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

[Utah Girl]

Just thought I would start a new thread.

[varina davis]

I remembered a Larry King show where Chris Smart was on, and I looked it up...Does this sound like Elizabeth was taken at gunpoint?? Kind of bother's me, you know?

Thanks for reposting that, Neenah. I'd forgotten how really weird those comments were!

Maybe it was the former bishop. Someone "trusted in the community."

[Devil_Anse]

It's pretty clear, from the article you quoted, which Utah Girl has now posted in its entirety, that even the police have conceded that the crime scene was subject to contamination.

Most of what you're saying here seems to be that you feel you have several things which back up your belief that there really wasn't a GUNMAN. That is, you seem to still be open to the possibility that there was a man, but you don't believe he had a gun. I don't see anything unsound about being skeptical as to whether there really was a gun. I agree that there may not have been one. Sometimes I've speculated that there wasn't even a MAN. But when I would try to picture Elizabeth just leaving on her own, catching a ride with someone, I came up with this: Why did she apparently take nothing but her shoes, and where is she now, and IS THERE ANYONE IN SALT LAKE CITY WHO WAS UNACCOUNTED FOR, OR STILL IS UNACCOUNTED FOR (besides Elizabeth, of course)? We've never heard anything that would answer these questions.

The whole thing about Mary Katherine's story makes it sound like the police have been playing along with someone whom they think did something to Elizabeth. This person may be someone close to the whole thing. The police are wise to "play along," because there is a danger that the person may commit suicide, leaving no possibility of ever getting all the answers. This (suicide) actually happened in one kidnapping case I know of--and it's been ten+ years, and the victim's body has never been found to this day. Notice, also, that the police played along with Susan Smith for a while, and I feel sure they did so b/c they feared her suicide, which might have left the boys' bodies unfound forever.

Above all, I agree with your earlier point that the fact that neither girl made any sort of fuss, even a small one, is beyond strange.

I don't know if you think there was some sort of plot which involved the neighbors, but that I don't believe. I do find it strange that Sue Ann Adams' name keeps cropping up in this thing, however.

[Devil_Anse]

How would a police watch log tell the times at which the Smarts called neighbors?

[Devil_Anse]

Why would the police downplay the impact that having all those people on the scene could have on this case?

Because they knew if anyone was ever tried for kidnapping Elizabeth, that person would play up the fact that non-official people were all over the crime scene, contaminating it and rendering any evidence from it questionable.

[Devil_Anse]

I can't see anything wrong with believing Sue Ann Adams, considering that law enforcement found her credible enough to use her sworn statement as the foundation for an indictment of a man for the felony of burglary. Police have the means of checking a person's background, and I feel sure they checked Ms. Adams', and I'll bet they she had a reasonably good background for credibility purposes.

[freedox]

"How would a police watch log tell the times at which the Smarts called neighbors?"

Good question. I would think that the police watch log would only show incoming calls to the police.

[Yellowcat]

Not long after Elizabeth disappeared I remember Lois Smart saying on TV that they called the police first. She also stated that it seemed like it took forever for the police to arrive.

Because of that memory, I have never questioned why friends and other family members were then called and that some of them who lived nearby might have arrived before or about the same time the police did. I see nothing suspicious about that.

I fault the police for allowing so many people to contaminate the crime scene, and they have taken responsibility for their mistake.

If my neighbor or close friend had called me and said a kidnapper with a gun had abducted their child, I probably would have, without thinking, rushed to give comfort to them or to help in searching the neighborhood. NOW I KNOW BETTER because I have learned about foresnic evidence, fibers, hairs, and DNA stuff. Before Internet and Court TV, I didn't know anything about protecting a crime scene.

I have thought about why the neighbors and friends appeared to have no fear that an armed kidnapper might still be in the house or lurking nearby. My answer to that is if you are told a kidnapper took a child, your brain just automatically assumes that the kidnapper and child are long gone. I would not have feared the gunman was still there had I been called to come to the Smart house to help. Knowing what I know now, I would be more cautious and would take the lead in advising people to not contaminate the crime scene if that was needed.

The thing that puzzles me is why Mary Katheryn waited so long to notify her family. I have a hard time believing it was as long as has been reported. I can see waiting 30 minutes or even stretching it into 45 minutes but longer than an hour I just can't see it. Either she dozed for a while or she was terrified even more than we can imagine.

[Devil_Anse]

Neenah, once the police have done their thing, the prosecutor HAS TO LIVE WITH IT. Did you expect some D.A. to rush to the Smarts' house and cordon it off? That might make that person a witness. How could they be the prosecutor of the case, and be a witness at the same time? Awkward, Neenah--very awkward.

Sometimes prosecutors do get to a murder scene at the same time as police, if police call them. But this wasn't a murder scene.

I've seen more cases with a linchpin of EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY, than with a beginning in forensic evidence. Both are important. The police are supposed to be trained to preserve both. In the article Utah girl posted, the police actually conceded that the officers in question were not trained properly. What else can they do at this point, except revamp their officer training--which they said they were going to do?

Don't count on each and every word in press conferences, police logs, and transcripts, being admitted in some trial of some person for this abduction. There are rules that govern whether statements can be admitted as evidence. For example, if Dinse never testifies in the trial, then it's unlikely anyone would even dare ask the judge to admit some out-of-court statement by him. The primary thing in a trial is the testimony. Some statements can only be admitted for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of a live person who has testified in THAT trial. If a prosecutor sees that one of his witnesses has already made several contradictory statements, chances are he's going to see if he can get along without calling that person as a witness--and if the person doesn't testify, they won't be admitting his out-of-court statements as evidence.

Forensic evidence such as fingerprints is, of course, important. Would you believe I've seen the question of fingerprints brought up in the context of "WHY DIDN'T THE POLICE DUST FOR FINGERPRINTS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN," more often than I've seen it come up in the context of "WE HAVE THE DEFENDANT'S FINGERPRINTS RIGHT AT THE SCENE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN"? Attorneys know that the public believes that fingerprints and DNA are present and discoverable at every crime scene, so they play this up accordingly. But the fact is, sometimes the police aren't lucky enough to have fingerprints or DNA or fibers or whatever, that tells a definite story.

Who knows whether Ed told the neighbors about a gun? For that matter, who knows what Mary Katherine actually said about a gun?

One time a neighbor's husband, Alzheimer's victim, disappeared, and I just remember that I immediately went out and walked all over the neighborhood, looking in ditches and behind trees. I realize that no gun was involved in that incident, but still, some people have their own guns and are not afraid to go out and look for someone who is missing. If you think people would just stay at home b/c of the danger, why would all those people (most of whom didn't even know the Smarts) have gone out searching on June 5, and all the times they searched thereafter? Some of those people have searched in some pretty lonely places, too.

I think the main reason Freedox goes on and on about the neighbors beating the bushes, is that s/he wants to point out the fact that s/he doesn't find the bit about the gun believable. That's a valid point, to me. Sometimes I've doubted whether there was a gun, too. But I just know there are plenty of people who will, for example, rush a shoplifter w/o considering whether that person is armed--or chase down a purse-snatcher w/o stopping to think if he is armed. Where I live, a prosecutor took down a shoplifter in a store, and another attorney chased a purse-snatcher--and found himself in an armed confrontation. He was lucky to get out with his life, but he did manage to get the guy caught.

[Neenah]

Um...Neenah? Do I sense some sarcasm in your post? It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, but I have been a Deputy District Attorney, in two different jurisdictions.

NOooooooooo....no sarcasm, tho it did sound like that, didn't it? I didn't say I didn't believe it either...just very interesting, for all you mentioned.

When we find someone such as yourself, and your profession, you can be called upon for answers that could be helpful to everyone, Devil.

I would agree that in any profession, it is the constant dealing with the job, that makes it hard to explain to one that isn't in that field what it is like, and I respect that. I agree with you! I,however, know people in that field, and they mostly don't discuss their cases, but I know too, that they don't have an automatic blanketed characteristic of everyone who is in the system...albit that MOST are of the same 'ilk" and that I understand too.

Some people think that if you don't believe Ricci kidnapped E., that you are a Ricci lover and a Smart hater. That is ignorant to say the least. Ricci was probably the scum of the earth, but the time line alone says he couldn't accomplish whatever it was to accomplish, for me. That surely don't make me a lover of Ricci the known criminal.

If I speak of things Smart said that make no sense..( this is because of the constant questionable things he has done and said in public )...but that does not make me , or anyone else, a Smart hater. My gosh, if we all thought like that, our court system would be more screwed up than it already is !!

Like you said in one of your posts, DEVIL, it is unfortunate that a discussion cannot be civil..instead of 2 camps. But maybe one day things will be different.

Like a Tapestry..on one side all you see is a jumbled up mess of thread, all twisted and turned..but..turn it over..and a beautiful picture emerges. someday, we will know.

[FR_addict]

One of the items that I've always thought peculiar is the 2 hour wait of Mary.

I always thought that there should have been a phone in the girls room as large as the house was.

Someone here said that wouldn't be common in an LDS household, but I'm not convinced that's true. I would think a phone would be an added safety measure in a house as large as the Smart's. No one in the know has mentioned it one way or another, but MK could have called the police if there had been a phone.

[cookiedough]

I wouldn't be afraid to look around my neighborhood for a child who had been taken at gun point a couple of hours earlier. I'd figure the gunman was long gone, and the best we could hope for was to find a child so injured that she could not go for help, or her body.

Maybe the neighbors hoped that they would find Liz with enough life left in her to save her.

[freedox]

"I think the main reason Freedox goes on and on about the neighbors beating the bushes, is that s/he wants to point out the fact that s/he doesn't find the bit about the gun believable. That's a valid point, to me. Sometimes I've doubted whether there was a gun, too."

Which leads us to a hypothetical question........if there was no gun in her back, how would one explain Elizabeth silently leaving with this man? As I said before, this issue goes to the very heart of the case.

[TXLady]

Welcome to the fray. (Texas for knock down drag out) Oh wait, that definition may be Texas slang too. LOL

Anyway, welcome!

[Neenah]

I have one spot of trouble with what you said about this...from the day the police were called, everyone knew the scene had been contaminated!!

I find it apalling that there was no repremand, if indeed what Dinse said was a fact. It almost sets it up in one's mind of incompetence of the PD.

That is to me, a hinderence in this case. Now the silence on all parts. Did the PD know that night, exactly what happened to Elizabeth, and felt no harm was done with people tramping out and about the house? Could be.

[TXLady]

Some people think that if you don't believe Ricci kidnapped E., that you are a Ricci lover and a Smart hater. That is ignorant to say the least. Ricci was probably the scum of the earth, but the time line alone says he couldn't accomplish whatever it was to accomplish, for me. That surely doesn't make me a lover of Ricci the known criminal.

If I speak of things Smart said that make no sense..( this is because of the constant questionable things he has done and said in public )...but that does not make me , or anyone else, a Smart hater. My gosh, if we all thought like that, our court system would be more screwed up than it already is !!

Very good points Neenah, those are my feelings as well.

[freedox]

"I wouldn't be afraid to look around my neighborhood for a child who had been taken at gun point a couple of hours earlier. I'd figure the gunman was long gone......"

That sort of thinking might be understandable for a layperson, but not for a police officer. Initial police reports stated that there was no evidence of a vehicle, indicating that Elizabeth and her abductor had left on foot. Therefore, there was a possibility that they were still hiding in the area. I seriously question why the police would have allowed people to continue roaming about the neighborhood, looking for Elizabeth and a supposedly armed gunman. Isn't the police motto "To PROTECT and Serve"?

[Devil_Anse]

Aha!! Someone else asks, is there a male living in Sue Ann (Adams') home!

I don't exactly know why, but I want to know more about Sue Ann Adams. I guess it is because she enters this case at more than one point--at least in a peripheral way.

She swore that Ed Smart is the one who referred Ricci to her to do contracting work.

She was the first neighbor to respond to Ed Smart's call for help.

She was a victim of burglary by Ricci.

A shirt from her home was found in Ricci's possessions--over a year after his April 1, 2001, break-in of her house.

You heard she is a music teacher? Interesting. I'd heard that Lois Smart was a music teacher, I think.

[anatolfz]

Welcome to the fray. (Texas for knock down drag out)

I feel that a fray is a bit more diffuse than a knock down drag out, with more people punching complete strangers for no reason. Rate the following:

• Fray
• Quarrel
• Brouhaha
• Mêlée
  
• Bagarre
• Skirmish

[Neenah]

We can tell of experiences we have had in the past, or cases we heard of, and it makes no dent in this one.

This one says 40-50 people (Ed Smart's words ) were in that house. Many of them were looking everywhere in the house, and some were looking outside the house.

Mistake.

The police took 3 hours (was that what someone posted today?) before they could start their work? Hinderence to the case.

If 40 -50 people knew there was a gun involved and they came anyhow...? Don't make sense to me.

I doubt very much that these people were told about a gun. I believe the police know exactly what happened to Elizabeth. They knew from day one. That is why Edmonds was not a suspect. Ricci was not a suspect. The Milkman was not heavily questioned, or a suspect. the other was in jail.

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!!

At least you, Devil, have said you thought of some of these things. LOL !!!

One more light note...the other day, I was in the grocery store, standing in line. (No I did not pick up or touch the N.E. )..and I was thinking, " wouldn't it be funny if one of the people on the E. Smart thread was standing behind me in this line?" haha!! Heck, maybe we would strike up a conversation, and actually like one another! OH NOOOOOO !!! LIKE ONE ANOTHER !!! LOL !! How gross and impossible would that be???

Heck, I posted a picture of the Jolly Green Giant, and thought JG would at least smile, but it never happened.....HEY!! MAYBE IT WAS JG BEHIND ME IN THAT GROCERY LINE !!! Nahhhhh.

[Devil_Anse]

HEY EVERYBODY, READ YELLOWCAT'S POST NO. 947!

Every point you made in that post is a point I hoped to make. You have said it better than I could have, and you have certainly said it with less verbiage than I would have. Thanks for saying it, b/c now I don't have to try to think all those things through, and I'm sure I would have missed many of the persuasive points you made.