Since when does "just a potential theft" justify failing to inform a citizen that he has an ex-con working in his home? Ricci's criminal history is a matter of public record. There would have been no reason in the world for this information to have been kept secret from Ed. I have to wonder if the investigating officers have ADMITTED that they failed to inform Ed of Ricci's history, or if this is just Ed's story. Assuming again??? You are assuming that the theft occurred, the police were notified and the workers were fired, when in reality the last too happened in the reverse order. In other words, after the burglary, the three workers were no longer working in the home - as we have previously been told - totally blowing your theory out of the water.
Well, Jolly, I'm not sure just what "theory" of mine you're saying has been blown out of the water. Chief Dinse himself said that Ed Smart should have been informed of Ricci's criminal history by the officers investigating the theft. Here's the direct quote from the article, in case you missed it:
"Officers should have passed along whatever they may have discovered about Ricci's criminal past, Dinse said."