Elizabeth speaks!
Insomniatrix
abductor to the mountains, until things"cooled off" San Diego, Atlanta and
then back to SLC. She told the police and her father that she was taken
against her will.
Desi
Insomniatrix wrote in message ...
desi
>
Insomniatrix
"Desi" <de...@cts.com> wrote in message
news:LuPba.478$2x2.2...@dca1-nnrp1.news.algx.net...
Live online coverage on MSNBC.com
There is a media player you can link to!
|
|
Desi
Insomniatrix wrote in message
desi
>|
>
>
>
Insomniatrix
I think it is live local SLC coverage. Angela Ricci's on now.
| >
| >
|
|
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
I'm sure she'll have a field day trying to blame police for her
husbands death.
--
The most momentous thing in human life is
the art of winning the soul to
good or evil. Pythagoras
Laura Burchard
You know, I'm completely weirded out by how passive both girls were in the
face of the kidnapper. Given the family background, I'm wondering just how
submissive they were trained to be to male authority, because I'm just
failing to believe any normal child waiting until morning to tell the family
that their sister had been kidnapped, or a 15 year old travelling hither and
yon across the country for 8 months without escaping or at least asking for
help.
It reminds me of that case in Chicago, with the people who were kidnapping
girls for prostituation. They had been mostly successful because they were
picking up street kids, damaged kids, but then they picked up a suburban
girl from a good family by accident, who did what any sane person would do:
took the first opportunity to ask someone for help and busted them.
I mean, standing by the side of a road in *Utah* and she doesn't do anything
until the police show up? Unless she ran off with who she thought was her
boyfriend, and she's just lying to her dad because would *you* want to admit
you let him think you were dead for 8 months?
Laura
--
Laura Burchard -- l...@radix.net -- http://www.radix.net/~lhb
"Good design is clear thinking made visible." -- Edward Tufte
Maggie
Insomniatrix <ClareMar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Elizabeth told police and her father that she was first taken by her
>abductor to the mountains, until things"cooled off" San Diego, Atlanta and
>then back to SLC. She told the police and her father that she was taken
>against her will.
Laura said:
You know, I'm completely weirded out by how passive both girls were in the
face of the kidnapper. Given the family background, I'm wondering just how
submissive they were trained to be to male authority, because I'm just
failing to believe any normal child waiting until morning to tell the family
that their sister had been kidnapped, or a 15 year old travelling hither and
yon across the country for 8 months without escaping or at least asking for
help.
***First--MK did not wait until morning. She waited about an hour because she
was scared the kidnapper was still in the house. As for the other, haven't you
ever heard of Patty Hearst or Stockholm Syndrome? Steven Staynor? Long-time
kidnap victims often act in concert with kidnappers.
Laura said:
It reminds me of that case in Chicago, with the people who were kidnapping
girls for prostituation. They had been mostly successful because they were
picking up street kids, damaged kids, but then they picked up a suburban
girl from a good family by accident, who did what any sane person would do:
took the first opportunity to ask someone for help and busted them.
I mean, standing by the side of a road in *Utah* and she doesn't do anything
until the police show up? Unless she ran off with who she thought was her
boyfriend, and she's just lying to her dad because would *you* want to admit
you let him think you were dead for 8 months?
>>
***Pretty harsh assessment considering we're talking about a rather sheltered
14-year-old girl kidnapped from her bedroom.
Maggie
"Injustice is relatively easy to bear. What stings is justice." --H.L.
Mencken
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
news:20030312190946...@mb-fh.aol.com...
Extremely harsh considering that both of them might very well have
been shot dead if the guy had been panicked. The younger one is lucky not
to have been abducted as well, and the older one is lucky to be alive.
I don't know if it's Stockholm Syndrome, tho. It could just as easily
be simple fear. Still waiting for details..
RstJ
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Bart Bailey" <bar...@nethere.net> wrote in message
news:3e7ae087...@news.brain.net...
> On 13 Mar 2003 00:09:46 GMT, maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie) wrote:
>
> >I mean, standing by the side of a road in *Utah* and she doesn't do anything
> >until the police show up? Unless she ran off with who she thought was her
> >boyfriend, and she's just lying to her dad because would *you* want to admit
> >you let him think you were dead for 8 months?
> > >>
> >
> >***Pretty harsh assessment considering we're talking about a rather sheltered
> >14-year-old girl kidnapped from her bedroom.
>
> if you apply the characteristic (of this group)
> unlimited speculation to the meaning of "rather sheltered"
>
> Bart
Why do you think she was "willing" when she was reported to
have been abducted at gunpoint? Do you think her sister lied?
"Elizabeth was 14 when she vanished early on the
morning of June 5. Her nine-year-old sister, Mary
Katherine, said Elizabeth was taken by a man who
may have entered into the house by cutting a window
screen near the back door. The sister pretended to be
asleep and said the gunman threatened to hurt Elizabeth
if she didn't keep quiet. "
Doesn't sound very "willing" to me.
RstJ
AmericanChick
maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie) wrote:
>
> ***Pretty harsh assessment considering we're talking about a rather sheltered
> 14-year-old girl kidnapped from her bedroom.
People love to blame the victims, because by doing so, they can think
"I would never behave that way." That way, they can live in fairy land
and pretend it could never happen to them...because they behave so
perfectly and rationally.
Until it does. Then they say "I never believed it could happen to me"
and the next round of people blames them and on and on.
So it goes.
Maggie
maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie) wrote:
>
> ***Pretty harsh assessment considering we're talking about a rather sheltered
> 14-year-old girl kidnapped from her bedroom.
Am Chick said:
People love to blame the victims, because by doing so, they can think
"I would never behave that way." That way, they can live in fairy land
and pretend it could never happen to them...because they behave so
perfectly and rationally.
Until it does. Then they say "I never believed it could happen to me"
and the next round of people blames them and on and on.
So it goes.
>>
***Yep. If a family like the Smarts can have something like this happen to
them, that makes for a pretty scary world. But if it was really all
Elizabeth's doing, well, world's not so scary after all, is it?
tiny dancer
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
Hey, I don't blame the victim here, but c'mon Maggie, when was the last time
you brought home street people to work inside your home? Seems like a
pretty stupid practice to say the least......exposing ones children to the
underbelly of society.
td
Gulffritallary
>you brought home street people to work inside your home? Seems like a
>pretty stupid practice to say the least......exposing ones children to the
>underbelly of society.
I was thinking along the same lines - remember the Ramseys also had people
working in their home - they didn't even know how many keys they had given out.
Oliver
"tiny dancer" <tinyda...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nDSba.129731$If5.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Uh....TD you need a lesson in lingwistics. Please contact Docter Formica
POST HASTE.
Aussie Lurker
"Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:BOQba.66656$S_4.48126@rwcrnsc53...
>
>
> I don't know if it's Stockholm Syndrome, tho. It could just as easily
> be simple fear. Still waiting for details..
>
anything at all to her. Even along the lines of ... "You saw how easy it
was for me to take you if you give me any trouble etc..... I'll go back and
kill your sister". Something like that. Being only 14 she would have
believed him.
What I'm curious about is his wife. He just turns up with Elizabeth and the
wife does NOTHING?
Aussie Lurker
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Aussie Lurker" <whoc...@lol.com.au> wrote in message
news:%nTba.88$7c3....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
I'm guessing the wife's in a helluva lot of trouble too. But we don't
know when she entered the picture, or what she was told. We'll
have to guess from what charges are filed against them.
RstJ
Gitchy
<robert...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<mSTba.70075$sf5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>:
>
>"Aussie Lurker" <whoc...@lol.com.au> wrote in message
>news:%nTba.88$7c3....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>> What I'm curious about is his wife. He just turns up with Elizabeth and the
>> wife does NOTHING?
>>
>> Aussie Lurker
>
>I'm guessing the wife's in a helluva lot of trouble too. But we don't
>know when she entered the picture, or what she was told. We'll
>have to guess from what charges are filed against them.
>
>RstJ
Didn't some news organization report that both Mitchell and the
woman were in the woods with Elizabeth for days after the
kidnapping? That would indicate she was in on it from the
beginning.
Chocolic
"tiny dancer" <tinyda...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nDSba.129731$If5.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
thot twice about it. There are a lot of parolees that do those jobs for
subcontractors also. Are they not supposed to work? Sorry TD, I can't
blame the parents for hiring a "street person" to do a job. Maybe they
were just trying to help him out? Most "street people" would just do the
job, take the money, and go on. Who'd a known this would have happened.
Chocolic
BethF
> Hey, I don't blame the victim here, but c'mon Maggie, when was the last
time
> you brought home street people to work inside your home? Seems like a
> pretty stupid practice to say the least......exposing ones children to the
> underbelly of society.
>
I think the thought of helping those less fortunate than yourself is a
wonderful lesson to teach your children. Obviously the smarts wanted to
give their kids charitable values. What a lovely, lovely idea, turned so
ugly.
tiny dancer
"Chocolic" <chatt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gpVba.2808$ja4.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I think it's one thing to help people out, but for at least the last 10 or
15 years I've been much more careful about who comes into my home. I
realize it's not always completely safe when one hires licensed/bonded help
to work for them, but at least there is some measure of safety. Of course
parolee's can work, but that's not saying I'd have them inside of my home to
work. It's totally different to have someone work on my car say, at a shop,
than to invite them right into my house. Years ago I didn't think too much
about it, but now days.............no way do I want strangers who may be of
questionable circumstances inside, especially if I had children in the home.
Luckily, dh is quite handy and the sons in law help him out if he needs it,
but I don't like total strangers wandering through my home, especially if I
haven't hired them through a reputable company. I mean geez, we're told not
to open the door to strangers, to protect ourselves, and then we should go
out downtown and pick somebody up and bring 'em home? Maybe I'm paranoid,
but I just don't get it? What's the difference in letting the door to door
guys inside to use the bathroom then?? These are total
strangers..............who knows what they might do?
td
>
>
>
Gitchy
>>> wife does NOTHING?
>>>
>>> Aussie Lurker
>>
>>I'm guessing the wife's in a helluva lot of trouble too. But we don't
>>know when she entered the picture, or what she was told. We'll
>>have to guess from what charges are filed against them.
>>
>>RstJ
>I typed:
>Didn't some news organization report that both Mitchell and the
>woman were in the woods with Elizabeth for days after the
>kidnapping? That would indicate she was in on it from the
>beginning.
I forgot to mention in the woods *behind the Smart home.*
AmericanChick
<whoc...@lol.com.au> wrote:
> What I'm curious about is his wife. He just turns up with Elizabeth and the
> wife does NOTHING?
Hedda Nessbaum didn't do anything either. Some women are just so
submissive they turn into robots.
Desi
tiny dancer wrote in message ...
California State Contractors License Board helped me out. They (maybe
other states?) have a website to check their license, bond, and
insurance. In addition they gave me a list of things to check and ask
for and if they don't comply, move on and interview someone else. Most
importantly, is they must have workmen's comp, and I did not know that.
If the guy fell at my house, they'd go after my homeowners insurance.
You have no way of knowing if the plumber or painter was an ex-con or a
creep, but at least, the contractor has all the insurance and liability
required by the State. And hopefully, he is not taking any risks by
hiring
less than competent and honest employees.
Caveat Emptor.
>
>
vox...@shaw.ca
The kidnapper also used a gun.
vxp
Gitchy
>The kidnapper also used a gun.
>
>vxp
I just read a news story that stated it was a knife and not a
gun. Remind me to start saving news stories so I can reference
them. ;-)
Yeah Dooder
> Hey, I don't blame the victim here, but c'mon Maggie, when was the
> last time you brought home street people to work inside your home?
> Seems like a pretty stupid practice to say the least......exposing
> ones children to the underbelly of society.
>
> td
Yet David Westerfield wasn't a homeless loser and he did a lot worse to
a much younger victim.
JC
"Gulffritallary" <gulffri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030312222411...@mb-ms.aol.com...
In the Ramsey case, too bad one of those people didn't sneak back in and
take JonBenet out of that house. Mighta saved her life.
JC
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"BethF" <be...@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote in message
news:v70aabn...@corp.supernews.com...
There are plenty of people out there subcontracting who would have
done the job if it needed doing. I'm with td on this one--I don't like
strangers anywhere near my house and there are plenty of ways to
show charity towards your fellow man other than inviting someone
you don't know, right off the street, to work on your house. Especially
when you have young children. The Smarts, obviously, made a serious
mistake inviting this guy to their house. Although, given his ability to
talk his way into living arrangements, the idea might have been his
to begin with and he talked Elizabeth's parents into letting him do some
work.
RstJ
Bernard Greeley
No, but he probably shoved a dick "pacifier" in her sister's mouth too to
keep her quiet.
"AmericanChick" <nosp...@nothing.com> wrote in message
news:120320032037577367%nosp...@nothing.com...
yaffaDina
Good point!
yD
Bernard Greeley
ugly.
No doubt. Especially when he introduced her to his "rapetool".
"BethF" <be...@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote in message
news:v70aabn...@corp.supernews.com...
>
Bernard Greeley
wife does NOTHING?
Yeah right, nothing except eat that pussy.
"Aussie Lurker" <whoc...@lol.com.au> wrote in message
news:%nTba.88$7c3....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
Bernard Greeley
Yeah, a cum shooting love gun.
<vox...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:3E704EEF...@shaw.ca...
Maggie
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
>In article <CkPba.9425$M06...@fe10.atl2.webusenet.com>,
>Insomniatrix <ClareMar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>Elizabeth told police and her father that she was first taken by her
>>abductor to the mountains, until things"cooled off" San Diego,
Atlanta and
>>then back to SLC. She told the police and her father that she was
taken
>>against her will.
>
>You know, I'm completely weirded out by how passive both girls were
in the
>face of the kidnapper. Given the family background, I'm wondering
just how
>submissive they were trained to be to male authority, because I'm
just
>failing to believe any normal child waiting until morning to tell the
family
>that their sister had been kidnapped, or a 15 year old travelling
hither and
>yon across the country for 8 months without escaping or at least
asking for
>help.
>
>It reminds me of that case in Chicago, with the people who were
kidnapping
>girls for prostituation. They had been mostly successful because they
were
>picking up street kids, damaged kids, but then they picked up a
suburban
>girl from a good family by accident, who did what any sane person
would do:
>took the first opportunity to ask someone for help and busted them.
>
>I mean, standing by the side of a road in *Utah* and she doesn't do
anything
>until the police show up? Unless she ran off with who she thought was
her
>boyfriend, and she's just lying to her dad because would *you* want
to admit
>you let him think you were dead for 8 months?
>
>Laura
As I've learned in my speculation that the girl may have inured some
unpleasant advances, you are not allowed to speculate in this news
group about anything. There is no evidence to suggest that either
child was "trained to submit to male authority" so please drop it.
And for god sakes make sure you don't misspell something.
--
The most momentous thing in human life is
the art of winning the soul to
good or evil. Pythagoras
Maggie
> news:nDSba.129731
>
> > Hey, I don't blame the victim here, but c'mon Maggie, when was the last
> time
> > you brought home street people to work inside your home? Seems like a
> > pretty stupid practice to say the least......exposing ones children to the
> > underbelly of society.
> >
>
>
> I think the thought of helping those less fortunate than yourself is a
> wonderful lesson to teach your children. Obviously the smarts wanted to
> give their kids charitable values. What a lovely, lovely idea, turned so
> ugly.
rstj said:
There are plenty of people out there subcontracting who would have
done the job if it needed doing. I'm with td on this one--I don't like
strangers anywhere near my house and there are plenty of ways to
show charity towards your fellow man other than inviting someone
you don't know, right off the street, to work on your house. Especially
when you have young children. The Smarts, obviously, made a serious
mistake inviting this guy to their house. Although, given his ability to
talk his way into living arrangements, the idea might have been his
to begin with and he talked Elizabeth's parents into letting him do some
work.
>>
***Guys, I really hate to let you in on this because it's going to disturb you
greatly, but loads and loads and loads of people *who have worked at and in
your houses* (I guarantee this) have criminal records, alcohol and substance
abuse problems and severe mental illnesses. They aren't the guys you talked to
when you hired those painters, plumbers, movers, gardeners, carpenters, etc.
They're the quiet ones who showed up the day the work was done (and may well
have been picked up on the street that morning) and whom you may not have even
remembered a week later. You think anyone runs a criminal background check
before he hires a day laborer to help him pick up limbs or sand chipping paint?
Think about it.
And, if Emmanuel had been hired to work inside the Smart house, I'd agree with
you--it's absolutely foolish to bring a person like this into one's home
intentionally (although I guarantee you that you've had worse in your own
home--you just don't know about it). But this guy was hired to do gardening
and work on the roof--outside work. I'm very impressed that the Smarts
employed this particular brand of charity. Many people are reluctant to give
handouts to the homeless and that's understandable, but money in exchange for
work seems like a great compromise. Emmanuel has no doubt ruined that
arrangement for lots of more deserving homeless people.
yaffaDina
You forgot : "don't tell people what to do" :)
yD
Michael Snyder
Scorpi...@attNOSPAM.net wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:41:16 -0600, "Insomniatrix"
><ClareMar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Desi" <de...@cts.com> wrote in message
>>news:8APba.480$2x2.2...@dca1-nnrp1.news.algx.net...
>>|
>>| Insomniatrix wrote in message
>>| >
>>| >"Desi" <de...@cts.com> wrote in message
>>| >news:LuPba.478$2x2.2...@dca1-nnrp1.news.algx.net...
>>| >|
>>| >| Insomniatrix wrote in message ...
>>| >| >Elizabeth told police and her father that she was first taken
>by her
>>| >| >abductor to the mountains, until things"cooled off" San Diego,
>>| Atlanta
>>| >| and
>>| >| >then back to SLC. She told the police and her father that she
>was
>>| >| taken
>>| >| >against her will.
>>| >
>>| >
>>| >
>>| >| >
>>| >|
>>| >| desi
>>| >| >
>>| >
>>| >Live online coverage on MSNBC.com
>>| >There is a media player you can link to!
>>| >
>>| >
>>| >|Thanks, they are way ahead of what I'm getting via the TV
>>|
>>| desi
>>| >|
>>| >
>>
>>I think it is live local SLC coverage. Angela Ricci's on now.
>
>I'm sure she'll have a field day trying to blame police for her
>husbands death.
"Trying"?
Kris Baker
"Gitchy" <gitchy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3e7017e2...@news.houston.sbcglobal.net...
> Didn't some news organization report that both Mitchell and the
> woman were in the woods with Elizabeth for days after the
> kidnapping? That would indicate she was in on it from the
> beginning.
"She", meaning the wife, right?
The Mitchells and Elizabeth spent the summer in Dry Creek
Canyon, the entrance of which is between the Smart
neighborhood and the University of Utah Hospital.
Elizabeth says that, while there, she could hear the
searchers calling her name.
Kris
Michael Snyder
Laura Burchard wrote in message ...
>In article <CkPba.9425$M06...@fe10.atl2.webusenet.com>,
>Insomniatrix <ClareMar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>abductor to the mountains, until things"cooled off" San Diego, Atlanta and
>>then back to SLC. She told the police and her father that she was taken
>>against her will.
>
>face of the kidnapper. Given the family background, I'm wondering just how
>submissive they were trained to be to male authority,
Oh boy, here we go -- girl does something we don't understand,
look for some way to blame it on "males"...
Michael Snyder
Aussie Lurker wrote in message
>
>"Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote
>in message news:BOQba.66656$S_4.48126@rwcrnsc53...
>>
>>
>> I don't know if it's Stockholm Syndrome, tho. It could just as easily
>> be simple fear. Still waiting for details..
>>
>I think it is fear. She was only 14 when taken and Mitchell could have said
>anything at all to her. Even along the lines of ... "You saw how easy it
>was for me to take you if you give me any trouble etc..... I'll go back and
>kill your sister". Something like that. Being only 14 she would have
>believed him.
>
>What I'm curious about is his wife. He just turns up with Elizabeth and the
>wife does NOTHING?
She was married to a mormon prophet. He probably told her in advance
that he would be looking for additional wives. And as you may have noticed,
14 is considered marriagable age in some segments of that population.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
Ya mean we can't do that now either? Damn it to hell.
CQuinn
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
This is true, however, legitimate contractors have liability insurance and
are responsible for the on-site behavior of their workers.
> And, if Emmanuel had been hired to work inside the Smart house, I'd agree
with
> you--it's absolutely foolish to bring a person like this into one's home
> intentionally (although I guarantee you that you've had worse in your own
> home--you just don't know about it). But this guy was hired to do
gardening
> and work on the roof--outside work. I'm very impressed that the Smarts
> employed this particular brand of charity.
This isn't charity, it's business. Ed Smart is a successful real estate
broker. Some realtors, especially those who manage rental properties or buy
properties to rehab and flip them, tend to hire undesirables for cheap labor
and to avoid dealing with unions. Realtors also keep a cache of these guys
to make quick repairs before a home goes to settlement. I spent five years
as a property manager and Smart should have definitely known better. But,
alas, the cheap labor afforded him a luxurious residence.
Last night was the first time I saw Smart, and I thought he was completely
weird. He reminded me of Jim Bakker.
CQ
Maggie
CQ said:
This is true, however, legitimate contractors have liability insurance and
are responsible for the on-site behavior of their workers.
***Uh....so what?
maggie said:
> And, if Emmanuel had been hired to work inside the Smart house, I'd agree
with
> you--it's absolutely foolish to bring a person like this into one's home
> intentionally (although I guarantee you that you've had worse in your own
> home--you just don't know about it). But this guy was hired to do
gardening
> and work on the roof--outside work. I'm very impressed that the Smarts
> employed this particular brand of charity.
CQ said:
This isn't charity, it's business. Ed Smart is a successful real estate
broker. Some realtors, especially those who manage rental properties or buy
properties to rehab and flip them, tend to hire undesirables for cheap labor
and to avoid dealing with unions. Realtors also keep a cache of these guys
to make quick repairs before a home goes to settlement. I spent five years
as a property manager and Smart should have definitely known better. But,
alas, the cheap labor afforded him a luxurious residence.
***Really? So you think Ed Smart was deducting this guy's pay as a business
expense? I sort of doubt it since he no doubt paid him cash.
Sorry--this was charity (it was at his own house, for Christ's sake)--not
business.
CQ said:
Last night was the first time I saw Smart, and I thought he was completely
weird. He reminded me of Jim Bakker.
>>
***I hope you aren't rash enough to form permanent opinions about a man based
on a few words said on what has to be the most emotional day of his life.
Robert S.
>
> What I'm curious about is his wife. He just turns up with Elizabeth and the
> wife does NOTHING?
>
This so-called "religion" allows multiple wives. She wouldn't object
to a second wife.
From the looks of that house, I'm surprised at the lack of a security
system. My house is *MUCH* smaller than their's, but there's an alarm
active at night, IR video cameras in front and back, and a perimiter
system in the backyard that will turn on lights and chime if there's a
lot of motion.
Hope Munro Smith
news:lY2ca.619$eb1....@typhoon.sonic.net:
Speculation in other threads is that the wife wanted another daughter,
because her own daughter had gone to live with her dad years earlier.
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
news:20030313105911...@mb-fh.aol.com...
It's a good point, and there's certainly been any number of cases where
your friendly local cable guy or phone installer used his inside knowledge
of people's houses to case them for later burgularies. But you're off point
in one regard: these people aren't strangers off the street. They're representing
a company which can be contacted in the course of an investigation as to
who they sent to the house. How do you go about tracing some guy you yourself
picked up off the street? More to the point, why would you hire a total stranger,
not affiliated with any company, when there's a phone book full of people you
could call?
RstJ
ponyduck
wrote:
><< vox...@shaw.ca wrote in <3E704EEF...@shaw.ca>:
>
>>The kidnapper also used a gun.
>>
>>vxp
>
>I just read a news story that stated it was a knife and not a
>gun. Remind me to start saving news stories so I can reference
>them. ;-) >>
>
>***It was a gun.
>
>Maggie
Ed Smart just said rather definitely that the abductor had a knife,
not a gun. Where did the info that it was a gun come from?--did MK
report that at the time?
--pony
okerry
> Canyon, the entrance of which is between the Smart
> neighborhood and the University of Utah Hospital.
>
> Elizabeth says that, while there, she could hear the
> searchers calling her name.
> Kris
I thought they had searchers combing those canyons and hills for weeks. Has
anybody explained how they could possibly have missed these people?
okerry
okerry
you greatly, but loads and loads and loads of people *who have worked at and
in your houses* (I guarantee this) have criminal records, alcohol and
Going through a legitimate, licensed company to get workers is one thing.
Bringing a homeless stranger to your house because you think it will set a
good example for your kids is something else entirely.
okerry
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
What evidence do you have that the police caused his death?
These are the facts as I understand them:
Ricci is a convicted felon on parole
Ricci was being held on a parole violation after he admitted he took
items from the Smart home.
Ricci died of a cerebral hemorrhage.
Ricci's poor health and prior misdeeds put him in the circumstances
that led to his death. Nothing more, nothing less.
Robert S.
> I think the thought of helping those less fortunate than yourself is a
> wonderful lesson to teach your children. Obviously the smarts wanted to
> give their kids charitable values.
Here's what they were actually teaching their children:
1. It's OK to hire unlicensed "handymen" to work around your house.
Forget that the state government requires contractors to be licenced.
Mormons are above the law.
2. It's OK to pay people "under the table" in cash so they don't have
to report the income on their income tax. Mormons are above the law.
Maggie
robert said:
It's a good point, and there's certainly been any number of cases where
your friendly local cable guy or phone installer used his inside knowledge
of people's houses to case them for later burgularies. But you're off point
in one regard: these people aren't strangers off the street. They're
representing
a company which can be contacted in the course of an investigation as to
who they sent to the house.
***Robert, you're dreaming. Gardeners, painters and movers (and any individual
contractors) are not IBM--many (most?) don't keep any kind of records on
unskilled employees, many of whom are in this country illegally. The employers
pick them up on street in the mornings and drop them off at the pickup place
that afternoon--every city has places like that. Sure--if you hire only big
name contractors to work for you, you're less likely to run into these
problems. But when you hire Two Guys and a Truck for local moves, or Sarah's
Cleaning Service, or John's Ace Gardener's, don't expect them to be able to
find their empoyees the next week.
robert said:
How do you go about tracing some guy you yourself
picked up off the street?
***Actually, if you hired such a person yourself (something I wouldn't
recommend, BTW), you would probably have much greater luck finding him later
than you would if you tried to find the gardener's Spanish-speaking
mulch-spreader that showed up on Wednesday.
robert said:
More to the point, why would you hire a total stranger,
not affiliated with any company, when there's a phone book full of people you
could call?
>>
***Because there's *not* a phone book full of people to call. What company do
you call if you need a couple of doors in your house unstuck? How about if
you've bought a load of firewood and you need someone to help you stack it? Or
maybe you need someone to sew you two curtains for a bedroom, wallpaper a
bathroom or pressure wash your deck? Do-it-yourselfers (like Mr. Smart,
apparently) have a particularly difficult time finding anyone other than the
odd handyman type to work with them because the jobs are frequently not
sufficiently large to interest even a small company.
Listen--I'm probably the most careful person I know. I *have* run police
reports on people who I've hired to do work for me. But some of those people
were actually in my house doing estimates *before* I had enough information on
them to run the police check. I've had painters from incorporated businesses
show up with different day laborers on different days, not one of them speaking
English. Same with the carpenters putting in my new kitchen and the guys
laying my carpet. I am not so naive as to think that these "employees" leave
any sort of paper trail at all. I'm sure many of them are illegal aliens.
And if these people can show up in my police-record-checking, question-asking,
reference-checking household, they have certainly been in the houses of loads
of people with less stringent screening processes.
Maggie
wrote:
><< vox...@shaw.ca wrote in <3E704EEF...@shaw.ca>:
>
>>The kidnapper also used a gun.
>>
>>vxp
>
>I just read a news story that stated it was a knife and not a
>gun. Remind me to start saving news stories so I can reference
>them. ;-) >>
>
>***It was a gun.
>
>Maggie
pony said:
Ed Smart just said rather definitely that the abductor had a knife,
not a gun. Where did the info that it was a gun come from?--did MK
report that at the time?
>>
***It was in all the early stories. From CBS:
Says Ed: “I remember hearing Mary Katherine saying ‘You’re not going to
find her. A man took her. A man took her with a gun.’”
From the Washington Times:
He nevertheless cautiously characterized the investigation as moving ever so
slightly slowly closer to determining what happened to the 14 year old who was
reportedly kidnapped from her upscale home early June 5 by an intruder armed
with a gun.
From ABC (referring to Mrs. Ricci):
She said her husband was in bed with her all night on the night Elizabeth was
kidnapped from her bed by a soft-spoken man armed with a handgun. And she
vividly remembers how he reacted to the news the next day.
[back to maggie] I could go on and on. The only reference in the stories to a
knife refer to what was found in Richard Ricci's possession (a knife and that
weird tam).
Knife, huh? I wonder if this was a detail that was intended to separate any
false confessions from true ones. What else did Ed Smart say about the knife?
Maggie
you greatly, but loads and loads and loads of people *who have worked at and
in your houses* (I guarantee this) have criminal records, alcohol and
substance abuse problems and severe mental illnesses.***
okerry said:
Going through a legitimate, licensed company to get workers is one thing.
Bringing a homeless stranger to your house because you think it will set a
good example for your kids is something else entirely. >>
***I know it makes you feel better to believe "legitimate, licensed companies"
don't hire transients, or that it's even possible to find a legitimate,
licensed company to do every job on your property, but you're wrong.
CQuinn
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
It's not obvious to you?
> maggie said:
> > And, if Emmanuel had been hired to work inside the Smart house, I'd
agree
> with
> > you--it's absolutely foolish to bring a person like this into one's home
> > intentionally (although I guarantee you that you've had worse in your
own
> > home--you just don't know about it). But this guy was hired to do
> gardening
> > and work on the roof--outside work. I'm very impressed that the Smarts
> > employed this particular brand of charity.
>
> CQ said:
> This isn't charity, it's business. Ed Smart is a successful real estate
> broker. Some realtors, especially those who manage rental properties or
buy
> properties to rehab and flip them, tend to hire undesirables for cheap
labor
> and to avoid dealing with unions. Realtors also keep a cache of these guys
> to make quick repairs before a home goes to settlement. I spent five years
> as a property manager and Smart should have definitely known better. But,
> alas, the cheap labor afforded him a luxurious residence.
>
> ***Really? So you think Ed Smart was deducting this guy's pay as a
business
> expense? I sort of doubt it since he no doubt paid him cash.
You think he paid him cash, do you? Well, then, that would mean he paid him
under the table, so to speak.
> Sorry--this was charity (it was at his own house, for Christ's sake)--not
> business.
So you believe charity begins with no taxes for Mitchell the psychotic and
Ricci the petty criminal? Okay. To each his own.
CQ
Maggie
news:<v70aabn...@corp.supernews.com>...
> I think the thought of helping those less fortunate than yourself is a
> wonderful lesson to teach your children. Obviously the smarts wanted to
> give their kids charitable values.
robert s said:
Here's what they were actually teaching their children:
1. It's OK to hire unlicensed "handymen" to work around your house.
Forget that the state government requires contractors to be licenced.
Mormons are above the law.
***Hey, robert. Could you cite me the law that requires guys who garden and
help you patch a roof be licensed?
2. It's OK to pay people "under the table" in cash so they don't have
to report the income on their income tax. Mormons are above the law. >>
***Hmmmm. Something tells me your real issue isn't wage and hour disputes.
Desi
Maggie wrote in message <20030313140252...@mb-fh.aol.com>...
You can and I did put it in my contract, no day laborers, when doing
inside remodeling or painting. I got a list from the subs and that was
who came to my house. You are paying a company for skilled work, that's
what you should get. I didn't care about outside workers, because I
don't let them in the house. More than likely they may have been
alcoholics or mentally ill, but I tend to doubt it, as the company takes
the responsibility putting them up on ladders and pays for their
mistakes, if any. If you use a reputable company, with insurance, bond,
workmen's comp and references, they will back up their work. To stay in
business they generally run a good business
desi
>
>"Injustice is relatively easy to bear. What stings is
ustice." --H.L.
>Mencken
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> ***Robert, you're dreaming. Gardeners, painters and movers (and any individual
> contractors) are not IBM--many (most?) don't keep any kind of records on
> unskilled employees, many of whom are in this country illegally. The employers
> pick them up on street in the mornings and drop them off at the pickup place
> that afternoon--every city has places like that. Sure--if you hire only big
> name contractors to work for you, you're less likely to run into these
> problems. But when you hire Two Guys and a Truck for local moves, or Sarah's
> Cleaning Service, or John's Ace Gardener's, don't expect them to be able to
> find their empoyees the next week.
I don't expect them to do much of squat, no. But I would expect the *police*
would show a lot more interest in finding them, and they'd have a good place
to start. The people on those corners know each other. You need to find them
again, it's not that hard to do, especially when the people doing the finding are
wearing badges and have plenty of experience finding exactly these kinds of
people.
>
> robert said:
> How do you go about tracing some guy you yourself
> picked up off the street?
>
> ***Actually, if you hired such a person yourself (something I wouldn't
> recommend, BTW), you would probably have much greater luck finding him later
> than you would if you tried to find the gardener's Spanish-speaking
> mulch-spreader that showed up on Wednesday.
Again, the police would be looking for them, not just me. And they have
a lot of experience working through that world looking for people who
decided to try a bit of theft to supplement their income. My point is
that day laborers, even those working off the corner, are known in their
community. There are places to begin looking.
>
> robert said:
> More to the point, why would you hire a total stranger,
> not affiliated with any company, when there's a phone book full of people you
> could call?
> >>
>
> ***Because there's *not* a phone book full of people to call. What company do
> you call if you need a couple of doors in your house unstuck? How about if
> you've bought a load of firewood and you need someone to help you stack it? Or
> maybe you need someone to sew you two curtains for a bedroom, wallpaper a
> bathroom or pressure wash your deck? Do-it-yourselfers (like Mr. Smart,
> apparently) have a particularly difficult time finding anyone other than the
> odd handyman type to work with them because the jobs are frequently not
> sufficiently large to interest even a small company.
Gimme a break. You're saying he couldn't find anybody to do the work
so he needed to hire someone off the street? That's nonsense. And what idiot
hires a street person to work on their *roof* fer crying out loud? Unskilled
labor is far more likely to do damage than actually fix anything. And are
you really suggesting that these people are so incapable of doing anything around
the house that they need to hire a homeless person to stack wood for them?
Think about it. You give 5$ to some guy panhandling on the street. Is your
first thought "wow, I wonder if this guy would wallpaper my bathroom?"
> Listen--I'm probably the most careful person I know. I *have* run police
> reports on people who I've hired to do work for me. But some of those people
> were actually in my house doing estimates *before* I had enough information on
> them to run the police check. I've had painters from incorporated businesses
> show up with different day laborers on different days, not one of them speaking
> English. Same with the carpenters putting in my new kitchen and the guys
> laying my carpet. I am not so naive as to think that these "employees" leave
> any sort of paper trail at all. I'm sure many of them are illegal aliens.
I'm sure they are too. And I'm also sure they're going to be a lot easier to find
than a homeless drifter would be. Paper isn't the only way to track people.
And running a police check doesn't guarantee that one of your contractors
isn't going to turn out to be John Wayne Gacy, either.
But are you seriously approving of hiring some dude off the street to
come into your home, someone you know nothing at all about, not affiliated
with a company, not a family friend or neighbor, someone begging on the street,
to come work on your house? You don't think that's taking a foolish risk?
>
> And if these people can show up in my police-record-checking, question-asking,
> reference-checking household, they have certainly been in the houses of loads
> of people with less stringent screening processes.
>
>
> Maggie
I'm sure they have. Without thieving them or abducting their daughters. It's
what they do to earn money. But are you more comfortable with these people
who have a work history, a checkable background, and are affliated with people
you've contracted with, or a homeless drifter right off the street?
RstJ
Maggie
cq said:
It's not obvious to you?
**Nope.
> maggie said:
> > And, if Emmanuel had been hired to work inside the Smart house, I'd
agree
> with
> > you--it's absolutely foolish to bring a person like this into one's home
> > intentionally (although I guarantee you that you've had worse in your
own
> > home--you just don't know about it). But this guy was hired to do
> gardening
> > and work on the roof--outside work. I'm very impressed that the Smarts
> > employed this particular brand of charity.
>
> CQ said:
> This isn't charity, it's business. Ed Smart is a successful real estate
> broker. Some realtors, especially those who manage rental properties or
buy
> properties to rehab and flip them, tend to hire undesirables for cheap
labor
> and to avoid dealing with unions. Realtors also keep a cache of these guys
> to make quick repairs before a home goes to settlement. I spent five years
> as a property manager and Smart should have definitely known better. But,
> alas, the cheap labor afforded him a luxurious residence.
>
> ***Really? So you think Ed Smart was deducting this guy's pay as a
business
> expense? I sort of doubt it since he no doubt paid him cash.
cq said:
You think he paid him cash, do you? Well, then, that would mean he paid him
under the table, so to speak.
> Sorry--this was charity (it was at his own house, for Christ's sake)--not
> business.
cq said:
So you believe charity begins with no taxes for Mitchell the psychotic and
Ricci the petty criminal? Okay. To each his own.
>>
***LOL. You really think Mitchell filed income tax returns?
Swamp land for you, too!
Maggie
"Injustice is relatively easy to bear. What stings is justice." --H.L.
Mencken
Desi
Maggie wrote in message <20030313141520...@mb-fh.aol.com>...
><< "BethF" <be...@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote in message
>news:<v70aabn...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>> I think the thought of helping those less fortunate than yourself is
a
>> wonderful lesson to teach your children. Obviously the smarts wanted
to
>> give their kids charitable values.
>
>robert s said:
>Here's what they were actually teaching their children:
>
>1. It's OK to hire unlicensed "handymen" to work around your house.
>Forget that the state government requires contractors to be licenced.
>Mormons are above the law.
>
>***Hey, robert. Could you cite me the law that requires guys who
garden and
>help you patch a roof be licensed?
In California they have to be. Above would be a C-27 and a C-39
license.
There are 42 classifications of licenses and
everything you need to know at
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/consumers/default.asp
>
>2. It's OK to pay people "under the table" in cash so they don't have
>to report the income on their income tax. Mormons are above the law. >>
>
>***Hmmmm. Something tells me your real issue isn't wage and hour
disputes.
>
>
>Maggie
>
>"Injustice is relatively easy to bear. What stings is
ustice." --H.L.
>Mencken
Maggie
individual
> contractors) are not IBM--many (most?) don't keep any kind of records on
> unskilled employees, many of whom are in this country illegally. The
employers
> pick them up on street in the mornings and drop them off at the pickup place
> that afternoon--every city has places like that. Sure--if you hire only big
> name contractors to work for you, you're less likely to run into these
> problems. But when you hire Two Guys and a Truck for local moves, or Sarah's
> Cleaning Service, or John's Ace Gardener's, don't expect them to be able to
> find their empoyees the next week.
rstj said:
I don't expect them to do much of squat, no. But I would expect the *police*
would show a lot more interest in finding them, and they'd have a good place
to start. The people on those corners know each other. You need to find them
again, it's not that hard to do, especially when the people doing the finding
are
wearing badges and have plenty of experience finding exactly these kinds of
people.
***You'd be surprised how few of the guys hanging out on a street corner stick
around after they kidnap someone. And how few of them have intricate social
networks. Many of them *are* homeless, you know. That's why they're hanging
around on street corners.
>
> robert said:
> How do you go about tracing some guy you yourself
> picked up off the street?
>
maggie said:
> ***Actually, if you hired such a person yourself (something I wouldn't
> recommend, BTW), you would probably have much greater luck finding him later
> than you would if you tried to find the gardener's Spanish-speaking
> mulch-spreader that showed up on Wednesday.
rstj said:
Again, the police would be looking for them, not just me. And they have
a lot of experience working through that world looking for people who
decided to try a bit of theft to supplement their income. My point is
that day laborers, even those working off the corner, are known in their
community. There are places to begin looking.
***I'd bet that day laborers are known about as well as (perhaps less well
than, now that I think about it) the homeless.
>
> robert said:
> More to the point, why would you hire a total stranger,
> not affiliated with any company, when there's a phone book full of people you
> could call?
> >>
>
> ***Because there's *not* a phone book full of people to call. What company
do
> you call if you need a couple of doors in your house unstuck? How about if
> you've bought a load of firewood and you need someone to help you stack it?
Or
> maybe you need someone to sew you two curtains for a bedroom, wallpaper a
> bathroom or pressure wash your deck? Do-it-yourselfers (like Mr. Smart,
> apparently) have a particularly difficult time finding anyone other than the
> odd handyman type to work with them because the jobs are frequently not
> sufficiently large to interest even a small company.
rstj said:
Gimme a break. You're saying he couldn't find anybody to do the work
so he needed to hire someone off the street?
**Of course that's not what I'm saying--how stupid. I'm saying that Ed Smart
performed an act of charity by hiring this man to work outside of his house. I
think it's much more admirable than just handing the guy a $10 bill. I
wouldn't have done it myself, but I admire Mr. Smart for helping people in this
way--it's sort of the difference between giving someone a fish and teaching him
to fish.
rstj said:
That's nonsense. And what idiot
hires a street person to work on their *roof* fer crying out loud? Unskilled
labor is far more likely to do damage than actually fix anything. And are
you really suggesting that these people are so incapable of doing anything
around
the house that they need to hire a homeless person to stack wood for them?
***I couldn't stack wood myself--lots of people, particularly older people
couldn't. Where in the phone book do you find "wood stackers"? Chances are
the guy who your garden supply place recommends to give you a hand has a police
record and/or a substance abuse problem and/or a serious mental illness. I see
you don't want to think about it, but it's true. That's all I'm saying.
rstj said:
Think about it. You give 5$ to some guy panhandling on the street. Is your
first thought "wow, I wonder if this guy would wallpaper my bathroom?"
***You seem to be confused by my argument if you think I'm saying that homeless
people make good handymen. What I'm saying (yet again) is that the guy sanding
the wall for the nice man you hired to paint your study may well be homeless
himself, probably has an alcohol problem (based on my intense study of
painters) and likely has other (rather unpleasant) issues as well.
maggie said:
> Listen--I'm probably the most careful person I know. I *have* run police
> reports on people who I've hired to do work for me. But some of those people
> were actually in my house doing estimates *before* I had enough information
on
> them to run the police check. I've had painters from incorporated businesses
> show up with different day laborers on different days, not one of them
speaking
> English. Same with the carpenters putting in my new kitchen and the guys
> laying my carpet. I am not so naive as to think that these "employees" leave
> any sort of paper trail at all. I'm sure many of them are illegal aliens.
rstj said:
I'm sure they are too. And I'm also sure they're going to be a lot easier to
find
than a homeless drifter would be.
***Boy, I'm sure you're wrong there. Homeless drifters don't usually have much
of a network to disappear into. If someone told me I had to find either a
homeless guy or an illegal alien, I'd go for the homeless guy every time.
rstj said:
Paper isn't the only way to track people.
And running a police check doesn't guarantee that one of your contractors
isn't going to turn out to be John Wayne Gacy, either.
But are you seriously approving of hiring some dude off the street to
come into your home,
***Sigh. Read the facts, robert. No one was invited to "come into" the
Smart's home.
rstj said:
someone you know nothing at all about, not affiliated
with a company, not a family friend or neighbor, someone begging on the street,
to come work on your house? You don't think that's taking a foolish risk?
***For the hundredth time--you've had such people working on your own home. I
guarantee it.
>
> And if these people can show up in my police-record-checking,
question-asking,
> reference-checking household, they have certainly been in the houses of loads
> of people with less stringent screening processes.
>
>
> Maggie
I'm sure they have. Without thieving them or abducting their daughters. It's
what they do to earn money. But are you more comfortable with these people
who have a work history, a checkable background, and are affliated with people
you've contracted with, or a homeless drifter right off the street?
>>
***You're dreaming if you think many unskilled laborers have "work histories,"
or "checkable backgrounds" or anything that makes them superior to the odd
homeless guy on the street. Many of them *are* the odd homeless guy on the
street. How do you think the homeless make money, anyway--drawing
architectural plans, drafting leases, computer consulting? Nope--doing day
labor.
Maggie
"Injustice is relatively easy to bear. What stings is justice." --H.L.
Mencken
ponyduck
wrote:
>Knife, huh? I wonder if this was a detail that was intended to separate any
>false confessions from true ones. What else did Ed Smart say about the knife?
>
>
>Maggie
It was during his noon press conference today, and he said, very
pointedly for some reason, "And as we all know now, it was a knife,
not a gun, and he cut the screen" etc. Don't know if I have the quote
exact, but it's close. Like I said, he seemed to present this rather
emphatically for whatever reason. He only went on to say that the
screen was cut from the outside, not inside (again, he stressed this,
I suppose because of the early speculation that somehow the family had
staged this screen cut). But nothing else was said about the knife.
And of course, the press didn't ask a thing about it.
I wish we could fast-forward a couple of weeks, to the time when a lot
of these initial questions will be answered definitively.
--pony
Kris Baker
Me, too. All the comments made by this poster have been anti-Mormon,
rather than applicable to the case at hand. While I'm a non-MoMo in
Utah and find some things odd here, I also know what it's like in Massa-
chusetts for my non-Catholic siblings. There's *always* some group
that's more powerful, whether it's a labor union, a religious group, or
a corporation. It's only those who cede power to that group, who
are actually powerless themselves.
The State of Utah obviously issues contractors' licenses, and they
are "legally" required for any job requiring a permit. BUT....there is
only one contractor's license needed per job, and various workers
perform duties under that contractor's "umbrella".
For the case of Ed Smart and any building/remodeling, it's ridiculous
to believe that the State of Utah is going to charge Mitchell with
"working without a contractor's license while helping a guy fix
his roof".
Handymen can work *without* a contractor's license in Utah, as
long as they remain within certain limitations.
Kris
Kris
AmericanChick
wrs...@yahoo.com (Robert S.) wrote:
> From the looks of that house, I'm surprised at the lack of a security
> system.
The father said that they had a system, but didn't keep it on at night
because if one of the kids got up for a drink or bathroom, it often set
it off.
tiny dancer
"okerry" <oke...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:G14ca.26$R13.3@fed1read01...
Exactly, yes, legitimate companies may have questionable workers, but you're
a hell of a lot safer than dragging so degenerate in off the
streets......... We had a pest control company here some years ago that
ended up being the basis of some home burglaries. I believe customers were
able to sue them when it was discovered that their employee used his
employment as a way of returning to commit burglaries. Whether they ended
up 'paying out' or not I can't recall, but let me tell you, the bad
publicity alone was almost a killer to this very long-standing reputable
business.
Most people are much more careful and concerned about whom they allow access
to their homes.
td
td
>
>
tiny dancer
Totally agree with you desi, sounds like maybe Maggs hires 'el cheapo labor
and pays 'em under the table. If and when we have anyone into our home to
do work we certainly don't go with the 'cheapest' estimate, we make our
decisions on the quality of the workmanship, who will actually be doing the
work, and references and checking with the BBB...........might cost us a bit
more, but we've never been sorry with the work that was done in our home.
td
tiny dancer
Cheap, cheap.............that's our Magg's.
td
>
>
>
Maggie
> garden and
> >help you patch a roof be licensed?
>
> In California they have to be. Above would be a C-27 and a C-39
> license.
> There are 42 classifications of licenses and
> everything you need to know at
>
> http://www.cslb.ca.gov/consumers/default.asp
>
> >
> >2. It's OK to pay people "under the table" in cash so they don't have
> >to report the income on their income tax. Mormons are above the law. >>
> >
> >***Hmmmm. Something tells me your real issue isn't wage and hour
> disputes.
Kris said:
Me, too. All the comments made by this poster have been anti-Mormon,
rather than applicable to the case at hand. While I'm a non-MoMo in
Utah and find some things odd here, I also know what it's like in Massa-
chusetts for my non-Catholic siblings. There's *always* some group
that's more powerful, whether it's a labor union, a religious group, or
a corporation. It's only those who cede power to that group, who
are actually powerless themselves.
The State of Utah obviously issues contractors' licenses, and they
are "legally" required for any job requiring a permit. BUT....there is
only one contractor's license needed per job, and various workers
perform duties under that contractor's "umbrella".
For the case of Ed Smart and any building/remodeling, it's ridiculous
to believe that the State of Utah is going to charge Mitchell with
"working without a contractor's license while helping a guy fix
his roof".
***Of course. I didn't see desi's post, but I thought pretty much anyone could
figure out that mine was a rhetorical question. Imagine thinking one has to
obtain a permit to patch his own roof.
Maggie
"Injustice is relatively easy to bear. What stings is justice." --H.L.
Mencken
Maggie
> From the looks of that house, I'm surprised at the lack of a security
> system.
american chick said:
The father said that they had a system, but didn't keep it on at night
because if one of the kids got up for a drink or bathroom, it often set
it off. >>
***I've heard other people say things like this and it's really dumb. Either
they should take out those motion detectors or learn how to bypass them when
they set the alarm at night.
tiny dancer
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
You're kidding, right? Most cities have plenty of options. Here we have a
group of retired carpenters and trades people who advertise for small jobs,
licesnsed, bonded, and criminial background checks available. Many of the
larger more reputable companies do routine criminal background checks now a
days and the larger they are the more liablity they could face.
How about if
> you've bought a load of firewood and you need someone to help you stack
it? Or
> maybe you need someone to sew you two curtains for a bedroom, wallpaper a
> bathroom or pressure wash your deck? Do-it-yourselfers (like Mr. Smart,
> apparently) have a particularly difficult time finding anyone other than
the
> odd handyman type to work with them because the jobs are frequently not
> sufficiently large to interest even a small company.
And you don't have companies listed in your phone book advertising "NO JOB
TOO SMALL"??
>
> Listen--I'm probably the most careful person I know. I *have* run police
> reports on people who I've hired to do work for me. But some of those
people
> were actually in my house doing estimates *before* I had enough
information on
> them to run the police check. I've had painters from incorporated
businesses
> show up with different day laborers on different days, not one of them
speaking
> English. Same with the carpenters putting in my new kitchen and the guys
> laying my carpet. I am not so naive as to think that these "employees"
leave
> any sort of paper trail at all. I'm sure many of them are illegal aliens.
Then that's your fault for not getting it in writing up front 'who' will
actually be doing the work.
>
> And if these people can show up in my police-record-checking,
question-asking,
> reference-checking household, they have certainly been in the houses of
loads
> of people with less stringent screening processes.
Our point exactly, did you see the size of that Smart house? Obviously
these people have the wear withall to hire legitimate workers, and having a
houseful of children that's what they should have done. You were very
vocal about the people the VanDam's brought into their home, why give the
Smarts a pass.........
td
tiny dancer
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
When we buy a cord of firewood we always purchase from dealers who list two
prices, one for the delivery of the wood and a second charge for 'deliver
and stacking'...........
td
tiny dancer
"Robert S." <wrs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5511e32.03031...@posting.google.com...
Well stated.
td
Desi
Maggie wrote in message <20030313151130...@mb-fh.aol.com>...
~A license here is required, but permits are not necessary for
refurbishing or repairing existing structures.
>
>For the case of Ed Smart and any building/remodeling, it's ridiculous
>to believe that the State of Utah is going to charge Mitchell with
>"working without a contractor's license while helping a guy fix
>his roof".
>
>***Of course. I didn't see desi's post, but I thought pretty much
anyone could
>figure out that mine was a rhetorical question. Imagine thinking one
has to
>obtain a permit to patch his own roof.
>
>
>Maggie
I think you are mixing my post up with Roberts post. I didn't need a
permit for roof work, years ago. I hired a licensed roofer. He was
repairing and refurbishing an existing roof. Your question was show me
a law that says a gardner or roof work requires a license. It does
require a license in California. Perhaps not in Utah, but I would think
a permit unnecesary repairing existing structures in both states. Now
that doesn't prevent a homeowner from going up on his own roof and hot
mopping a leak, but it certainly is idiocy to hire an unskilled person
off the street to repair your roof. And , of course, it was dangerous
for him to have had Ricci and Mitchell. With the amount of publicity
this case is gettting I bet a lot of homeowners will be more careful who
they let in their home.
desi
>
>"Injustice is relatively easy to bear. What stings is
ustice." --H.L.
>Mencken
Collie
>
> "BethF" <be...@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote in message
> news:v70aabn...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > news:nDSba.129731
> >
> > > Hey, I don't blame the victim here, but c'mon Maggie, when was the last
> > time
> > > you brought home street people to work inside your home? Seems like a
> > > pretty stupid practice to say the least......exposing ones children to the
> > > underbelly of society.
> > >
> >
> >
> > wonderful lesson to teach your children. Obviously the smarts wanted to
> > ugly.
>
> done the job if it needed doing. I'm with td on this one--I don't like
> strangers anywhere near my house and there are plenty of ways to
> show charity towards your fellow man other than inviting someone
> you don't know, right off the street, to work on your house. Especially
> when you have young children. The Smarts, obviously, made a serious
> mistake inviting this guy to their house. Although, given his ability to
> talk his way into living arrangements, the idea might have been his
> to begin with and he talked Elizabeth's parents into letting him do some
> work.
>
I agree the family made a serious mistake, but you should be aware that
many contractors use "labor pool" workers who are often homeless or
transient. So even if you used a contractor or subcontractor, you could
end up with folks like Emmanuel working on your property. Scary
thought, huh?
Luk
tiny dancer wrote:
>
> Our point exactly, did you see the size of that Smart house? Obviously
> these people have the wear withall to hire legitimate workers, and having a
> houseful of children that's what they should have done. You were very
> vocal about the people the VanDam's brought into their home, why give the
> Smarts a pass.........
Aren't you a bit quick to criticize here, given that this man's
only job at the Smart house was a brief one which involved
working on the roof?
Contractors hire people off the street corners.
Luk
Luk
Spoken like a true union member.
Luk
Maggie
Bordercollie said:
I agree the family made a serious mistake, but you should be aware that
many contractors use "labor pool" workers who are often homeless or
transient. So even if you used a contractor or subcontractor, you could
end up with folks like Emmanuel working on your property. Scary
thought, huh?
>>
***I had to smile at this one, BC. I've been telling them and telling
them--they just don't want to hear it.
Maggie
"Injustice is relatively easy to bear. What stings is justice." --H.L.
Mencken
Hope Munro Smith
news:20030313140252...@mb-fh.aol.com:
> << ***Guys, I really hate to let you in on this because it's going to
> disturb you greatly, but loads and loads and loads of people *who have
> worked at and in your houses* (I guarantee this) have criminal
> records, alcohol and substance abuse problems and severe mental
> illnesses.***
>
> okerry said:
> Going through a legitimate, licensed company to get workers is one
> thing. Bringing a homeless stranger to your house because you think it
> will set a good example for your kids is something else entirely. >>
>
> ***I know it makes you feel better to believe "legitimate, licensed
> companies" don't hire transients, or that it's even possible to find a
> legitimate, licensed company to do every job on your property, but
> you're wrong.
>
After reading some more about the Smarts, it sounds like they hired
transients to do labor because they felt it was an act of charity.
Kris Baker
"AmericanChick" <nosp...@nothing.com> wrote in message
news:130320031403018500%nosp...@nothing.com...
I hope they've switched from the motion detector system, to the
perimeter type.
The companies sell the motion detectors as a better system,
but I think the actual experience of users is very different.
Kris
Gitchy
<tU2ca.372$By1...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>:
>
>"Gitchy" <gitchy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3e7017e2...@news.houston.sbcglobal.net...
>> Didn't some news organization report that both Mitchell and the
>> woman were in the woods with Elizabeth for days after the
>> kidnapping? That would indicate she was in on it from the
>> beginning.
>
>"She", meaning the wife, right?
Yes, his wife or whatever she is. The three of them were in the
woods behind the house in the first few days following the
kidnapping, according to some reports. I doubt that Mitchell
grabbed Elizabeth, then went somewhere else to bring his wife
back to the area.
okerry
> >> woman were in the woods with Elizabeth for days after the
> >> kidnapping? That would indicate she was in on it from the
> >> beginning.
> >
> >"She", meaning the wife, right?
>
> Yes, his wife or whatever she is. The three of them were in the
> woods behind the house in the first few days following the
> kidnapping, according to some reports. I doubt that Mitchell
> grabbed Elizabeth, then went somewhere else to bring his wife
> back to the area.
So, that brings me to the next question: weren't search dogs used in the
first hours of this case? Wouldn't they have found her right away in the
hills behind the house?
okerry
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
> rstj said:
> I don't expect them to do much of squat, no. But I would expect the *police*
> would show a lot more interest in finding them, and they'd have a good place
> to start. The people on those corners know each other. You need to find them
> again, it's not that hard to do, especially when the people doing the finding
> are
> wearing badges and have plenty of experience finding exactly these kinds of
> people.
>
> ***You'd be surprised how few of the guys hanging out on a street corner stick
> around after they kidnap someone. And how few of them have intricate social
> networks. Many of them *are* homeless, you know. That's why they're hanging
> around on street corners.
I don't expect them to hang around, no, but neither do I think they just showed
up on the street corner one day, got a job, used the job to get information for
a kidnapping, committed the kidnapping, then vanished without leaving a trace,
all in the space of a few days. Thats's a little too organized for someone
who's ended up on the streets. And no, most of them aren't homeless as in
living under bridges. They're hanging around on street corners to get work,
not just to waste time. But they *do* spend a lot of time there. And they talk.
Or they don't, but someone remembers them and they can very definitely be
found again. If you need proof, try it. I bet you could run down a guy who worked
on your house a year ago. And I have no question you could quickly find someone
who worked on your house a week ago. And if you couldn't, an investigator could.
This is presuming they didn't just commit a major crime in your house recently,
of course. But in that case, you're going to have a lot of help finding them, help
that is very experienced in finding people who don't want to be found.
>
> >
> > robert said:
> > How do you go about tracing some guy you yourself
> > picked up off the street?
> >
> maggie said:
> > ***Actually, if you hired such a person yourself (something I wouldn't
> > recommend, BTW), you would probably have much greater luck finding him later
> > than you would if you tried to find the gardener's Spanish-speaking
> > mulch-spreader that showed up on Wednesday.
>
> rstj said:
> Again, the police would be looking for them, not just me. And they have
> a lot of experience working through that world looking for people who
> decided to try a bit of theft to supplement their income. My point is
> that day laborers, even those working off the corner, are known in their
> community. There are places to begin looking.
>
> ***I'd bet that day laborers are known about as well as (perhaps less well
> than, now that I think about it) the homeless.
Then you'd lose your money because there's a very intricate network going
on there between the guys who work the corners, the guys who pick them up,
the dealers who use them for cover, and the police who keep an eye on the
whole scene. The whole point is, they go to the same place every day, often
live nearby, have friends, frequently family, and aren't usually in the same
boat as the homeless who often have nothing and no one. Those guys aren't
down and outers who live out of garbage cans or drift from town to town.
They know which corners to work, and they know who comes to those corners.
These are guys who want to earn money, not weirdo street preachers cadging
places to stay and holding young women hostage.
<...>
> **Of course that's not what I'm saying--how stupid. I'm saying that Ed Smart
> performed an act of charity by hiring this man to work outside of his house. I
> think it's much more admirable than just handing the guy a $10 bill. I
> wouldn't have done it myself, but I admire Mr. Smart for helping people in this
> way--it's sort of the difference between giving someone a fish and teaching him
> to fish.
I'm not sure I'd compare it to the teachings of Jesus, but yes, I understand
what you're saying. I just don't agree with it. I think the Smarts were being
foolish (dumb play on words, I know) and naive. Some people don't want
to learn to fish. They want to steal *your* fish. Or worse, as in this case.
>
> rstj said:
> That's nonsense. And what idiot
> hires a street person to work on their *roof* fer crying out loud? Unskilled
> labor is far more likely to do damage than actually fix anything. And are
> you really suggesting that these people are so incapable of doing anything
> around
> the house that they need to hire a homeless person to stack wood for them?
>
> ***I couldn't stack wood myself--lots of people, particularly older people
> couldn't. Where in the phone book do you find "wood stackers"? Chances are
> the guy who your garden supply place recommends to give you a hand has a police
> record and/or a substance abuse problem and/or a serious mental illness. I see
> you don't want to think about it, but it's true. That's all I'm saying.
Ok, but they're not old, are they? So the comparison isn't valid. And yeah, lots
of people are meth-heads working to get money to score, or future psychopaths
doing whatever the hell future psychopaths do in order to pass the time. But most
of them aren't. The percentages start to go up when you're hiring people off the
street. And am I really supposed to believe that the Smarts were so isolated that
they couldn't find *anybody* to help them with their house chores? No teenager
in the neighborhood, family friend, etc?
Sorry, they made a big mistake, a mistake most of us here wouldn't make as
you yourself pointed out. You might find it admirable that he extended charity
to the hopeless. I think he was a fool for allowing Mitchell to work on his house.
>
> rstj said:
> Think about it. You give 5$ to some guy panhandling on the street. Is your
> first thought "wow, I wonder if this guy would wallpaper my bathroom?"
>
> ***You seem to be confused by my argument if you think I'm saying that homeless
> people make good handymen.
Another point in case: why the hell was Mitchell working on their roof? That
shows either a serious lack of judgement on the Smart's part, or, as I suspect,
a lot of persuasiveness on Mitchell's...
What I'm saying (yet again) is that the guy sanding
> the wall for the nice man you hired to paint your study may well be homeless
> himself, probably has an alcohol problem (based on my intense study of
> painters) and likely has other (rather unpleasant) issues as well.
Huh? Now it's *likely*? I don't think so. It's certainly possible, but
you're going to the other extreme and saying every day laborer is
a homeless drunk with "issues." No, that doesn't fly, and even if it
did, how much *more* likely is a demonstrably homeless guy to have
these same problems, only so much more severely that he can't even
do much day-labor?
This isn't a valid contention.
<...>
> ***Boy, I'm sure you're wrong there. Homeless drifters don't usually have much
> of a network to disappear into. If someone told me I had to find either a
> homeless guy or an illegal alien, I'd go for the homeless guy every time.
Not a chance. The illegal alien is almost always going to have family connections
in the US, be known in his neighborhood, and not very difficult to find at all,
especially if he's a suspect in a kidnapping. Illegals aren't rootless. They can't
be.
The first vagrancy roust and they're on a bus to the border.
The homeless are a different class of people, and not typically day-laborers.
Check out the nearest public park. How many of the street-bench guys are Mexican,
Russian, Chinese illegals? Not many. Mostly they're the mentally handicapped,
the drugged-out, and, unfortunately, the very young and very old. Nobody wants
these people as day-laborers because they're often useless for work, and the
guys in the trucks aren't looking for them to pick up for 8-10hrs of hard work.
>
> rstj said:
> Paper isn't the only way to track people.
> And running a police check doesn't guarantee that one of your contractors
> isn't going to turn out to be John Wayne Gacy, either.
>
> But are you seriously approving of hiring some dude off the street to
> come into your home,
>
> ***Sigh. Read the facts, robert. No one was invited to "come into" the
> Smart's home.
We don't have all the facts. Are we to assume he spent the entire time
on the roof? That he never once went in the house for a glass of water
or to use the bathroom? Was he *paid* on the roof?
>
> rstj said:
> someone you know nothing at all about, not affiliated
> with a company, not a family friend or neighbor, someone begging on the street,
> to come work on your house? You don't think that's taking a foolish risk?
>
> ***For the hundredth time--you've had such people working on your own home. I
> guarantee it.
I doubt it. Day-laborers, sure. Guys with records for drug-busts, undoubtably.
Chronic homeless who later kidnapped people? The odds aren't very good.
>
> >
> > And if these people can show up in my police-record-checking,
> question-asking,
> > reference-checking household, they have certainly been in the houses of loads
> > of people with less stringent screening processes.
> >
> >
> > Maggie
>
> I'm sure they have. Without thieving them or abducting their daughters. It's
> what they do to earn money. But are you more comfortable with these people
> who have a work history, a checkable background, and are affliated with people
> you've contracted with, or a homeless drifter right off the street?
> >>
>
> ***You're dreaming if you think many unskilled laborers have "work histories,"
> or "checkable backgrounds" or anything that makes them superior to the odd
> homeless guy on the street. Many of them *are* the odd homeless guy on the
> street. How do you think the homeless make money, anyway--drawing
> architectural plans, drafting leases, computer consulting? Nope--doing day
> labor.
>
>
>
> Maggie
They *don't* make money, Maggie--that's the point. They beg or steal or
deal drugs or eat out of garbage cans. And "checkable" doesn't just mean
a paper trail. There are many other ways to check into someone's background--
just ask your local PI. We're talking about two different groups of people: one,
poor, but working, and usually living somewhere at least for more than a month
or two at a time. The other, destitute, often incapable of work or unwilling,
who often have nowhere to go, and frequently change cities. A day laborer
doesn't ask you for a handout, he asks you if you have a job you need doing.
Do we know that's what happened here?
RstJ
Hope Munro Smith
news:c5511e32.03031...@posting.google.com:
> "BethF" <be...@NOT-SO-bad-dawgs-in-ak.com> wrote in message
> news:<v70aabn...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>> I think the thought of helping those less fortunate than yourself is
>> a wonderful lesson to teach your children. Obviously the smarts
>> wanted to give their kids charitable values.
>
> Here's what they were actually teaching their children:
>
> 1. It's OK to hire unlicensed "handymen" to work around your house.
> Forget that the state government requires contractors to be licenced.
> Mormons are above the law.
>
> 2. It's OK to pay people "under the table" in cash so they don't have
> to report the income on their income tax. Mormons are above the law.
Plus they might have wanted to save some money!
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Luk" <lukn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E70ED2E...@earthlink.net...
Good ones don't. Not if they're interested in maintaining a business
reputation. Sure, they may pull people off street corners to clear up
garbage or dig ditches, but any roofing company hiring guys off the
street who they don't know and have never hired before will end
up paying more to fix whatever the guys screwed up than they saved
by hiring cheap labor. Fixing a roof isn't an easy job. I'd want a roofer
to do it, and I'd want him to have insurance. No way in hell I'd hire
a street beggar to do this kind of job.
RstJ
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Collie" <border...@whatfun.com> wrote in message
news:3E70ED...@whatfun.com...
Yeah, and as I said before, there are reputable contractors like Gacy out
there.
But everybody's making the assumption that these contracting companies
are run by idiots who hire whatever labor happens to be around. They don't.
They have a roster of guys they use, and they don't staff up roofing jobs off
the nearest street corner with guys they don't know. They don't make a habit
of hiring bums who don't/can't/won't do the work properly. They can't afford
to. Or do you think their customers just hand over the payment for a lousy
job?
RstJ
Pocahontas
>
> I thought they had searchers combing those canyons and hills for weeks.
Has
> anybody explained how they could possibly have missed these people?
> okerry
>
>
>
* They got the same people who searched Rock Creek Park?
Maggie
> >
> > Our point exactly, did you see the size of that Smart house? Obviously
> > these people have the wear withall to hire legitimate workers, and having a
> > houseful of children that's what they should have done. You were very
> > vocal about the people the VanDam's brought into their home, why give the
> > Smarts a pass.........
>
> Aren't you a bit quick to criticize here, given that this man's
> only job at the Smart house was a brief one which involved
> working on the roof?
>
> Contractors hire people off the street corners.
>
> Luk
rstj said:
Good ones don't. Not if they're interested in maintaining a business
reputation. Sure, they may pull people off street corners to clear up
garbage or dig ditches, but any roofing company hiring guys off the
street who they don't know and have never hired before will end
up paying more to fix whatever the guys screwed up than they saved
by hiring cheap labor. Fixing a roof isn't an easy job. I'd want a roofer
to do it, and I'd want him to have insurance. No way in hell I'd hire
a street beggar to do this kind of job. >>
***Betcha have. You just don't know it.
Maggie
<< > I agree the family made a serious mistake, but you should be aware that
> many contractors use "labor pool" workers who are often homeless or
> transient. So even if you used a contractor or subcontractor, you could
> end up with folks like Emmanuel working on your property. Scary
> thought, huh?
rstj said:
Yeah, and as I said before, there are reputable contractors like Gacy out
there.
But everybody's making the assumption that these contracting companies
are run by idiots who hire whatever labor happens to be around. They don't.
They have a roster of guys they use, and they don't staff up roofing jobs off
the nearest street corner with guys they don't know. They don't make a habit
of hiring bums who don't/can't/won't do the work properly. They can't afford
to. Or do you think their customers just hand over the payment for a lousy
job? >>
***Sure. *Most* customers hand over their money for lousy jobs, as a matter of
fact. The great majority of people have no idea of the difference between a
good job and a lousy job--particularly in something like roofing where the
shoddy work might not cause noticeable problems for months or years.
Okay, Robert, I'll quit--clearly this is something you just aren't ready to
contemplate.
Pocahontas
> <...>
> > ***Robert, you're dreaming. Gardeners, painters and movers (and any
individual
> with a company, not a family friend or neighbor, someone begging on the
street,
> to come work on your house? You don't think that's taking a foolish risk?
>
> >
question-asking,
> > reference-checking household, they have certainly been in the houses of
loads
> > of people with less stringent screening processes.
> >
> >
> > Maggie
>
> I'm sure they have. Without thieving them or abducting their daughters.
It's
> what they do to earn money. But are you more comfortable with these people
> who have a work history, a checkable background, and are affliated with
people
> you've contracted with, or a homeless drifter right off the street?
>
anyone, to do cleanup and minor repairs. The only qualification was a pulse.
>
>
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
How am I not going to know it? Oh, back on that companies hire
scumbags thing again. Yes, I'm sure they do. But I hired the *company*
and when the work is done, that's who catches hell if it's done poorly.
And if my teenage daughter turns up missing a little while later,
the company will be answering questions about the guy, and "I don't
know, we found him on some street corner" isn't going to cut it
with the police, is it?
You're flogging Man O' War on this one. There's a world of difference
between hiring a company that hires weirdos and going out and hiring
them off the street yourself.
RstJ
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Pocahontas" <Pocah...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b4qsi...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Yeah, lotta hurricanes in Utah, I hear.
Flawed analogies don't exactly make convincing arguments.
RstJ
Robert S.
>
> In California they have to be. Above would be a C-27 and a C-39
> license.
Exactly right!
It's amazing how people break the law in the name of G-d!
I hope some professional contractors association sues the Smarts!
Robert St. James (el corazon del demonio)
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
Contemplate? Toward what end? That losers have done work on my
house while working for reputable companies? Of course they have.
But you seem to be driving to some point that the Smarts were just hiring
the same kind of losers they would have gotten anyway and I'm saying
that just isn't true. It's pretty clear that the Smarts hired someone who
never should have been near their house, and my point is that you're taking
a much higher risk at getting someone like this if you hire them off the street
yourself than you are if you hire them through a company.
RstJ
JC
> >
> > Maggie wrote in message <20030313140252...@mb-fh.aol.com>...
> > ><< ***Guys, I really hate to let you in on this because it's going to
> > disturb
> > >you greatly, but loads and loads and loads of people *who have worked
> > at and
> > >in your houses* (I guarantee this) have criminal records, alcohol and
> > >substance abuse problems and severe mental illnesses.***
> > >
> > >okerry said:
> > >Going through a legitimate, licensed company to get workers is one
> > thing.
> > >Bringing a homeless stranger to your house because you think it will
> > set a
> > >good example for your kids is something else entirely. >>
> > >
> > >***I know it makes you feel better to believe "legitimate, licensed
> > companies"
> > >don't hire transients, or that it's even possible to find a legitimate,
> > >licensed company to do every job on your property, but you're wrong.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You can and I did put it in my contract, no day laborers, when doing
> > inside remodeling or painting. I got a list from the subs and that was
> > who came to my house. You are paying a company for skilled work, that's
> > what you should get. I didn't care about outside workers, because I
> > don't let them in the house. More than likely they may have been
> > alcoholics or mentally ill, but I tend to doubt it, as the company takes
> > the responsibility putting them up on ladders and pays for their
> > mistakes, if any. If you use a reputable company, with insurance, bond,
> > workmen's comp and references, they will back up their work. To stay in
> > business they generally run a good business
> >
> > desi
>
>
> Totally agree with you desi, sounds like maybe Maggs hires 'el cheapo
labor
> and pays 'em under the table. If and when we have anyone into our home to
> do work we certainly don't go with the 'cheapest' estimate, we make our
> decisions on the quality of the workmanship, who will actually be doing
the
> work, and references and checking with the BBB...........might cost us a
bit
> more, but we've never been sorry with the work that was done in our home.
>
> td
In SoCal we had a contractor bring in day labor off a street corner for
outdoor work, one of whom I caught trying to sneak into my house. I was not
a happy camper. (However I was even more concerned with the contractor's
son-the-druggie (and his "rehab" pals), who was in partnership with his
dad.) Some of those day-laborer guys (and everybody knows what corners they
hang at in the mornings) are fine from what I can see, tainted by a few
baddies like everything else. Most are not homeless in SoCal, but are
probably Mexicans in the US illegally, and they need work. I myself would
never stop and ask one to my house, however, for any reason. Just wouldn't.
Yet probably thousands of them get picked up every day for work with no
problem (and prolly taken advantage of too). In this Smart case, seems to
me, the facts that Elizabeth's kidnapper was not looking for work, and that
he was a loner, make it an even riskier proposition (inviting him to work at
her home). At least that's how it sounded to me. Wonder how he got to the
Smart home the day he worked there. I think with his beard Mrs. Smart
probably thought he looked faintly holy and benign and harmless and down on
his luck. She was trying to do a good deed I'm sure.
JC
Kris Baker
JC
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
news:20030313162633...@mb-fh.aol.com...
In SoCal the anonymous day laborers stand on particular street corners in
groupls, and are regularly picked up early mornings by contractors et al. It
doesn't necessarily mean the work will be substandard either, depending on
what the work is. It is very common practice. Also, if a handyman-husband
needs help to do a big job at home he may very well get one of these guys to
help out - at least I knew people who talked about it, not sure if they
actually did it. Maybe this is a regional sort of practice?
JC
Desi
JC wrote in message <3e70ffff$0$5553$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>...
in her car and drove him back downtown. I , personally, would not risk
doing that. I learned the hard way about shoddy contractors and workmen
and I make it clear they can't come into the house when I know they pick
up day laborers. Having work done inside is stressful enough,
so I make sure the boss supervises them, not me, and they have to be a
regular employee.
desi
Collie
I know for a fact that roofers hire people "off the street corner." I
worked with a young man whose father was a roofer. He used to work for
his father, but stopped because his dad told him he could hire the labor
pool guys cheaper than his own son (the young man told me this in an
amused voice). FYI, labor pool is a storefront that advertises in the
paper, "Show up at 6 AM ready to work. Free coffee and donuts." Guys
show up and are hired for work crews. A charity for the homeless that I
often donate to uses some of the money to buy steel-toed shoes for
homeless folks who want to work labor pool.