Posted on 09/26/2002 12:34:48 AM PDT by stlnative
NEW THREAD - PING WHOM EVER YOU LIKE - I DON'T PING ANYMORE - SORRY
What's the source for this? Angela? She would have to have gotten that from the police/FBI. Or are you saying the police are the source for the above statement?
I thought the police were less than trustworthy when it came to what was said about this case? So now all of a sudden their word is Gospel?
There it is in a nutshell. There is hostility on this board for "respectable" people, or respectable-appearing people. Why, I cannot imagine, since I really think everyone posting on this board is respectable themselves.
I guess it's more fun to defend a loser, than to defend people like the Smarts--b/c maybe some posters here think the Smarts would be rejecting of them if they ever met them. Do those posters think that had they met Rick, he would have turned out to be the greatest friend they ever made?
To me it seems people can, and do, find any scenario to keep from considering Ricci as having done this.
I have so strongly felt the need to counter the unrealistic rah-rah posts about Ricci, that I haven't even had time to suspect one of the Smarts lately--and I have periodically suspected Ed or Tom or even another one. But even if a relative of Elizabeth's is involved, that doesn't make all her other relatives bad people.
Sure doesn't!
Phase One: Young man charged with serious crime. (Also beginning drug problem.) Charge begins in juvenile court, so the parent/custodian is forced to come to court and participate.
Phase Two: Young man now over legal age, no longer a minor. Charged with serious crime. Grandma, the young man's girlfriend, the girlfriend's mother, and two elderly aunts are present in court to do anything they can. Young man casts them tearful glances at times. Mysteriously, neither the young man's father nor mother is present. Don't hear much about them, maybe that's part of why the young guy is so screwed up. Grandma is scrambling to raise money for bail, and the young man asks her what is taking so long. (This is a description of a real scenario which took place in criminal court a couple weeks ago.)
Phase Three: Man, no longer young, charged with crime. Wife comes to court, maybe brings one of her relatives with her. Is ready to vouch for him if necessary. Hoping lawyer can get bond reduced so she can hock everything she and all her relatives own to bring her man home on bond.
Phase Four: He's at it again. Wife may or may not be able to make it, she has to go to work; their relationship is on the rocks, but they were trying to make it work, and she knows her little boys adore their dad.
Phase Five: He's done time by now. This time a girlfriend might show up. He would only have her come if he were sure his ex wouldn't be there; don't want any fighting outside in the hall. No relatives are interested b/c they are sick and tired of being hit up for loans, or being stolen from, so he can get drug money. Or tired of losing their real estate or cash when the man failed to appear for court and the bond was forfeited.
Phase Six: Man goes in and out of courtroom in his practiced jailhouse shuffle. Lawyer asks him what relative's name they can put down as a reference on some form. He can't think of anyone. His grandmother or other relative he'd been staying with has told him never to come back unless he makes sure not to use drugs ever again, and proves it. (One crack addict I know asked to put down her "wife's" name as the reference. She had many relatives, none wanted anything to do with her.)
Phase Seven: Man charged with serious crime. No one is there except a kindly AA or NA counselor, maybe, or a chaplain from a prison ministry.
Phase Eight: Man in court again for serious crime. No one in the "audience."
As they use drugs over and over, and get in trouble over and over, even their family finally gets fed up. If contacted, they say apologetically, yes, I know I'm his nearest kin, but I told him what he'd have to do if he ever wanted to come around my place again, and he hasn't even tried to do it.
Like breaking into the Smart neighor's home while the family was sleeping and stealing from a bedroom HE HAD WORKED IN THE VERY SAME DAY!
Angela's good friend and neighbor Andy Thurber said in a television interview he knows Angela was out on Somas the night of the kidnapping and she would have no way of knowing if Rick left the trailer or not. He said Angela told police she was sure he didn't leave then went around the neighborhood and asked the neighbors if anyone saw him leave so she would be sure there would be noone countering her testimony.
"So very true..." Please explain to us how you know that this is very true. You sound quite certain. Have you spoken to any official about the polygraphs, or seen the results?
Who in the family does it look like, is willing to tell all?
You made this post in response to a comment by Varina praising the Owens article you posted. What is it in that article that makes you say it looks like someone in the family is willing to tell all?
According to the Smart family's website, there have been no searches scheduled by the Elizabeth Smart Search Center since September 14. Has local volunteer activity in this case suddenly come to a standstill?
Where you there that night? I wasn't either but I've done some thinking on the subject and have a possible scenario. The way I've always felt it happened was that MK saw the back of the perps hand as he was pulling Elizabeth out of bed. The perp at this point probably said something to Elizabeth to make her believe that she wasn't going to be gone long and she wouldn't be hurt. MK feigned sleep at that point and waited until they were out of the room before she got up. As she was leaving her room to sound the alarm she saw the perp roughly helping Elizabeth down the stairs. This is the point were MK saw them together for the first time. Elizabeth had her shoes on and they were going down stairs. Even if Elizabeth was standing erect going down the stairs the perp might have been slumped over a bit.
I think that Elizabeth may have hesitated at the top of the stairs which caused the abductor to issue a very strong threat. MK heard that threat and believed it would have gotten her sister killed if she told her parents. There were two conflicting messages that MK had to deal with. The one stating that Elizabeth wouldn't be gone long and the second message that was a clear threat. I've always wondered why they haven't released the text of what the perp said that night. What clue would there be in that wording that would cause the police to withhold that information?
Perhaps I'm a die hard but I'm not ready to give up on the idea of Richard Ricci being the man who entered the Smarts home that night. I certainly don't think MK's eyewitness account of the perps height clears him. It's not like Elizabeth and the abductor were standing for a photo so that MK could tell exactly. Things were happening fast and Liz was being moved quickly down the stairs.
We also have been told that the voice of the perp was at least familiar to MK. I'm sure that LE has put all of the people that MK knew through the hopper. For sure Ricci's name would pop out of that process and perhaps others we are not aware of. It has been reported that Richard did not have dark hair on the backs of his hands. The one picture (wedding) that we have seen is inconclusive. He certainly had dark hair on his arms but it is not obvious as to his hands. It is also important to remember that the lighting may have not been good, the back of the perps hands may have been right in MK's face as he reached into the bed, and this is a 9 year old girl who was waking from a sleeping state.
Tom's was inconclusive. That is not a failing grade. In my business I work with people who have high security clearances. A friend of mine had to take his polygraph test four times in order to get a passing grade. The reason they administered it that many times was because they had thoroughly investigated him and he was squeaky clean but there was a bureaucratic rule that said he had to pass. My friend was a humble honest man who was simply nervous about the process involved. I personally don't take much stock in the damned machines and neither do the courts. A compulsive liar can pass them with ease and an innocent but nervous citizen will fail or get an inconclusive result. I believe that future historians will look at our use of lie detector machines as laughable and foolish.
Yours is an incredibly insightful post, partialpressures. I was reminded of an exchange that took place some weeks ago (Sept. 8/9) between myself and cookiedough. She had made reference to M. Scott Peck's book, "People of the Lie," and had made the observation herself that "evil does masquerade as light." Intrigued by her statement, I did some research and found a quote from Peck's book, wherein he describes those who are "evil":
(Page 75) "Utterly dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, they are unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity. They are acutely sensitive to social norms and what others might think of them. They seem to live lives that are above reproach. The words "image", "appearance" and "outwardly" are crucial to understanding the morality of 'the evil'. While they lack any motivation to be good, they intensely desire to appear good. Their goodness is all on a level of pretense. It is in effect a lie.......It often happens then that 'the evil' may be recognized by its very disguise. Because they are such experts at disguise, it is seldom possible to pinpoint the maliciousness of 'the evil'. The disguise is usually impenetrable."
I think that cookiedough said a mouthful when she made the observation that "evil does masquerade as light." I think your post hits the nail on the head as well.
Sept. 14 was about the time that Ed stopped appearing in public - haven't seen any recent articles, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.