[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.

[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.

[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.

[partialpressures]

"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. "

Okay, that all makes sense.

But first we need a body and second we need a suspect, or more important, a motive. I don't see either in the foreseeable future. Ricci's dead. Elizabeth is still missing.

Motive.