Replies

"I don't really consider it a key point whether the police or the neighbors were called first, and I don't think it necessarily tells us much."

I see. Now that I have asked you for sources to back up your statements, the whole issue suddenly becomes unimportant. Well, Devil, I think the issue IS important. As I lined out several posts back, I think that the presence of several neighbors in the home when the police arrived goes to the very heart of this case. Specifically, I think that the presence of neighbors prior to and after the arrival of the police raises questions about MK's "armed gunman" story.

It is my contention that reports of an armed gunman in a neighborhood would NOT prompt people to leave their own homes and families unattended to rush to the aid of a neighbor. I would think that their first concern would be for the safety and security of their own families. The story of an armed gunman falls under even greater suspicion when one reads reports that these neighbors were literally "beating the bushes" outside the Smart home in search of Elizabeth and/or her armed abductor. Perhaps you would find one or two people foolhardy enough to do this, but not a whole neighborhood full of them. Simple logic tells me that these neighbors showed no fear because they were not told anything about an armed gunman. Why not? Did MK not "remember" that the man had a gun until some time later? I thought it was the GUN and the threats of harm that had scared her back under the covers for 2 hours. Did she "forget" to tell her parents that part when she woke them? Did Ed "forget" to mention it to the neighbors when he summoned them in the middle of the night? I don't think so.

If there was reportedly an armed gunman in the neighborhood, why did the police allow neighbors to continue milling about after their arrival? Were the police not concerned for the safety of these citizens? Were the police not told about the armed gunman until sometime later, or were they told and they simply didn't believe it? Wouldn't you think that even if they had their doubts, they would have erred on the side of caution? What was it about this case that seemingly caused the police to throw all standard procedures out the window?

I don't know how Elizabeth left that house, or with whom, but I do not believe that she left with an unknown man holding a gun at her back. The only eyewitness to this alleged event has been kept sequestered throughout this investigation. We have never heard any direct quotes of what she has allegedly reported. In my opinion, the behavior of the neighbors and the police that night argues against the presence of danger in the area, and I have seen no logical explanation that would resolve my doubts.

Oh, and btw, here are my sources for the assertion that neighbors were indeed present before police arrived:

"The police chief also expressed frustration with the crime scene. He said at least 10 of the Smarts' neighbors were invited into the house before police could arrive at 4 a.m. Wednesday." (CBS, 06/08/02)

"Dinse said Friday that some of the evidence at that scene was disrupted by neighbors who were allowed to enter the house to search for Elizabeth before police arrived." (Deseret News, 06/08/02)

"I don't really consider it a key point whether the police or the neighbors were called first, and I don't think it necessarily tells us much."

Devil !! You were a Deputy District Attorney, and you don't think that neighbors and friends, 40 -50 of them (Ed Smart's words) in the house and outside the house, pattering about in the dirt with their shoes...was a key point? Aren't cases built on FORENSIC EVIDENCE? Isn't that important in the gathering of information from the onset of the PD coming upon a crime scene?

You don't think it tells us much? Hmmmm..tells me alot. It also tells me that if they stick to the "armed gunman" theory, and go to court some day with it...all these words spoken in press conferences, and transcripts, and police logs, will be stated, and have to be admitted..and yet....the PD didn't dicipline it's officers? For crying out loud. That is outrageous !!

Think of this...your chlld has been abducted AT GUNPOINT ( I don't buy this , by the way ) and you call 40 - 50 people to your home in the middle of the night? What did you leave out when you told them of your child? did you forget to tell them about the gun? Or..was it a different story?

I fail to believe , and I don't care how much you care for a family member or neighbor, that if you knew that your freind, neighbor, family member's child had been taken at gunpoint...most people would be intelligent enough to say immediately when the phone call came, to call the police, and express love and concern. I do not believe they would come over to the house and start searching in the bushes, and all around the house looking for an armed gunman.

Did Mr. Smart leave out that little tidbit about the GUN ? It makes no sense that that many people would flock there if they had known that. It just don't make sense.

I know some would say that these people loved the Smarts and wanted to help them because of that. I understand that. But for 40-50 people to come there, knowing there could be an armed man or men for that matter, hiding nearby..it's a bit of a stretch of the imagination. Most people know that the Police are there for that, and it would be better to stay away. And besides that..what kind of man is Ed Smart, to call all these ward people in the middle of the night for their support? What could they do? Jump on the gunman?

I just don't understand that reasoning at all! Like Iwo Jima says, it is not a manly man who would do that. This is the most bizaar case I have ever studied. From the first day, people all around the country were shaking their heads. The police bother me. The family bothers me. And most of all, it bothers me that this girl is the pawn.

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.