Replies

Thanks for your perspective, Scaredkat. I find the insights of you, and other Utahns, to be far more valuable in trying to understand the background of this case, than I find Mr. Rollins' opinions. This is not to say that Tim Rollins' columns are not interesting or worth reading, it's just that he can't possibly have the ability to have any greater understanding of this case than some other non-Utahn, such as myself.

About Chocolate Chip Cookie's question to you, about Ed's insistence that Elizabeth had not yet developed an interest in boys, my opinion is that she probably certainly did have an interest in them. But a father is just going to find thinking of his daughter's sexuality distasteful. Some people react to this by ignoring it. And a girl is probably not going to reveal such feelings to her father anyway. I don't think it unnatural that Ed denied that Elizabeth was interested in boys. Besides, even if she was interested in boys (which she surely was) doesn't mean that she had acted on that interest quite yet. Not every 14-yr--old girl is "fast." (BTW, I consider even the "fast" 14-yr-old girls to be quite innocent. They think they know a lot, but they don't.)

Suppose Ed were somehow involved in Elizabeth's disappearance. Wouldn't he want to direct suspicion away from him? Seems to me if he had some guilty secret, he would be more than happy to jump on the "runaway theory" bandwagon. But he didn't.

I got the feeling that you guys preferred LDS to Mormon. I use both terms sometimes; don't intend any insult, it's just laziness. There are only a few where I live.

About Chocolate Chip Cookie's question

I think the statement, not interested in boys just really means she was not seeking out boys as a boyfriend relationship. I am sure she liked boys, flirted with them and probably had her eye on a couple, but I don't think her dad would even be aware of this. As all 14yr olds the world is really waking up to them they don't really share everything with parents. I do however think there are some girlfriends out there that probably even know more.

-Suppose Ed were somehow involved in Elizabeth's disappearance. Wouldn't he want to direct suspicion away from him? Seems to me if he had some guilty secret, he would be more than happy to jump on the "runaway theory" bandwagon. But he didn't.

Did he? or Didn't he? That is a good question. No he did pick out an innocent teenage boy, but did he pick out a criminal who stole from him a year ago and got away with it, That I believe is a good question and a fair question.

As for being insulted, I'm not insulted by the name of mormon and I mainly meant it for those that are mormon that can't quite arguing about it on this forum. You have always been open minded about everything sides. I don't think you could be insulting even if you don't agree with me or others you don't insult.

Seems to me if he had some guilty secret, he would be more than happy to jump on the "runaway theory" bandwagon. But he didn't.

Just the opposite, Devil. If he has some "guilty secret," he definitely wouldn't want people to think his daughter ran away from him -- reputation must be preserved.