Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: brigette
brigette, I'm curious as to why every article about Ricci says:

"Investigators have not shown a photo of Ricci to Elizabeth's 9-year-old sister, Mary Katherine, who was with Elizabeth the night she disappeared."

If true, I don't understand the logic. Do you?

9 posted on 06/25/2002 10:40:54 PM PDT by demkicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: demkicker
To be honest, this is just the media saying this. I don't believe I have heard the police actually say this. I would say they have shown her pictures of him and probably have had him dress in light clothes and a golf/driving hat. Also you can bet that they have recorded his voice and have played it to her. It is possible that she has said she is not sure if it is him or not. If they say this to the public but they end up finding "just enough" evidence to arrest him on her kidnapping. Then we have to remember that everything the police say publicly is on public record and can and will be used in court by the defendent's lawyer. I really believe that she probably did not see him or cannot actually ID him again. This is the reason no composite was done on the perp. Also you have to understand that once they read a suspect his Miranda Rights he is under arrest and has the right to a lawyer. This is why you keep hearing the word witness, this means he might cry for a lawyer as a witness... but the cops will say... hey we are just talking to you... we have not read you your miranda rights and your not under arrest, so why do you need a lawyer unless you did do it? I would assume that the FBI or Police looked hard at Ricci to find a parole violation so that they could bring him and arrest him under something different. This gives them a chance to question him all they want without him having a lawyer around, since he has not been charged. Of course he does not have to talk, but he is talking and without a lawyer. He could say I have nothing to tell you... and you have no right to question me, since I have not been charged in this case. They are treating him with kid gloves right now and are questioning him and bargining with him. They have had him since 6/14/02 on the parole violation. The media just found out about it, and are playing to the hilt... I think the police are going along with it... it makes them look good, but in the end I think they know he is not the guy, but why not keep the story in the media if they let the media think this guy may be the one. You have a guy in custody, the police are questioning him, but Elizabeth has still not been found. If this guy did take Elizabeth and he is in custody, then she is probably dead since she was not found with him or in his home or cars. So this drives people even harder to go out and search for her remains. It is like a game... the media gets what they want (news & ratings), the police get what they want (they like they are doing their job), the Smart Family is keeping the story hot (bringing more attention to it).
11 posted on 06/25/2002 11:20:13 PM PDT by stlnative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: demkicker
If true, I don't understand the logic. Do you?

I watched a special a few nights ago about our brain's ability to remember faces. They used an example of a woman who identified the wrong man as her rapist, causing him to serve 11 years, until DNA evidence (unavailable before then) cleared him and identified the real rapist.

The researchers determined that during times of stress, such as a crime, our brains are wired to "super-charge" the image of the perpetrator's face with strong emotions...so that when we see the image of a very similar-featured person, our brains might attach those emotions to THAT face, too. Because our brains see faces in generalities, two very similar faces can be categorized in the same place unless there is some distinguishing characteristic that clearly sets them apart, such as a large scar or something like that.

The woman was CONVINCED the man she identified WAS the rapist because his face was similar enough to the rapist's face to register "that's him" in her brain.

Unless they showed Mary Katharine a man's face in profile, wearing the type of hat she says he was wearing, I doubt her brain would recognize him anyway. If she didn't see him face-on, seeing a face-on photo of him wouldn't help at all and might cause her brain to accept "that's him" when in fact it might not be true. As eager as I am to catch the perpetrator, I would hate for her to identify the wrong guy...a criminal, without a doubt, but not Elizabeth's particular criminal. I think the police don't want to taint MK's memory of the man she saw with images of other "possibles"...and when they do show her Ricci's picture, I'd imagine his photo would be mixed in with several others. I think they should photoshop a hat on the men they show her.

56 posted on 06/26/2002 7:12:12 AM PDT by lsee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson