Replies

Freedox, what if Ricci's parole officer had filed a request for revocation of his parole in early June, with the following alleged violations: 1) possession of alcohol, in violation of terms of probation, 2) failure to complete drug rehab (which is the same as using, yes, it is--if you are consistently not using, they don't care if you didn't do your rehab, b/c you are already "rehabbed"), 3) new offense (his confessions to burglary and theft--the new offense needn't be proved to constitute grounds for parole violation.)

Then suppose it was discovered (perhaps through urine tests, of which I'm sure Ricci had a lot, they'd have been required), right around June 5, all the way up to June 14, that Ricci's urine was "clean."

At that point, the parole officer would have removed the ground of failure to complete drug rehab. He didn't--b/c every article we see has that thing in it about one of the grounds for parole violation having been "failure to complete rehab. program."

Alcohol rehab? What sort of programs ARE there for court-ordered alcohol rehab? They are inpatient programs, the 28-day type of thing. We have never heard a thing about Ricci being in one of these. Ricci was signed up for drug rehab, b/c it was a condition of his parole. No, AA is not a court-ordered alcohol rehab program, or at least it is not monitored and no one's parole could ever be violated for failure to "complete" AA, b/c AA will never tell any court whether or not a person has been attending, due to their policy of complete confidentiality.

Don't forget, one of the articles said Ricci had said his drug-abuse preference was for heroin or "prescription medicines." Could an addict really live in a home w/ Soma without taking one now and then? Well, there's a 1% chance he could...

Ricci's house, vehicles and workplace were all thoroughly searched by LE following Ricci's arrest. This was done with Ricci's permission. No mention was ever made of any illicit drugs or drug paraphernalia being found, nor were any drug possession charges filed against Ricci. If Ricci had been actively using illicit drugs at the time of his arrest, it would have been easily detected. Why would it not have been reported?

Here's something that has nothing to do with Ricci using drugs, but I found it really bizarre. It tells of some guy travelling btw California and Arizona about 1986, and he meets a "stranger" named Richard Ricci, who takes him in. Later he's in a car driven by Ricci, and...well, read this.

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:R4GLwzIf6RcC:www.umanisti.it/karl/KscriveIngl.htm+%22Richard+Ricci%22+heroin&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Surely this is not our Richard Ricci...but our Ricci WAS paroled in 1983, wasn't he? Wonder how long he stayed out on that parole, and where he lived?

Ricci was signed up for drug rehab, b/c it was a condition of his parole.

It's been well established that Richard Ricci was a drug user. It's been well established that Ricard Ricci had a long-time criminal record. It's been well established that Ricard Ricci worked as a handyman for Ed Smart and allegedly pilfered items from the Smart home.

But even if he was stoned out of his mind from May 1 through June 30, it doesn't mean he had anything to do with the disappearance of Elizabeth Smart. Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence linking him to the disappearance.