Replies

I believe Moul, too, and agree that Ricci keeps himself under suspicion by denying he took the Jeep.

Ricci didn't offer to help with the search, probably, because he knew the cops would question him on this and he wanted to avoid them as long as possible. So he continued to act "normally" in the context of whatever he had planned for the day.

It's possible that Ricci has told all to the cops, but the cops haven't told the media that, so as not to compromise their investigation.

It's also possible that the trail is cold, the cops haven't learned much more than we know.

Except for the Jeep scenario, there isn't any commonly known evidence that Ricci is involved in this kidnapping, not even circumstantial. The fact that he committed some crimes doesn't mean that he committed this one.

So I'm with you -- Ricci could be a red herring.

Do you ever think about the circumstances of your life -- and how they could be twisted by the media and the public if, God forbid, someone took your child?

Innocent, ordinary things can be blown out of proportion and made out to be motives or neglect of the child. For instance, having a large student loan debt could be construed as having sold the child to get out of debt. If the mother works, she can be blamed for not having supervised the child properly. If the family is Mormon, the crime can be linked to polygamy, simply because that is what many non-Mormons know about that religion's history. If the family is Catholic, perhaps a gang of sex-starved priests took the child. If the yard man is a convicted felon, perhaps he took the child.

I got to thinking about it, because my life is ordinary. I take care of my house and family, I homeschool, I live in the suburbs, and so forth. But nearly everything about this ordinary life of mine could be twisted into something sinister if one of my children were kidnapped.