I doubt that it has been withdrawn. As I understand it, the immunity deal covered only a few days around the time of Elizabeth's disappearance. It never covered crimes committed at other times, and the new charges which have been brought against Ricci are all for crimes committed at times far removed from the date of Elizabeth's disappearance. The purpose of the immunity deal was only to try to ensure that Ricci was forthcoming about his whereabouts at the time of Elizabeth's disappearance, presumably so that if he didn't have anything to do with it, that could be determined quickly.
I tried to find some documentation on this and searched Yahoo, Google, Deseret News and Brigette's archives. Nothing. Can you provide a link?
I taped it, but right now, I am not taking the time to replay it to get her name. She was the controversial Sketch Artist who was in contact with the Smart's in the beginning. You know who I mean.
Anyhow, it was a good interview. I am thinking of sitting down and writing out the whole transcript, but it will take me time, as I don't know shorthand. I have done a Google search on archieves, but I don't think NBC has them.
She did give high praise to the LE officials connected to this crime, and spoke of how artistic and articulate MK was. She was very impressed with her. She apparently interviewed her in the Smart home, with the full co-operation of Mr. and Mrs. Smart. She explained how she worked with the child. (hopefully I can write the entire interview, so as not to type my words..I want it verbatum), but, she said that they made alot of progress.
She could not answer the question given to her as to if the sketch will be given out....and here, I want to make a comment to several posters who called me on the subject of sketch's given for the sould purpose as to give out to the public for help in locating the perp.Those were MY WORDS last night.
I stand corrected, and I want to express it pubically that I was WRONG in that I thought that that was the sole purpose for having a sketch done. This lady told how sometimes the sketch is NOT RELEASED to the public for various reasons. I WAS WRONG. I AM ADMITTING THIS NOW, as I was educated this moring on the subject.
I do want to address a post that was posted last night, however, and I am taking the liberty to re-post it without permission of the poster. Here it is:
To: Neenah
Careful with the facts here; "worked with" doesn't mean successfully. Lots of these self-styled assistant detectives "work with" investigators, with or without the investigators invitation. And the claim that she has worked on "thousands" of cases sounds fishy to me. Most full time police officers and FBI agents haven't worked on "thousands" of cases. She is credited with an exceptionally good sketch of the Unabomber, but we know nothing about the witness(es) or the circumstances of their sightings of the Unabomber. She may be a very good artist, who can predictably produce a good likeness when the witnesses are able to accurately communicate the appearance of the perpetrator.
However, there's a good deal of evidence that she's a pretty heavy duty self-promoter, and uses some unusual touchy-feely methods, and that's why I wouldn't expect police to lend any credence to HER claim that a sketch she produced with MK's assistance was likely to be very accurate.
143 posted on 7/23/02 11:27 PM Central by GovernmentShrinker
With all due respect to anyone on this board, what we may THINK is not facts. I am guilty of it too, for we all have our own theories. But theories are just that for ALL of us.
This poster was disputing the credibility of this artist that has been benificial in aiding in aprehending some big cases, and IS credible with the FBI, having been used many times, whether it sounds "fishy" to you or to me.
This poster stated this at the end:
there's a good deal of evidence that she's a pretty heavy duty self-promoter, and uses some unusual touchy-feely methods, and that's why I wouldn't expect police to lend any credence to HER claim that a sketch she produced with MK's assistance was likely to be very accurate.
I would just like to say to you, again with respect, that any of us may make statements like this, but today you are proven wrong, because they indeed DID lend credence to her, for she was used after all, and I have to put my trust in the Law here. I , or anyone else , do not have the facts, and we should be careful with statements like this, because they can't be backed up. Thanks for letting me say this, I know it was long.