To: sandude
The Smarts had no knowledge of Ricci's criminal background and were apparently conned by him. They liked him, trusted him, and couldn't believe that he was involved with Elizabeths abduction until he pulled his stonewall act with them and LE.That's really the big boulder among the pebbles, isn't it?
I know NE is taken a bit more seriously than those other tabloids, but this sex-journal story ranks pretty low because:
- It doesn't say much - other than allege things;
- It's unverified (and NE itself could have followed it up, surely, if other papers won't touch it);
- The police themselves have said there's no "nexus" to the crime.
To: anatolfz
No NE article ever says much, other than to allege things.
That's one reason I read them in the aisle, the few times I bother (b/c there's so little "meat," and they deliberately have no table of contents)--instead of buying them.
You're using reason in this post, aren't you? Good luck. They don't like that "reason" stuff! They prefer nonsensical, lurid accounts of Ed "spilling his DNA" in the jeep!
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson