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

[stlnative]

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

[Devil_Anse]

Were you there with them? How else would you know for sure?

I guess Varina and Freedox were with Richard at all times from Sept. 12, 2000, when he was paroled, until June 14, 2002. That's how they know he never used drugs. They were in that bed (must've been a king-size; maybe Damon and Brenda were there too) with the Riccis the night of June 4-5, too b/c of course there is just no question that Richard was home in bed with his wife. We know what a homebody he was.

Tom is suspicious, and weird, but I've never heard that he walked around inside anyone else's house at night w/o permission, gazing at sleeping young women and helping himself to cash from their dressers. If I hear he has done such a thing, that's different. Also, to my knowledge, Heidi has never forged a check and done time for it--as Angela has.

[varina davis]

I think people who are not afraid to say "I think" or "maybe" or "sounds like"

Hi Sherlock...

[varina davis]

Were you there in bed with the Riccis? How can you be so sure THEY were home in bed together?

Never stated they were.

[Devil_Anse]

Sherlock, when are you going to switch over to your alter-ego, Devil_Anse?

No, Varina! Some sleuth, you! Sherlock is Cynthia Collier, and I'm the Smarts' brother Elvis Smart--the one you don't hear much about.

[Sherlock]

He used drugs...

Ricci -- who once shot and wounded a police officer during a burglary -- has spent much of the past 30 years behind bars. Since his first adult conviction for burglary in 1972, he has been convicted of theft, escape from custody, aggravated robbery and attempted murder.

He has escaped or absconded from Utah State Prison twice, the first time in 1978, when he failed to return from a home visit during Easter weekend; and again in 1983, when he subsequently fired a sawed-off shotgun at an officer who interrupted him during the burglary of a Salt Lake City drug store, according to Salt Lake Tribune news stories from the time.

If you believe Ricci didn't use drugs while out on parole, you would probably hire Madelyne Toogood as a nanny, or hire her husband, Mr. Nobody-Knows-His-Name to do the roof.

ROFLMBO!!!

[Devil_Anse]

I don't know about the knots on that shoelace-looking thing I saw tied on Jonbenet (tabloid pictures, I think.) The scouts idea is a good one--there was probably a scout manual around if either Burke OR John had ever been a scout. (People keep those old scouting manuals.) If Burke had been one, one of the parents may have learned some knots in the process of helping him learn his--that's the case with me, anyway, I've learned some while helping a boy learn them for scouts.

I always thought Jonbenet died from the fractured skull and the "garrotte" was perhaps something the killer put on her later to confuse things and make it look more like a "serial" or "psycho" killer. If John or Patsy put the knotted string/rope/whatever on her after the fact, some of the knots could have been tied beforehand (either by them or by the boy practicing tying knots.)

Did Patsy ever do crocheting or macrame? Someone like that knows a lot about such things.

[sandude]

One of the most important reasons for FBI agents to move in with the family in this situation is to be there in case a ransom demand is received. I'm sure this is standard procedure and I'm sure that the agents who receive these kinds of assignments are specially trained to watch the family for tell tale signs of involvement. An agent in this situation would almost certainly be able to detect signs of coaching and other forms of coercion by an involved family member or members.

[freedox]

"Were you and Freedox with Richard Ricci every moment of his parole, is that how you and Freedox know for sure that "the short answer is no," that he didn't use drugs?"

For the record, Devil_Anse has twisted and misconstrued yet another of my posts.......sighhhhhhhhh. What I said in post # 158 was, "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." The question pertained to whether or not there was documentation of recent drug use by Ricci. I don't believe anyone has produced any such documentation yet.

[Devil_Anse]

He used heroin while out on parole. Here's an article, which I know you've seen, that says the SL Tribune has interviewed something like 28 investigators, and they use those interviews as the basis for saying that Ricci was a hard-core heroin addict who targeted the Smart home for theft in 2001 b/c he needed quick cash.

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:sFZuafDhau8C:www.sltrib.com/09012002/utah/767291.htm+%22Richard+Ricci%22+heroin&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Jolly Green]

I'll debate facts supported with source. Anything else would be meaningless drivel on my part.

Ah, come on! That doesn't stop a lot of the other posters, LOL.

[Sherlock]

Yet people on this thread had it all figured out and worked it so Ricci did it, right down to being the ROAST PIG GUY..or used a POST HOLE DIGGER to dig for a BODY for crying out loud!! It almost makes me laugh to remember that. That is why I started posting stupid pictures. This thing is so absurd that I would hate to tell anyone of the things that are discussed here!!

To: All

This is just a short interruption here...THIS is one brilliant poster in the Van Dam case, that explains the RUSH TO JUDGEMENT in the Van Dam case. This is documented, and I find it a wonderful explanation, that has been discussed over and over for two months by FReepers. NOT CONSPIRACY ZELOTS...but real people who are paying attention, and calling FOUL.

Here it is......(and I will not post more on it, but something to think about as we are being called conspiracy all the time people....there is TOO MUCH EVIDENCE that has to be recieved, before we can make a blanketed statement on WHO did this Elizabeth Smart crime.....read these facts, that are told over and over on the VD thread, and summed up here......*************************************************

There was no blood seen on his jacket by the cleaners at any time ... before cleaning or after cleaning. The police picked up the jacket before Westerfield got it back. Lo and behold, "blood" was found on it. One FReeper mentioned that heat destroys DNA, so how could any "blood" DNA have survived the heat of dry cleaning?

As far as the palm print is concerned, they never found any of her prints in the motorhome until AFTER they found her body and rehydrated her hands. Then they went back to check ... and lo and behold, they found a print. Come to your own conclusion. I did. This has also been discussed in detail in prior threads.

The San Diego Police Department has been documented in planting false evidence in prior cases. Discussed on prior threads.

The close personal friend who advised Brenda Van Dam from the beginning is a retired policewoman. The head of a local swinger club is a retired policeman. There's more police & PR firm involvement/friendships that makes one suspicious as to Westerfield's being made a scapegoat and railroaded for a crime he didn't commit.

There's a whole lot more stuff. Too much to go into in a short comment here. Like the blue paint under her fingernails, the dark hair under her body, unidentified fingerprints, unidentified blood, DNA in her bed, etc etc etc. NONE of this can be traced to Westerfield. NOR HAS IT BEEN SUBJECTED TO FORENSIC TESTING. Just some stupid fibers that are common (similar to) in today's WalMart market.

And they ignored the blood on her pajamas and beanbag chair, by the way. They didn't test the spot in the carpet either that Demon VanDam steam cleaned before the police got there. They didn't identify the fingerprints on the outside door or the blood on the cement outside or the drag marks outside. They didn't put her journal into testimony where she has some very telling comments - the type of comments that sexually-abused children use.

But all of that evidence in the Van Dam home can never be tested in the future. They re-carpeted and re-painted the entire house. All evidence is lost forever. We will never know, probably, the real killer of little Danielle.

I believe Westerfield was set up by a swingers group and that he is not just "not guilty" but that he is INNOCENT of this horrible crime.

Post # 59, Aug. 9, 2000 DELIBERATIONS RESUME

52 posted on 8/9/02 12:22 PM Central by Neenah

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies | Report --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[jandji]

IMHO, the story was changed because; if the "intruder" had spoke to MK, it shows he saw her in the bed with Liz. this version makes more sense as to why MK had to wait 2 hours to tell her parents. However, this conflicts with MK seeing the "intruder" in 2 places in the home. Difference between Mk directly being threatened and Mk just overhearing something is huge.

[freedox]

"Unfortunately, I just don't have time to track down the articles which discussed this....."

GS, I fully understand how time consuming it can be to make sure that one's statements of fact are sourced and documented. Without some documentation, I will simply accept your statements as opinion only. Perhaps you can at least provide a source for your assertion that "basic standards of investigation" would include a parent being asked not to discuss an extrememly traumatic event with a 9 y/o child?

[Devil_Anse]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56167,00.html

"Colmes: All right, it was also reported today that this was a man who told his parole officer he was in a substance abuse program, but then it turned out he was not in a substance abuse program."

[Sherlock]

Difference between Mk directly being threatened and Mk just overhearing something is huge.

What do you mean by this?

[Jolly Green]

You use an awful lot of "I think" and "sounds like," which pretty much makes your posts less than credible.

Sherlock is merely indicatig the comment was his personal opinion - rather than posting an opinion as fact, which you are prone to do.

[Jolly Green]

Undoubtedly you have a source to back up that statement -- since you are so careful to only post "facts."

As a matter of fact, I do.

[Sherlock]

Well, Devil, maybe the substance was alcohol. Alcohol is a substance you know.

[Sherlock]

I've tried to tell all the Smart haters it was LE's decision not to bring in Boylan. This from the same article:

COLMES: David, you know, Marc Klaas, Polly's father, has been on this program a couple of times, said he wanted to bring in a particular profiler, Jeanne Boylan, who profiled the Unabomber and a number of other people, including the abductor of his child, and that he did not meet with a favorable reception.

Was there a sense on your part whether this would be a good idea to bring in this particular profiler who might be able to help?

FRANCOM: We have had so many people call up and offer their services and offer their advice and tips and clues, and we have turned every single one of those over to the police and to the law enforcement, and we want them to handle every aspect of it.

We don't want to go down a different avenue that may, in fact, negatively impact what the police are doing. We have confidence that they're doing what they need to be doing, and so, you know, whether somebody offers their services or not, we appreciate that, but we are turning it over to the police and let them make that decision.

[Sherlock]

Continued:

COLMES: He was saying that he said that he wanted to do it, but the family, indeed, got in the way. It was the family who did not want this particular profiler to be involved.

FRANCOM: My understanding is that we have no knowledge of who would be the best profiler or not, and that's why we are asking the police to use their experience and their understanding as to who would be the best one in this case and who they should use.

DUMKE: We want someone that will work with the police and that they have a good relationship. I think it's very important. We don't want to meddle in this investigation and ruin something, that we need to be sure that we need to follow their protocol and how they want things done.