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."

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.

First time poster here, so be kind.

One of the items that I've always thought peculiar is the 2 hour wait of Mary. Now when I read the above article, I find it may have even been 3 hours. What was the child doing for this time? Just sitting in her bed trying make sense of what happened. I would think she would have fallen asleep or cried inconsolably, and then fallen asleep until her normal waking time. Such a brave little girl. I just can't imagine how she kept herself awake while there in the dark.

Also, why do we hear reference that Mary wakes her dad. When my children needed a parent at night, they came to their mother. Mothers are usually the ones that respond at night.

Also, is there a male living in Sue Ann's home? I think I've read she is a music teacher.

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.