Elizabeth Smart Thread, 9/9/02 to ???

[stlnative]

New thread...

[sandude]

Well I am suspicious of anything reported in the NE. It it's true it will come out in the main stream press shortly.

[sandude]

Guess those who have inquiring minds will have to buy it to find out details.

Don't you mean those who can stand the stench?

[lakey]

RE: #522 - Not taking your version of Angela's statements into consideration - she was on t.v., answering questions off the top of her head, & surely under stress.

I have to ask, do you really know for sure, for certain, more than the Grand Jury about Angela's testimony? Do you have some special interest in this case beyond mere speculation?

Don't forget, she passed a lie detector test & two appearances before the Grand Jury. The GJ didn't indict her.

[varina davis]

Well I am suspicious of anything reported in the NE. It it's true it will come out in the main stream press shortly.

Sandude! I'm really surprised at that statement. As a good conservative, do you really believe reading something in the "mainstream press" makes it more accurate??!! And does confirmation in the "mainstream press" give the NE more creditability in your mind? Just curious.

[lakey]

For the most part, you're right about NE. I never buy it. However, they have been on the mark with a few stories - don't ask me which ones.

[Sherlock]

Thought you and several others on this thread discounted all reports from the NE as tabloid trash. Now you like what you hear from NE?

I read what they have to say, learned that from Men in Black. Skeptical of it all and don't believe anything unless there is other documentation to support it. Sometimes what they write is true and sometimes it's not. As I said, I've heard it implied there were problems between SLCPD & the FBI, Ed Smart has had problems with the investigation, and I certainly have had problems with the fact they've ignored this guy with the white baseball hat who fits the description seen by the milkman, on the Federal Heights convenience store video shortly before the kidnapping, by Fred Trujillo at Shriner's, by MK, by the searchers in Emigration Canyon, by the searchers at the pig roast pit, and by Moul on Jun 8. I didn't say I will believe what NE says but I have long believed there seems to be a problem with the SLCPD. I don't accuse them because it could be because they don't have sure evidence on this guy until Liz or her body are found and don't want to lose a trial and then have a body and more evidence appear. I can't believe SLCPD doesn't know who this guy is. If they don't, I think they're a bunch of Barny Fife's there in SLC.

[Devil_Anse]

"Grand jury testimony is not available to the public--as you well know."

That doesn't change the fact that you said: "Moul has not given 'testimony', he has talked to TV reporters, which is vastly different."

Muddying the waters as usual, Varina. No wonder you've had some posters thinking maybe you were Angela Ricci!

[sandude]

The NE is tawdrier than the mainstream guys and they are also more sensational. They have been successfully sued much more often that the mainstreamers. It's a conscious business decision on their part to go for the sensational stuff and lick their wounds if successfully sued. The mainstream guys are less reckless. One still needs to use caution when absorbing what the media feeds us regardless of the source.

[lakey]

And Varina is correct too, sandude.

As it happens, I have a copy of a 6/26/02 thread here on my bookcase, "Missing Communist plank found at the Arizona Republic," by Craig J. Cantoni, posted by AZ Righty.

Important news is usually no more than a blurb, stuck inside among ads. And I can truthfully say, God help the Boy Scouts with this liberal rag in control of news.

[Sherlock]

she was on t.v., answering questions off the top of her head, & surely under stress.

Don't kid yourself, this was a carefully crafted statement by Angela and her P.R. coach.

Don't forget, she passed a lie detector test & two appearances before the Grand Jury. The GJ didn't indict her.

Psycopaths do well on lie detector tests. This statement shows she has talent in that area. No one has been indicted yet. I didn't see the results of her test, did you?

[Devil_Anse]

"Moul did testify to the GJ."

Of course Moul gave testimony, Home Educate. You were right about that all along.

Half the posts in these threads are people either trying to get Varina to answer a simple question, and failing, or arguments btw Varina and other posters as to semantics. I am guilty of doing both these things.

I don't understand why Richard Ricci in particular was such a cause celebre for Varina and her friends. I get the impression that perhaps Varina is really disappointed that now she won't be able to have a nice correspondence with Richard, as so many persons on the outside do with prisoners. But she should take heart--after all, Ward Weaver is still available.

[lakey]

Now she's a psychopath....my, my.

Answer the rest of the post.

[varina davis]

That doesn't change the fact that you said: "Moul has not given 'testimony', he has talked to TV reporters, which is vastly different."

You are wrong and parsing. I was replying to someone who described what was said to reporters as "testifying."

[Sherlock]

Well I am suspicious of anything reported in the NE. It it's true it will come out in the main stream press shortly.

I'm not recommending the tabloids or anything but there were things they printed in the Chandra Levy case I believed that never came out in the mainstream media.

[Sherlock]

No wonder you've had some posters thinking maybe you were Angela Ricci!

varina is no Angela Ricci.

[Sherlock]

Now she's a psychopath....

Not now, I've always said that. The important thing to remember about Angela Ricci is she's only lying when her lips are moving.

[sandude]

The NE has a flair for sensational headlines without much substance in the article so we will have to see. Perhaps it will say that an internet poster who goes by Bella has searched the garage of former Bishop Spencer Dixon and found a copy of Harp Players Annual which proves conclusively that he was the perpetrator.

[Devil_Anse]

I am still looking at articles and transcripts to see where on earth I got the idea that the jeep was towed to Moul's before May 30. But I pretty much accept now that May 30 was the right date. So they take it in (not running) on May 30, it is gotten out (running) on May 31. The jeep goes back in (running) on June 8. As of June 14, when Ricci goes back to jail, they haven't yet picked up the jeep from Moul's. (Because we know it was still there when the police came by to seize it later.)

Why was the jeep just left there? They could only get away with leaving it "until we get up the money to pay the bill" for just so long. Eventually, seems Moul could have sold the thing to pay for the repair bill. I just don't get why they were so casual about leaving the thing in the shop so long. Not only did they not seem to care about it for 6 days, from June 8 to at least June 14 (Ricci's arrest date), but really, if one believes the Riccis' story, they didn't check on the jeep but once from May 30 until at least June 14. As Sherlock has been saying--two weeks!