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
Why would he need an address if he was paying him off in cash and a vehicle? It's not like he was keeping books and records on his itinerent employees.
I don't believe he does in the story in today's SLC tribune.
Please show the proof that he paid his employees in cash and that he kept no books? The only place I've ever heard that is from the Smart haters. The fact that he knew Richards address shows that he was keeping books.
No it doesn't. He could have had Ricci's address for a number of reasons -- none of which we know, of course. I said "IF" he was paying him in cash and a vehicle. That seemed to be the case early on, mostly from what Ed himself said regarding the vehicle trade-off for work.
I can only think of one, Richard was his employee. Care to elaborate on your innuendo?
No it doesn't. I don't know if Ed was keeping books on his workmen or not, but this is certainly not proof of it.
You're right, it isn't proof but it is an indication that he was keeping books. There are no indications that he was not.
I can think of another one......Richard had his jeep.
Alright, that's two.
I would like to hear all the neighbors interviewed. In time !
This is an assumption on your part. There has never been a statement that there was not a gun. FWIS Last nights AMW re-enactment showed a gun.
You're right, there hasn't been a direct statement that there was not a gun. Instead, it has just seemingly "disappeared" from everyone's account of that night. The gun is the one thing that distinguishes this case as a forced abduction. I think it is very strange that it's the one detail that does not appear in this article. We'll see if it resurfaces in subsequent articles.
The younger girl acts "almost like it never happened," he said softly.
Hmmm, maybe there wasn't a gun involved?
We can only hope!
This particular quote doesn't seem to fit with the "armed gunman" scenario. Why would an armed gunman take his victim to an all-night convenience store or a restaurant? I also noticed the phrase, "...in the hope Elizabeth hadn't gotten far." No mention of Elizabeth being in the company of an armed abductor. Of course, I am not taking the statements of Sueann Adams as proof of anything.....I just find this particular statement to be inconsistent with the "armed gunman" story.
Maybe because she has some reason to believe the man isn't so dangerous? That he might be someone who would eventually bring her sister back? Who knows.
Wouldn't tell her Daddy?
Ed tells the SLC Tribune writer that she said a three word statement..and then later, downstairs, says another dry statement?
Sorry, that I won't believe. Is Mary Katherine a normal child? I mean she isn't challenged, is she? The reason I ask, is because normally a chlld of that age, would know what a threat was, more than a 4 yr. old. But a "challenged" young girl, may not come right out with it.
This is in no way anything other than a question to answer the possibility of why she would not tell. If she did tell..THAT should be upper most in any interview. ELIZABETH + GUN + ABDUCTION...is the story.
And...It should have been the first thing out of Ed's mouth to 911
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.