towards certain people is one which clearly gives you some sort of petty satisfaction. As I said before, even people I openly criticized have been more decent and gracious. You see some other posters piling on someone such as Sherlock, and it's like you are egging them on. At least those people are engaging in a dialogue with Sherlock, instead of just engaging in petty criticism.

[Devil_Anse]

generally speaking, not going to rehab is a sure sign that one has slipped back into drug use.

I'll go further than that, Utah Girl. I will say that not going to rehab you've been ordered to go to under threat of jail is a DEFINITE sign that you are using drugs. I have seen many, many, many people who have failed to complete court-ordered rehab and/or testing. I would ask them why, in confidence, they failed to do it. WITHOUT EXCEPTION, every one would say the main reason was b/c they had been using. There is literally no other reason besides using, for a person to fail in court-ordered rehab so badly that his parole officer makes it one of the bases for asking that his parole be revoked.

[freedox]

"Police investigating Elizabeth Smart's disappearance arrested Ricci on June 14 for allegedly violating that parole by committing an April 4, 2001, burglary, possessing alcohol and failing to complete a treatment program. The 6-foot, 160-pound Ricci has had trouble with drug abuse, according to prison records."

Here's the quote from the article posted by Utah Girl (# 38). "Treatment program" is not clearly defined as to whether it was for alcohol or drug abuse. The only indication of drug abuse is based upon old prison records. Short answer.......no, based upon this source, there is no indication of Ricci using drugs (other than alcohol) since his release from prison in September, 2000.

[freedox]

Can anyone provide a reference indicating that Ricci's required "treatment program" was for DRUGS rather than for ALCOHOL?

[freedox]

Correction: Utah Girl's post is # 41.