To: scaredkat
Glad to read your views on this, Scaredkat.
I have another question to add to your list:
The article says one of the things missing after the 2001 sneak thefts at the Smarts' was a $1000 bracelet of Lois'.
The article also says police determined that Ricci pawned this bracelet.
Pawn shops are required to keep detailed records.
Why, the minute police determined Ricci pawned that bracelet, which was clearly stolen goods, was Ricci not charged with Receiving Stolen Property? When exactly was it found out by police that Ricci pawned that bracelet?
For Receiving Stolen Property, they'd have had to prove that he held control over goods which he knew, or which he should have known, were stolen. Seems a pawn shop video and/or its receipts showing the driver's license #, etc., of the person pawning, would provide proof that Ricci had control over the bracelet. As for whether he knew/should have known it had been stolen, that would probably follow--you can bet he pawned it for much less than its value. That tends to show he didn't "pay" much to get the bracelet. (IMO, he paid nothing for it of course, he got it on a "5-finger discount.")
When did they find out he pawned it, and why was he not charged right after they found out?
To: Devil_Anse
When did they find out he pawned it, and why was he not charged right after they found out? No need to rush. They already had him locked back up on his parole violation.
622 posted on
09/30/2002 3:50:04 AM PDT by
sandude
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson