If I ever, EVER, made a comment on Ed's slacks, I would not have used the word "beige." Tan, a light tan, would have been my description of the color.
Secondly, JG, Elizabeth is the victim! Until LE says the family members (neighbors & friends, too) have been completely cleared, they remain persons whose actions, and lack of action, continue to need further investigation.
One of Ed's first actions is a strong reason for suspicion, not so much of Ed being the culprit, but whether a gun was mentioned at that time, plus the lack of the public being allowed to hear the 911 tape.
As for MY wild theories, I had one main theory. It hinged on Moul's accuracy. I stand by it.
From the very beginning, JG, you slammed anyone as "ridiculous," then switched to calling them "sophomoric" when their opinions didn't jibe with your attempts to sway everyone to "Ricci is guilty" when even the police couldn't tie him to the crime. Some people may have left these threads later on because of my remarks, but plenty more left early on because of your remarks.
And that's exactly the way you want it. I don't know what your vested interest is in this case, whether or not you're just a person who always wants to be an attention grabber via insults for a sense of power. Or, if you know more about the workings, finances, etc., perhaps sexual practices of higher ups, of the LDS church - have a need to protect the image, to scare off anyone who might be so inclined to give us some deep details.
As for patting yourself on the back for what you say I consider "slamming others," while good you are only pointing out "flaws in logic and common sense, and taking posters to task for smearing the victims in this case without any evidence whatsoever," JG, you overlook that you have provided no proof either of Ricci's guilt. What has been reported in media is often in error, therefore not always a source of concrete, credible proof.
Your posts become more stupid every day. Every member of the Smart family, who love and miss Elizabeth are also victims, moron!
One of Ed's first actions is a strong reason for suspicion, not so much of Ed being the culprit, but whether a gun was mentioned at that time, plus the lack of the public being allowed to hear the 911 tape.
The police have said there was a gun. Ed is not the only one saying there was a gun. You are hanging your "case" on your ASSUMPTION that there was no gun. Gee, for some reason I prefer to believe the cops over your half-baked theory. 911 tapes are not always released. Take the current Beltway Sniper case. Have you heard the tapes of the sniper's conversations with the police? LE generally has a reason for things they do or don't do and often don't even need a reason if there is no immediate benefit. If there was something about the tapes that would help in a search, they probably would have been released - long ago.
As for MY wild theories, I had one main theory. It hinged on Moul's accuracy. I stand by it.
Gee, here again I prefer to believe the cops rather than your sophomoric theory. You can "stand by it" as long as you want, but you have no proof. Zip, zero, nada.
From the very beginning, JG, you slammed anyone as "ridiculous," then switched to calling them "sophomoric" when their opinions didn't jibe with your attempts to sway everyone to "Ricci is guilty" when even the police couldn't tie him to the crime. Some people may have left these threads later on because of my remarks, but plenty more left early on because of your remarks.
Nonsense. I have repeatedly asked questions of new posters and their theories trying to get them to back up their theories with a modicum of proof. This has typically resulted in an attack on me. People don't like having their theories questioned - no matter how preposterous. You fall into that category.
I have never assumed that Ricci was guilty and have always been open minded. However, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, there is a real good chance its a duck. You THINK you are so smart, on a 10 scale, who even comes close to Ricci as a probable perp - with actual evidence, not theory? Answer: Ricci.
And that's exactly the way you want it. I don't know what your vested interest is in this case, whether or not you're just a person who always wants to be an attention grabber via insults for a sense of power. Or, if you know more about the workings, finances, etc., perhaps sexual practices of higher ups, of the LDS church - have a need to protect the image, to scare off anyone who might be so inclined to give us some deep details.
Grasping again, lakey? I have no vested interest in the case. Having two daughters the ages of the Smart daughters I resent the outrageous attacks on the Smart family and the LDS church on these threads - without even the slightest bit of proof. How about this snide, scummy little comment: perhaps sexual practices of higher ups, of the LDS church - have a need to protect the image Gee, it seems like your real agenda is to smear the Church rather than find a culprit. Do you have any actual evidence to support this comment?
You are a disgusting, immature, insensitive, ignorant fool. As for patting yourself on the back for what you say I consider "slamming others," while good you are only pointing out "flaws in logic and common sense, and taking posters to task for smearing the victims in this case without any evidence whatsoever," JG, you overlook that you have provided no proof either of Ricci's guilt. What has been reported in media is often in error, therefore not always a source of concrete, credible proof.