Smart Case, July 25, 2002

07/25/02 | Jolly Green

[varina davis]

or 2) there is an LE coverup (i.e. Remington escaped from jail and committed the kidnapping).

What an imagination!

[varina davis]

The word "an" is different than the word "the".

Thank you, Neenah.

[Sherlock]

I doubt if this is an "announcement", but a response to a question by a reporter and definitely not a quote.

Like I said when I saw this quote it was exactly what I expected LE would say. I submit to you this is not a chance quote, it will become the official line of LE pertaining to this case and it's intended to condition the expectations of the public, to euthanize their expectation that this will ever be solved. I don't think Ed Smart will roll over and accept this though, especially now that his suspicion of who the kidnapper is has probably now been confirmed by Boylan.

[varina davis]

Mr. Smart was no doubt referring to his missing daughter in a respectful way by calling her a "young woman", and used the phrase "not into BOYS" with a less serious tone

Calling a 14-year-old a "woman" seems very unusual. And only an ostrich would think a beautiful 14-year-old has no interest in boys.

[Sherlock]

>What an imagination!

They splashed the photographs of all the other usual suspects associated with Ricci all over television and the newspapers. Did you ever see a picture of Remington?

[varina davis]

I think this was done to make sure that people were looking for someone “the size of a woman”, rather than looking for a “child.”

Seem to recall in initial news stories that she was described as very slim and petite -- hardly the "size of a woman." Certainly the photos distributed are not those of a "woman."

[Jolly Green]

Think about it Jolly. Let me paint you a picture. Isn't it obvious they know this 5'8" man, athletic, wearing a tan denim jacket and a white baseball hat, short dark hair, drives a white or silver Honda or Nissan, seen by the milkman, on the security video in the convenience store minutes before the kidnapping, seen by Fred Trujillo the security guard at Shriners Hospital, seen by MK, seen by the searcher, and seen by Moul is the kidnapper. You don't think they know who this man is? Why are they protecting him? Why did they change the story from a white baseball cap to a tan golf hat? If LE had told Ed Smart who he is Ed would not have hired Boylan. No body, no arrest, no problem. How do you spell C-O-V-E-R-U-P.

You have repeated that so many times here and on Brigettes site that I can cite it almost as well as you. Few of us even disagree with you about it. Just one small problem that I hate to bother you with i.e. the Constitution and the necessity of having hard evidence or extremely good circumstantial evidence. I'm just as frustrated, maybe more so than you, but you don't arrest someone you can't convict. That's how huge "false arrest" lawsuits are made. Dinse said as much in a press conference.

As for the cap story changing, it didn't, only the reporting of it did. Can you say SNAFU?

[Jolly Green]

Like I said when I saw this quote it was exactly what I expected LE would say.

I repeat. It isn't a quote. If you think it is please, by all means, provide us a link to it.

[Jolly Green]

No. 1, that was not my statement and in any case, you took it totally out of context.

I apologize for assuming it was your statement. I stand by the rest.

[MadisonA]

I believe the police have a good idea who the kidnapper is and they also have circumstantial evidence unknown to the public, but with no body I think they will be jeopardizing their chances of winning at trial by not waiting for a body to turn up. For instance say.....they charge the kidnapper and use the evidence they do have, then a slick defense attorney chips away at all the circumstantial evidence. A jury acquits because they didn't believe they proved the case beyond a resonable doubt. Then a year after the acquital someone comes across the body located on property (like a cabin) of the defendants aunt or something. That would be VERY damning evidence, but they wouldn't be able to use it and retry the case because of double jeopardy. I think it's just too early to charge who they think did it and they're waiting for a body to turn up. This case is only a month or two old and depending on if the kidnapper is jailed up and not going anywhere anytime soon, they don't need to rush this case to trial.

I believe they have damning evidence but don't want to miss a chance to find and use even more damning evidence.

[varina davis]

I apologize for assuming it was your statement. I stand by the rest.

Apology accepted. And I agree that dance is a wonderful confidence booster for youngsters. The six-year-old in our family has two classes a week and is in her third year of ballet, tap and jazz dancing.

[Jolly Green]

Like I said when I saw this quote it was exactly what I expected LE would say. I submit to you this is not a chance quote, it will become the official line of LE

Just as I suspected - it isn't a quote, so quit saying it is. Words mean things and exact words mean even more.

Still no clues in Elizabeth Smart case

[Palladin]

The only problem I had with Ed on this tape was when the interviewee asked if he felt guilty about hiring Ricci and allowing him into his house and he said no. That he often gave people a chance or something to that effect. I would definitely feel guilty if I thought the kidnapper was someone I allowed into my house.

I was amazed when Ed declared he had no guilt about his casual business associations with people like Ricci, and day laborers he got from "Travelers' Aid". I would assume these latter to be drifters passing through town looking for a handout, and being directed to work sites instead. How could anyone be so careless as to allow such persons to come into contact with their children?

Ed avows, in the interview, that he will not hire these types of persons in the future. I submit, Mr. Smart, that it is too late to lock the barn door after the horse has been stolen!

[FR_addict]

I've certainly felt guilty when my child was molested by a teacher. I felt that I should have been more aware of the situation and not so naive.

Ed's comment that he didn't feel guilty was very surprising to me.

[Neenah]

Here is a video of Mr. and Mrs. Smart, taken from Palladin's other thread. It is lengthy.

Click Here

[varina davis]

Ed's comment that he didn't feel guilty was very surprising to me.

Ed Smart seems curiously out of touch with reality. I suppose one could attribute that to being unfamiliar with being in the spotlight, but the camera (unlike the mainstream media at times), doesn't hide or shade the truth.

[Palladin]

The interview is long, but worth the time to watch it and observe the body language of Ed and Lois Smart. Hard to believe that these two have a beauiful 14 year old missing. They are so casual and nonchalant. It's as if they're just chatting about a family outing. Strange, strange people.

As Dominick Dunne said last night: "There is something wrong with this family".

[Palladin]

The other thread is here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/722258/posts

[MadisonA]

I think the most damning aspect to this case is Ricci's wife calling into Moul. Also the fact that the Jeep wasn't seen in Ricci's posession the entire time it was out.

So not only is Ricci denying involvement in taking the Jeep out, a second person is denying involvement in taking the Jeep out.

I know some people and relatives of Ricci have alluded to saying that a third mystery party somehow could've found out Ricci brought his Jeep into Moul's repair shop and the third party also decided that the Jeep would be the perfect vehicle to steal, use in a kidnapping and bring back (in order to frame Ricci? for what purpose?)

I don't think this theory makes any sense because:
a) why get another female involved in the "emergency call in" to the shop?.... the kidnapper disguised his voice as female? why not just call in and say you were Ricci since you would be making an appearance "disguising yourself as Ricci" to steal the Jeep from the shop anyways. This mystery party would also be hoping Ricci isn't too well known at the shop so he won't be busted on the spot as an imposter.
b) if the person involved a woman who helped call in, that would be illogical since having more people involved is more risky. The kidnapper could've made things easier and asked for the Jeep as a male Ricci. Why try to complicate the plot and involve a female wife imposter as well?
c) Why try to frame Ricci by taking his Jeep when you could just plant evidence in the middle of the night on his property which is 100 times less risky. Stealing a Jeep in broad daylight in front of many witnesses and then bringing it back for yet another appearance in front of even more witnesses is ridiculous.
d) stealing the Jeep and being caught would completely foil the kidnapping plot before it even began. If the kidnapper were to be thrown in jail for stealing a car, that could derail the plot for a long time.

Sticking to this assanine story is what will eventually do in Ricci and pals. If I were him and involved, I would change the story before it is too late.

[varina davis]

The interview is long, but worth the time to watch it and observe the body language of Ed and Lois Smart. Hard to believe that these two have a beauiful 14 year old missing.

I just watched the entire video. The body language was the same as on other TV news shows. She did not seem comfortable with him at all.

I was also struck again by the naivity (or carelessness?)of this couple, to allow a transient, day worker such intimate access to their home and children. You could understand it if he had been a long time worker for a local long-time company, but ??? And apparently, Ricci was not the first or last such worker hired by Smart.