Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 09/16/2002 11:10:48 PM PDT by Utah Girl

Just thought I would start a new thread.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 1,081-1,092 next last
To: varina davis
2. We have no idea at this point whether Elizabeth Smart was a victim of incest.

Well, OF COURSE we don't! And not likely to, either.

So you're saying Elizabeth Smart was not abducted but ran away from an incestuous relationship at home. Yes? No?

121 posted on 09/18/2002 5:47:20 PM PDT by anatolfz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Jolly Green
Hey Jello Green, was that your J. Golden Kimball impression?

Seriously, I was reading an early article today on the case and it was mentioned that the kitchen window screen had not only been cut but that the window itself had been jimmied to the extent that the entire window had to be replaced. Is this an established fact or just rickety journalism?

122 posted on 09/18/2002 6:07:47 PM PDT by jo6pac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
I thought your long treatment of the smear article was well reasoned. Honestly,though I'm no Mormon, I don't care for this train of thought, that the Smarts' faith has something to do with the child's abduction.

Don't be upset about it. The people that go on about that and imply weird incest things are just looking for excitement, when the case seems just another embittering, disgusting crime.

123 posted on 09/18/2002 6:09:58 PM PDT by anatolfz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: anatolfz
You'll never get a straight answer to your question out of Varina. And if I'd said the thing Scaredkat said about, if Ed were involved, it would maybe explain some things, IMO Varina would have been all over me like white on rice. Scaredkat has that prerogative, however, b/c she has not gotten involved in some of the infighting around here the way I have. And I value Scaredkat's contributions to this discussion; in fact, I value everyone's, including Varina's (except when she gets all teary-eyed about Rick and Angela.)

The very first day this story hit the media--the very first day--on another forum someone said in their opinion, Ed's on-camera crying reminded them of Susan Smith. That thought flashed through my mind, too, the first time I saw Ed on camera.

But as I learned about him and his family, to me they just began to sound like the average suburban family. I still can't see Ed in the role of a killer. Plus, if it was something that happened within the family, how on earth could he keep all those kids--not just the siblings, but the cousins--quiet? Even Ward Weaver couldn't keep his kid quiet, and he is a much more formidable-looking character than Ed Smart. Even Westerfield couldn't keep his own son from taking the stand to refute Westerfield's disgusting allegations that the kiddie porn was the son's. (Which it was not, I think.) Those Smart family women are not downtrodden-looking to me. One of them is a practicing physician. Lois looks educated and well-heeled. Even if for some insane reason she was keeping quiet, figuring turning her husband in wouldn't bring Elizabeth back to life, I don't think she'd take part in a charade of constantly asking people to keep searching.

Ed has no criminal record. He's in his 30's or 40's. Someone who has gotten that far w/o getting in trouble is not likely to start that late. Yes, he could have done something terribly, horribly wrong, but I just don't think he could hide it so well, what with all the people who are always around.

I see no facts at this point that point to Ed. I see some facts which point to Ricci--and I'm by no means even sure of HIS involvement.
124 posted on 09/18/2002 6:10:31 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Interesting article, that one posted by jo6pac above. That's the article that mentioned Charles, the article that said when he was awakened at 4 a.m. with the news that Elizabeth was missing, he said he "just thought Elizabeth had gone running."
125 posted on 09/18/2002 6:17:18 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: anatolfz
So you're saying Elizabeth Smart was not abducted but ran away from an incestuous relationship at home. Yes? No?

How on earth would I know??!!

126 posted on 09/18/2002 6:25:14 PM PDT by varina davis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: jo6pac
"I just thought she went running," Elizabeth's brother said. "We just started yelling for her. . . . My mom walked down and noticed the screen was cut and she just screamed."

Earlier this week, Elizabeth's father acknowledged that he hadn't turned on the home's alarm system that night.I "I grew up in this neighborhood," Edward Smart said. "I was never one for locking doors or windows. I went down and locked all of the doors on the basement and the main floors."

But the man suspected of abducting Elizabeth cut through a screen in the kitchen and pried open the window to crawl in. After taking her at gunpoint from her bed, the kidnapper allowed Elizabeth to put on a pair of white, canvas Polo brand shoes, police said.

Interesting. Sounds like she often went running in pre-dawn hours. Also, the brand of the canvas shoes is different in this earlier story.

127 posted on 09/18/2002 6:33:52 PM PDT by varina davis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: scaredkat
Cool post, scaredkat. BTW, what happened to the regular Tuesday press conferences by the Smart family? Don't think they had one this week.
128 posted on 09/18/2002 6:38:23 PM PDT by varina davis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Yes, I like the points you make.

Scaredkat has added some frightening things. I'm afraid I 've never seen the tv treatments because I only watch dumb sci-fi and comedy on tv.

I agree everyone has said sonmething interesting at some time, even Mme Varina.

I'm hoping that continued public scrutiny of cases like this will result in better prevention and more efficient investigation.

129 posted on 09/18/2002 6:41:22 PM PDT by anatolfz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: varina davis
So you're saying Elizabeth Smart was not abducted but ran away from an incestuous relationship at home. Yes? No?

How on earth would I know??!!

Yes, I agree with you 100% and without reservation on this, your own admirably frank appreciation of your mastery of this dossier.

I mean, how on Earth would you know? And therefore — why would you imply it?

130 posted on 09/18/2002 6:59:08 PM PDT by anatolfz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: anatolfz
I mean, how on Earth would you know? And therefore — why would you imply it?

This forum is supposedly a place to explore any and all possibilities of this case. Why would anyone wish to just continually parrot one aspect? Particularly when there is absolutely NO evidence to support any specific conclusion.

131 posted on 09/18/2002 7:09:37 PM PDT by varina davis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
self-ping
132 posted on 09/18/2002 7:12:55 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palladin
These folks are on drugs. Or else they're good fantasy writers who enjoy pulling the chains of gullible evangelical Christians.
133 posted on 09/18/2002 7:24:01 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: varina davis
The thing is there has to be some kind of relationship between observation and theory. You always make intersting point, but it seems to me best points are made by those who link published, resonably attested facts to an explanation; who try to account for all those things we have seen being revealed. "If they say so-and-so, how can we fit that into a theory", they say. It's less helpful, however, when one adduces a theory which does not answer any question; does not account for the (admittedly limited) things we are told; which in fact relies on events we are yet not told about. My two kopecks, anyway.
134 posted on 09/18/2002 7:29:30 PM PDT by anatolfz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: anatolfz
How on earth would I know?

your own admirably frank appreciation of your mastery of this dossier.

LOL!! Told ya you'd never get a straight answer!

135 posted on 09/18/2002 7:40:50 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: anatolfz
It's less helpful, however, when one adduces a theory which does not answer any question; does not account for the (admittedly limited) things we are told; which in fact relies on events we are yet not told about.

No doubt this is true. However, if one never thinks outside the box (a phrase I detest,but appropriate here), and fails to incorporate possible scenarios which, in fact, are realities in this society, then one is left with nothing but pap and pat formulas.

136 posted on 09/18/2002 7:41:40 PM PDT by varina davis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Yes, you did. But it's good to have all sorts saying their word on this. I wish I could quote you a good poem by a local poet that goes:
Y a toutes sortes de gens
pis ils connaissent toutes sortes de gens [...]

But I can't remember the rest. He's from Moncton, New Brunswick.

137 posted on 09/18/2002 7:51:42 PM PDT by anatolfz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
I knew that....but at least it got you to return to these threads! ;)
138 posted on 09/18/2002 7:58:06 PM PDT by Palladin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: anatolfz
Well, at least give us a translation of the lines you remember! Just think, all the time I've spent in Louisiana, and I don't know a word of French except "lagniappe," "boudin," and "eh labas."
139 posted on 09/18/2002 8:00:51 PM PDT by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Ed has no criminal record. He's in his 30's or 40's. Someone who has gotten that far w/o getting in trouble is not likely to start that late.

Oh, puhleeze! David Westerfield is 50 years old and had no criminal record...until the night he decided to kidnap Danielle Van Dam.

140 posted on 09/18/2002 8:02:19 PM PDT by Palladin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 1,081-1,092 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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