Elizabeth Smart Thread, 9/17/02 to ???

[Utah Girl]

Just thought I would start a new thread.

[TXLady]

You listed a few words we don't generally use around these parts.... melee, bagarre, brouhaha.

A knock down drag out (Texas Style) is anytime there is a free-for all with everyone getting into the fight. Seems like that is what happens around Free Republic at times.

[Utah Girl]

Yes, this is how my family is. When I was growing up, there wasn't money for phones, etc in every bedroom, so we had to hang out in the family room or kitchen together. And my married brothers and sisters pretty much follow the same pattern. We all have money and could afford to put a phone, and a computer and a TV in each child's room, but my sister says she would never see her children. And she likes to keep an eye on what the kids are watching on TV and the Internet.

[Sherlock]

Yet people on this thread had it all figured out and worked it so Ricci did it, right down to being the ROAST PIG GUY..or used a POST HOLE DIGGER to dig for a BODY for crying out loud!! It almost makes me laugh to remember that. That is why I started posting stupid pictures. This thing is so absurd that I would hate to tell anyone of the things that are discussed here!!

Let me remind you of your record of predicting who's guilty. You obviously supported this or you wouldn't have posted it:

To: All

This is just a short interruption here...THIS is one brilliant poster in the Van Dam case, that explains the RUSH TO JUDGEMENT in the Van Dam case. This is documented, and I find it a wonderful explanation, that has been discussed over and over for two months by FReepers. NOT CONSPIRACY ZELOTS...but real people who are paying attention, and calling FOUL.

Here it is......(and I will not post more on it, but something to think about as we are being called conspiracy all the time people....there is TOO MUCH EVIDENCE that has to be recieved, before we can make a blanketed statement on WHO did this Elizabeth Smart crime.....read these facts, that are told over and over on the VD thread, and summed up here......*************************************************

It was never determined that the stain was actually blood. The test they ran indicated it COULD HAVE been blood. They did not run the test to actually determine whether it was blood or not. I don't know how to explain in scientific terms, but FReepers have gone over this in prior threads.

There was no blood seen on his jacket by the cleaners at any time ... before cleaning or after cleaning. The police picked up the jacket before Westerfield got it back. Lo and behold, "blood" was found on it. One FReeper mentioned that heat destroys DNA, so how could any "blood" DNA have survived the heat of dry cleaning?

As far as the palm print is concerned, they never found any of her prints in the motorhome until AFTER they found her body and rehydrated her hands. Then they went back to check ... and lo and behold, they found a print. Come to your own conclusion. I did. This has also been discussed in detail in prior threads.

The San Diego Police Department has been documented in planting false evidence in prior cases. Discussed on prior threads.

The close personal friend who advised Brenda Van Dam from the beginning is a retired policewoman. The head of a local swinger club is a retired policeman. There's more police & PR firm involvement/friendships that makes one suspicious as to Westerfield's being made a scapegoat and railroaded for a crime he didn't commit.

One of the child pornographers caught by a Swedish crime team lives in the same town as the Van Damns. Another one lives in San Diego, a short distance away. There are videos of them raping little children. Danielle could have wandered outside and been picked up by that porno group. One person was arrested in January, I think it was - and the other person was arrested TWO DAYS after Danielle's body was found. It has been speculated they had to get rid of her to keep from getting charged with her abuse, too.

There's a whole lot more stuff. Too much to go into in a short comment here. Like the blue paint under her fingernails, the dark hair under her body, unidentified fingerprints, unidentified blood, DNA in her bed, etc etc etc. NONE of this can be traced to Westerfield. NOR HAS IT BEEN SUBJECTED TO FORENSIC TESTING. Just some stupid fibers that are common (similar to) in today's WalMart market.

And they ignored the blood on her pajamas and beanbag chair, by the way. They didn't test the spot in the carpet either that Demon VanDam steam cleaned before the police got there. They didn't identify the fingerprints on the outside door or the blood on the cement outside or the drag marks outside. They didn't put her journal into testimony where she has some very telling comments - the type of comments that sexually-abused children use.

But all of that evidence in the Van Dam home can never be tested in the future. They re-carpeted and re-painted the entire house. All evidence is lost forever. We will never know, probably, the real killer of little Danielle.

I believe Westerfield was set up by a swingers group and that he is not just "not guilty" but that he is INNOCENT of this horrible crime.

Post # 59, Aug. 9, 2000 DELIBERATIONS RESUME

52 posted on 8/9/02 12:22 PM Central by Neenah

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies | Report

[Neenah]

You are propagating a myth. Why would the police say there was a gun if there was not? What possible motive would LE have for that particular deception? Why are you assuming that all 40-50 neighbors knew there was a gun?

The question was proposed to freedox, I read it and posted to the question directed to her., but you forgot to post the REASON why I thought that, so let me refresh you.

I said after what you posted of my comment.....:If it was known by the police that there was a gun involved and a threat of killing if MK told...there is NO WAY the PD would allow people to free roam.

We have NO WAY of knowing if the police were told about the gun at that point. We don't know if MK really said it. We don't know when Ed told the police that. We don't know why if Ed knew she was taken with a gun, why he didn't tell them. We don't know if Ed questioned his daughter first to get all the facts, or just ran to the neighbors pounding on doors. We don't know any of it. It would be speculation on my part as well as yours.

Common sense says a parent lovingly asks the daughter for all the details, after all, one of the girls is kidnapped. So my question all along was ..Why would the police allow those people to free roam if there was a gun involved?

If they didn't know that at the time, then that could explain alot of things, wouldn't it? Sometime that night they found out about the gun, because in the morning there was a Press Conference, and Dinse said E was taken at gunpoint. When did they get the information ? If you can't see this as at least warrenting questions, then so be it.

I would like to believe that the information from MK came out later that night. That would be the best answer to it.

[Neenah]

Just making the point that the heart of this case is the eyewitness testimony of Mary K.--not some intricate forensic evidence. Just as you said--it comes down to Mary Katherine.

I completely agree with you!

[Neenah]

Yes and I laugh at your ridiculous notions as well.

1069 posted on 9/26/02 4:03 AM Central by sandude

Well, thank you, dude!! I especially thank you, cause you said last night to UG that you had to be to work at 4:00 a.m., and to know you had me on your mind at 4:03 a.m. just warms my widdle heart.

Have a good day, dude.

[freedox]

From the Deseret News, 06/15/02:

"(Tom) Smart said he spent the night before Elizabeth's kidnapping shooting a Utah Starzz game at the Delta Center for the Deseret News. After work, Smart said he returned home about 11 p.m., spoke with his wife briefly, took a sleeping pill and went to bed.

He was awakened by a phone call about 3:30 a.m. It was his brother Edward calling with the news Elizabeth was missing.

Tom Smart said he and his family left their house shortly after Edward's call and arrived at the crime scene to find yellow police tape in front of the house.

After meeting with other family members at his father's house around the corner, Tom Smart said he returned with other family members to Elizabeth's home. They found the kitchen window open and the screen cut.

"Whether that's what they did or not, I don't know," Tom Smart said. "I didn't look at it under a microscope to find out if I knew which direction it had been cut from."

I just ran across this, and found it interesting in light of yesterday's debate about who arrived where when, etc. It has been said that Tom lives in Park City, about 45 minutes from Ed's home. From this, I would assume that he probably arrived at Ed's house by about 4:30 a.m. or shortly thereafter. According to Tom, the "crime scene" was cordoned off with police tape when he arrived. According to the latest police reports, however, the house wasn't secured until 3 hours after the police arrived, at approximately 7 a.m.

The presence of yellow police tape would seem to clearly indicate that some attempt was being made to treat this as a crime scene......yet Tom, Ed and the police all acknowledge that people were allowed to come and go. Some have suggested that the police didn't have enough manpower to restrain people from the scene. If this was the case, why didn't they call for more officers? Come to think of it, why would they NEED officers there to restrain people? The presence of police tape speaks for itself......surely the residents of Federal Heights wouldn't have to be physically restrained from crossing a police tape barrier. They would know what it meant.

If the tape was there, as Tom says, the police DID view this as a crime scene from early on. Why were no efforts made to protect it? Why did 40-50 people (according to Ed) ignore the tape? Chief Dinse's "mistakes were made" comments don't even begin to explain this.

[Neenah]

I think she fell asleep. To me, that's the only rational explanation for the two hour time lapse. Two hours is an awfully long time for anyone, let alone a child, to sit in the dark, terrified and unable to move. She didn't have to walk a long distance to get to her parents' bedroom, and it's not like the gunman was active in the house the whole time.

Really? You actually think a little 9 yr. old girl, see's her sister who she shares a room with, taken at gunpoint, is threatened if she talks, her sister will be harmed, watches her leave your room with a gun pointed at her...would then fall asleep?

Wow, cookie !!

I think that if you would have left off "I THINK SHE FELL ASLEEP" off that paragraph, you would have been dead on correct. That is how I feel too !!!

[freedox]

"Just making the point that the heart of this case is the eyewitness testimony of Mary K.--not some intricate forensic evidence. Just as you said--it comes down to Mary Katherine."

I couldn't agree more.

Since I have been focussing on the events of the night of the abduction, another thought has occurred to me. It has been told that there were up to 40-50 friends and neighbors on the scene that night. Did ANY of them speak to Mary Katherine? Where was Mary Katherine during all of this? We have been told that neighbors went into the girls' bedroom to comfort Lois, but there has been no mention of anyone speaking with Mary Katherine. Where was she? One would think that she would have been the focus of attention that night! Surely she wasn't whisked into seclusion THAT quickly......and if she was, where was she taken and by whom?

[varina davis]

As far as I know, the only person who knows exactly what time it was that Liz was taken is MK. Could she have been mistaken about the time?

Good point! Liz may have left much earlier than we know. I can understand a 5 or 6 year-old child being too terrified to move, or maybe falling asleep, but not a bright (by all accounts) 9-year-old. Just doesn't fit.