Posted on 07/21/2002 8:48:43 PM PDT by Jolly Green
Elizabeth Smart case for July 22, 2002
|
|
||
| Theory(?) | Facts | |
| Richard Ricci has been identified as the prime suspect in the case, though several of his "theme park" pals are under suspicion. | - Ricci is a 5-time loser, having been convicted of burglarizing a food bank and shooting a police officer. He has recently been indicted on three additional state charges including theft at the Smart residence and burglary of a Smart neighbor. Additionally, he has been recently indicted on three federal charges related to two bank robberies. - Ricci worked for the Smarts last year for several months and was paid with a white Jeep in lieu of cash. He had full access to the house and may very well have had a key to the Smart residence. Ricci and two others were fired when some items were stolen from the home. Ricci later approached Ed Smart and said he wasn't involved and wanted his job back. Ed Smart declined to rehire him. - Ricci lives in a trailer park in West Jordan that is now referred to as a "theme park" because of the large number of Ricci convicted felon friends living there. - Ricci has no credible alibi for the period during and shortly after the abduction. He is believed to have put an additional 1000 miles on the Jeep during a period when he claimed the Jeep was in Moul's shop. - Ricci had both opportunity and motive. |
|
| Ed Smart and Richard Ricci were gay lovers. This is based upon Ed Smart's pleading before the media for Ricci to come clean, where he used phrases like "Help me, Richard". | This theory was eloquently refuted by Jengaio and it hasn't reared its ugly head recently. | |
| Elizabeth Smart had a nose ring, must have been rebellious and ran away. Later, proponents shifted emphasis to "piercings" so as not to offend those who believe this to be utter nonsense. | Numerous photographs of Elizabeth Smart show no indication of a nose ring and the existence of a nose ring has never been reported by any credible news source. | |
| Moul, the mechanic, lied to the grand jury and in TV interviews. Some of the scenarios: He knows more than he is telling; his eyesight is bad; he made it up; he is in cahoots with Ricci; he used Ricci's Jeep without Ricci's permission. | Moul has no criminal record and no motive. What's more his vehicle logs corroborate his testimony. | |
| Elizabeth Smart's aunt, in a televised interview said the police "are working with us". Implications: This surely must mean that the Smarts and their influential friends and church must be controlling/thwarting the 100-man SLCPD/FBI task force | While this is "grasping" of the highest order, we will ask Jengaio to analyze the phrazing./td> | |
then, we are really short of facts....Ricci worked for two months didn't he,not "several months" yes that is picky I know...
Ricci has an "alibi" for the time period...the cops can not disprove it as of yet. so we should follow them about that.
who has seen Moul's logs?....Have the police stated that the logs are in order?....I don't think they have
however....I am still somewhat optimistic that Lizzie is alive...don't ask me why I think that...its just a guess...but I think she was taken by an known entity and I think that perhaps the cops or the family might have an idea of who it is....but how to find them...
I would guess that all this publicity would really shoot up the price tag if somebody was to film Poor Lizzie being assualted...you can not imagine how evil people can be....it would be something these creeps would pay big money for....unfortunately....but Lizzie is still recoverable even if that has happened to her....
Hope this helps.
What would be Moul's motivation for lying to LE? Stating that he is possibly part of Ricci's gang is supposition at this point.
this is exactly why the police should clear the air at least in reguards to info that is either non-existant or of no relevance...all we have now is questions about every single facet of this case, and many people are doubting the investigation as a whole...
still would like to know if they have the phone call from across the street...would like to know about that van in Lincoln, etc..
To: Jolly Green; Utah Girl
What background can you give us on this?
http://www.sltrib.com/07212002/opinion/opinion.htm
Vow of Silence
In the most recent federal court hearing concerning the ownership of The Salt Lake Tribune, several documents became newly public. Three of them make clear that the Deseret News used its influence to help Dean Singleton and MediaNews Group (MNG) acquire The Tribune. The News did so because Singleton agreed that if he gains control of The Tribune he will not allow critical or "disparaging" coverage of the News owner, the LDS Church.
The deal means the largest institution in the state, the LDS Church, would control the ownership, and all that involves, of the two largest newspapers in the state.
The first of the three documents is a two-page set of handwritten notes made by Deseret News General Manager Fred Temby at a Deseret News board meeting on July 12, 2000. The notes quote Deseret News Publishing Company Chairman L. Glen Snarr trying to sell his board on a plan to support a bid by MediaNews, Inc. (MNG) rather than continuing the News efforts to acquire The Tribune directly. According to the notes, Snarr tells his board that "Dean agrees: 1. Survival of 2 papers 2. Not disparage the church 3. Equal NAC treatment." (Newspaper Agency Corporation, or NAC, is jointly owned by The Tribune and News to handle printing, advertising sales and circulation of both newspapers.)
These three top goals became the sales pitch for Snarr and his advisers and were designed to convince the DNPC board and the First Presidency of the LDS Church, owner of the Deseret News, to support Singleton and MNG's bid to acquire The Tribune.
The second document is a report from Snarr to the First Presidency. It was written in late July of 2000, apparently after the First Presidency heard of Snarr and his advisers' pitch to the DNPC board to discontinue attempts to buy The Tribune and get Singleton and MNG to play the role of front man. The First Presidency was obviously upset with Snarr and his associates.
"We are sorry if we misunderstood your request on July 10 to prepare information on a possible bid to purchase The Tribune. We researched the matter carefully, on a number of possibilities, ranging from $175,000,000 to $250,000,000, and we struggled with a way to accomplish this without problems with the Justice Department," Snarr wrote to the leaders of the Mormon church.
"We think we had a way to do that, assure the survival of the Deseret News (which we thought was our No. 1 goal), end the Tribune negativity toward the Church, and provide for fair and efficient management of the NAC. We realize that the Church must weigh carefully its options in view of renewed threats of a lawsuit and negative comments about Dean Singleton." (About this time, Fortune magazine had written that Singleton was "the cheapskate of the publishing industry," in a very uncomplimentary article.)
Later in the memo, Snarr wrote that the church's plan to "buy The Tribune except for the voice . . .doesn't appear to be an option because we might end up in a lawsuit, in a secondary position to AT&T."
Then Snarr made his pitch to his owners to support the Singleton bid. "Singleton will take on the option agreement. If we tell him we won't sue if he buys The Tribune, he will sign an agreement outlining nearly everything we want."
A few weeks later, it appears, Snarr delivered a document to the First Presidency detailing exactly what it was Singleton had agreed to. The top three goals were still the same and Singleton and MNG agreed to embrace each of them.
"MediaNews, Inc. is committed to the survival and success of two newspaper voices in Salt Lake City, as is the Deseret News," Snarr wrote beside the first bullet point.
"MediaNews, Inc. does not allow its papers to disparage anyone or organization on religious, racial or ethnic grounds," Snarr wrote beside the second bullet point. Under that point he wrote, "The Tribune has a continuing history of snide, damaging stories, followed by expressions of regret."
The third point in the memo was that "With MediaNews, Inc. as a partner, the NAC will be operated fairly with equal treatment for both papers," Snarr wrote.
The goals of the News were and continue to be the same: 1. Survival of the News; 2. Change and/or eliminate the voice of The Tribune; 3. Get more say in the operation of NAC. These new documents make irrefutably clear Singleton has agreed to these goals.
Obviously, the News goal of changing the voice of The Salt Lake Tribune was the only goal the current manager of The Tribune refused to discuss. For 50 years, the managers of The Tribune and the Kearns McCarthey families have been committed to the survival of the News and have sat down each month with News leaders with equal representation to direct the operations of NAC.
This battle has always been about changing or killing the independent voice of The Salt Lake Tribune. Without court intervention, Singleton has announced he will step in Aug. 1 and begin delivering on his promises to the Deseret News. These newly released documents make perfectly clear that those promises include killing the true independence of The Tribune as it relates to coverage of the LDS Church.
Hundreds of readers of The Tribune have written, e-mailed or called the U.S. Department of Justice to express their concern over the potential loss of daily independent journalism in Salt Lake City. It is worth your time to do the same, particularly now with this irrefutable new evidence. The phone number at the Department of Justice is 1-888-647-3258 or 1-202-307-2040. The e-mail address is newcase.atr@usdoj.gov and the mailing address is 601 D Street NW, Suite 10011, Washington D.C., 20530.
281 posted on 7/22/02 10:37 AM Central by spore-gasm
Spore-gasm, I hope it is ok by you that I saw fit to re-post this.
in my town, the one newspaper is owned by one rich family that has a lot of shennanigans with many lawsuits ongoing involving the SEC among others...finacial dealings that will cost my town millions and millions...involves sweet heart deals for the rich family
the rich family owned only -show -in- town newspaper is barely covering the story...when you are involved in deep doo-doo...its nice to own the paper to keep the local criticisms in check....
as long as they don't own local talk radio and the internet...the truth will always get out there
The buying of a newspaper by any person or group is done all the time. And if it is owned by a person who is Republican or Democrat bent, they will more than not, present the news leaning toward their way of thinking. Not in all cases..but some.
However, the main thrust of this article is the blatent, admitted intent of CENSORSHIP of WHAT can be printed by the paper by all contributors. It reads:
The News did so because Singleton agreed that if he gains control of The Tribune he will not allow critical or "disparaging" coverage of the News owner, the LDS Church.
That should CHILL anyone who now has knowlege of it. That is why Brigette started another board. FR woudn't allow censorship, so a new web site was created with that very thing stated to any who sign up.
This is basically doing the same thing. I do draw the line in that I do feel it is wrong to get off on a theological debate on Mormonism vs. Christianity, but when you read what the proposal is for this newspaper, you have to wonder about seriously considering the validity of a religion who would not allow free speech.Scary stuff.
However, I do agree with the wrongness of people posting practices of the Mormon faith to degrade them. This forum is exclusively for discussing what you render from the news put forth by the press in this case. I hate to see it go off that track. However, no matter who it is that censor's a Newspaper given to the world (internet), I will fight against that.
Can anyone explain to me who or what the "First Presidency of the LDS Church" is? Does this refer to President Hinckley himself, or is this a broader group of church leaders?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.