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

[stlnative]

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

[freedox]

"This gives you a true sense of the deep hatred of the Smarts on these threads."

By whom?

[Devil_Anse]

Oh, dear. Sorry, I didn't look at the addressee. Hope you won't mind if I opine about your post to Jolly Green?

(That darned O'Reilly Factor. "Opine." Sheesh.)

Let's see if we can track this back, sleuths, and venture to guess about this "deep hatred of the Smarts."

Well, when I posted something to the effect that maybe Tom WASN'T the abductor after all, I got a reply from Bella that reminded me of his "inconclusive" polygraph. Also, I read a post by her to Varina which critiqued mine (in which I gave Tom benefit of doubt), and Bella gave one of her trademark condescending little "lol..." things. (Oh--was I supposed to not read Bella's remark to Varina?)

Does it show deep hatred of the Smarts? Nope, not from just the above. Doesn't exactly show teary-eyed affection for them, either.

[Sherlock]

Their shift would not have ended until around 7 a.m.

Well, if there shift ended at 7:00 am you'd have to go by Winchell's Donuts to find them anytime after 5:30.

Did you hear about the woman in Northern California who had someone breaking in her home and called 911 and kept getting a busy signal. Being a thinking person she grabbed her phonebook and looked under W and got the phone number of the nearest Winchell's Donuts and called and asked if there was a police officer there. There was, and he came over to her house and captured the intruder.

[Sherlock]

"This gives you a true sense of the deep hatred of the Smarts on these threads."

By whom?

All the bad posters like freedox, spore_gasm, neenah, varina davis, bella, fr_addict, iwo_jima, lakey, partialpressures, chocolate chip cookie, and all the other Ricci lovers (sorry for those of you I missed, I've been away a while). Basically everyone but the thinking posters, Utah Girl, sandude, Sherlock, Jolly Green, Government Shrinker, CookieDough, you know, all the good guys and gals.

[Devil_Anse]

I love that story about the police at Winchell's Donuts!!
Hilarious!!

As for your other post, Sherlock, you are the most fearless poster I've ever seen.

I guess we've got the sides for the Red Rover game...

[partialpressures]

whatever, like who cares? groups are for sissys..

[partialpressures]

Cool that you are an attorney! I find the law facinating. Do you have a favorite area?

[cherry]

HEY.....you forgot me....I'm a bad poster and have been called every name in the book by the "good" posters....lol

it is interesting that the "good" posters seem to have no doubts about any of the Smarts or , their extended family.....while we "bad" posters have postulated theories including everybody and their brother....and then some....

now, who is open-minded and receptive and who has closed off any discussion not to their liking.....

HMMMMMMMMMMMMM......

[Jolly Green]

it is interesting that the "good" posters seem to have no doubts about any of the Smarts or , their extended family.....while we "bad" posters have postulated theories including everybody and their brother....and then some....

Being open-minded implies common sense and making use of known facts - which many of you continue to ignore. Curiously, not a single one of the "postulated theories" that define your clique have ever provided even one single fact supporting these bogus theories. NOT ONE. That isn't being open-minded. That is being stupid.

Sherlock, Devil, sandude, and I (and a few others) are very open-minded to other possibilities, if you could provide any evidence. We would all switch sides in a New York minute if you could offer anything but speculaiton.

[Devil_Anse]

OTOH, Jolly Green, it does take a certain openmindedness to believe that Angela and Richard Ricci's relationship was a love affair to rival Rhett and Scarlett...

[Palladin]

Your brother was right. The following is from: Title 77. Utah Code of Criminal Procedure

Chapter 27. Pardons and Paroles

77-27-11 Revocation of parole.

(1) The board may revoke the parole of any person who is found to have violated any condition of his parole.

(2) (a) If a parolee is detained by the Department of Corrections or any law enforcement official for a suspected violation of parole, the Department of Corrections shall immediately report the alleged violation to the board, by means of an incident report, and make any recommendation regarding the incident.

(b) No parolee may be held for a period longer than 72 hours, excluding weekends and holidays, without first obtaining a warrant.

(3) Any member of the board may issue a warrant based upon a certified warrant request to a peace officer or other persons authorized to arrest, detain, and return to actual custody a parolee, and may upon arrest or otherwise direct the Department of Corrections to determine if there is probable cause to believe that the parolee has violated the conditions of his parole.

(4) Upon a finding of probable cause, a parolee may be further detained or imprisoned again pending a hearing by the board or its appointed examiner.

(5) (a) The board or its appointed examiner shall conduct a hearing on the alleged violation, and the parolee shall have written notice of the time and place of the hearing, the alleged violation of parole, and a statement of the evidence against him.

(b) The board or its appointed examiner shall provide the parolee the opportunity:

(i) to be present;

(ii) to be heard;

(iii) to present witnesses and documentary evidence;

(iv) to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, absent a showing of good cause for not allowing the confrontation; and

(v) to be represented by counsel when the parolee is mentally incompetent or pleading not guilty.

(c) If heard by an appointed examiner, the examiner shall make a written decision which shall include a statement of the facts relied upon by the examiner in determining the guilt or innocence of the parolee on the alleged violation and a conclusion as to whether the alleged violation occurred. The appointed examiner shall then refer the case to the board for disposition.

(d) Final decisions shall be reached by majority vote of the members of the board sitting and the parolee shall be promptly notified in writing of the board's findings and decision.

(6) Parolees found to have violated the conditions of parole may, at the discretion of the board, be returned to parole, have restitution ordered, or be imprisoned again as determined by the board, not to exceed the maximum term, or be subject to any other conditions the board may impose within its discretion.

---

I have access to the entire Utah Criminal Code, if there is anything else you need to know about it.

[partialpressures]

Sorry to ask, but what are you talking about? Rhett and Scarlet? I think you've been reading too many Hatfield and McCoy sagas. It could be blood runs deep, but I'm lost here. ;)

[partialpressures]

"To: Jolly Green

OTOH, Jolly Green, it does take a certain openmindedness to believe that Angela and Richard Ricci's relationship was a love affair to rival Rhett and Scarlett...


950 posted on 10/2/02 9:12 PM Central by Devil_Anse"

Just for reference on the new page. ;)

[partialpressures]

---

To: Devil_Anse

Okay, now I'm confused. I came to this discussion late and I'm sure I've missed something in catching up. Maybe you can clarify it for me. Are you saying you are an attorney? I thought I read a reference to your practicing.

Thanks DA!


937 posted on 10/2/02 5:29 PM Central by partialpressures

To: partialpressures

Yes, partialpressures, I have said that.

What I want to know now is, is Jo6pac a psychiatrist?


940 posted on 10/2/02 5:45 PM Central by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 937 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Just keeping track here. I get lost going from page to page. ;)

[Sherlock]

Please accept my deepest apologies that I forgot you, Cherry ;^}

[trussell]

That is tooo cool!!

I will have to remember that, the next time I need a Police Officer.

Thank you for sharing it.

[Neenah]

Thank you Palladin. I appreciate your time on this and your offer. Very much. thanks.

[Bella]

I'm just saying, you shd check on that and get back with Bella, who is the first attorney I've ever seen who seemed to believe in them 100% completely.

I did NOT state that I believed in them 100% completely...it's time that you stop twisting what's said..all I did was post what has been reported in many different media reports.

[Bella]

If you want to interject Bella in a post that has nothing to do with her, then people will see exactly what worth you have.

You're so right Neenah...I'm certain that all the readers/posters on this board are aware of Devil's agenda and "worth" as you say...

[FR_addict]

Thanks to both of you for your thoughtful responses. sandude, I disagree about the term "Smart haters" being inoffensive. It is offensive to me. Being suspicious and hating are two very different things. To call someone a "Smart hater" is to demean their thoughts and opinions by reducing them to mere hatefulness. As you know, I am one of those posters who has repeatedly questioned the behavior of the Smart family. It doesn't mean I "hate" them......it simply means that I believe they know more than they are saying, and are perhaps attempting to hide information that might be pertinent to the case. I am just looking for clues here......I am not looking to nail anyone to the wall because I "hate" them.

I think the "group mentality" that has developed on these threads has been very detrimental to all of us. There are a number of posters here who question the Smarts' behavior......that does not mean that I am in lockstep with them. Once again, to toss one person's thoughts and opinions into a generic classification of "Smart hater" or "Smart lover" is detrimental to what we are doing. If we're going to divide ourselves up into "Smart haters" and "Smart lovers," we might as well only have two individuals posting here.

Jolly, you insist upon "evidence" of the Smarts' possible involvement or complicity in Elizabeth's disappearance. The statements and behaviors of the major players in this saga ARE evidence to us armchair detectives. I think it's safe to say that most of us here aren't at our first rodeo.....we've all followed crime investigations before. Each of us looks for clues based upon our own past experience. Some of us tend to focus upon "hard evidence".....some of us lean more toward intuition and things that just don't seem to pass the "smell test." I'm sure the same can be said of the detectives who are working the case.

I can only speak for myself here. My questioning of the Smart family is based upon how I perceive their BEHAVIOR. It is not based upon a personal hatred of them, jealousy over their social status or distaste for their religious beliefs. As sandude stated long ago, this case is a darn good mystery......I think that choosing up sides into "Smart haters" vs. "Smart lovers" does it a great injustice.

Excellent Post!