Elizabeth Smart Thread, 9/26/02 to ???

[stlnative]

NEW THREAD - PING WHOM EVER YOU LIKE - I DON'T PING ANYMORE - SORRY

[jandji]

sadly enough, after 4 months, SLPD/FBI haven't found anything leading anywhere.

[Devil_Anse]

Really??..I guess you forgot about [Tom's] inconclusive polygraph...

No, I didn't forget about it. But having been around courtrooms, as I know YOU also have, I am definitely able to put it in its proper perspective. As YOU know, polygraphs--even the mention of a person's "results"--are VERBOTEN in the world of evidence. I am sure that you are as familiar with the rules of evidence as I am.

And, given your legal training, including that class they require even "high-powered" law students to take--criminal procedure--you know that the polygraph is, first and foremost, an interviewing TOOL. It, and its "results," are NOT acceptable evidence.

I'll go further and say that polygraph results prove virtually nothing. What is their use? Their usefulness comes about when we observe the reactions that human beings (especially the person being tested) have to being TOLD they are being tested, and TOLD their results.

[Devil_Anse]

My, my...I seem to have struck a nerve with my blasphemous suggestion that maybe Tom Smart isn't an abductor or murderer, after all.

I realize I was questioning accepted dogma there. If I am cast out as a heretic, perhaps I will be joined in the wilderness by a few other tortured souls, and we will be called the Cult of Tom's Innocence.

Heaven forbid anyone should question accepted "fact," and re-think early conclusions that were made based on rumors of polygraph results, dislike of pushy news media people, and bizarre remarks made on Larry King Live.

[Devil_Anse]

I believe it was Devil who spoke of one officer arriving at the Smart home in a patrol car...

I believe you're wrong. I have joined very little in the extensive discussion of how many officers initially arrived at the scene, b/c I am as confused as anyone else about this.

[Devil_Anse]

About Ed Smart's hospital stay:

Thanks for your input on this, to me, interesting subject. Your account of your friend's experience did remind me of something similar--after a really bad storm in this area, I happened to be at the pediatrician's with my child. The doctor and I discussed a mutual acquaintance who had had a huge tree fall through the roof, separating him from his child's bedroom. (They scrambled through the mess and the child was very luckily unharmed.) He'd brought the child in immediately to be checked out, and the doctor said the kid was fine, but she'd noticed that the father was so nervous/stressed as to almost require medication.

What we're talking about with these fathers, though, is a species of psychiatric mishap, isn't it? I call it mishap, b/c it seems to me that anyone can be temporarily driven to be "mentally off" by extreme circumstances--while not being "mentally ill." So that's one explanation of Ed's hospitalization.

Another possible explanation is that some people will take refuge in illness/hospitalization when they feel they have literally nowhere else to hide.

Like most things in this case, the point of Ed's hospital stay is only partly explained to us, the public, and so it can be interpreted more than one way.

I realize that your suggested interpretation is the more likely one.

Re: the other officer:

Thanks for pointing this out. It rings true to me. I also have often seen at least one police officer remain in their car for a while, b/c nowadays a police car is almost like a mini-office, and they can check all sorts of information from inside it.

[Devil_Anse]

Tom might just be a big liar, or a weirdo. But even if he were, there is still no specific circumstance that we know about that places him in the picture surrounding this abduction.

My original point was to question whether, if Tom had not temporarily stepped forward to take Ed's place while Ed was in the hospital, we might not have even seen him speak on camera, and I think in that case we would know so little of him as to not notice him much at all.

But, the way things happened, I now notice every mention of Tom in the news, including his apparent failure to accompany his wife and the others to DC.

[Neenah]

This is a little off topic of what this post(922) of yours was about, but there are things you state about legal things, as if they are blanketed law in all states.

Here is an example of just that. The following is an example of what you said about Probation and Parole Officers, and about getting their probation revoked.

I wanted to educate myself on this, and knew someone who could help me. My brother is a Probation and Parole Officer in our state, and has been for 30 years. I copy/pasted just your post on explaining to this board about the P&PO's role in this, and asked him if this was how it was done. He answered my email (which I will copy/paste), stating that it may be different in other states, but this is how it is done in our state.

Therefore, I suggest that in the future, you make a disclaimer that not everything you are stating is nation wide procedure, and may not have been used in Utah.

I also checked Utah law on it, and came up with quite alot on this..but not to make this as lengthy as it could be, I will not post that right now.

Below is what YOU said in your post

To: Sherlock

Police investigating Elizabeth Smart's disappearance arrested Ricci on June 14 for allegedly violating that parole by committing an April 4, 2001, burglary, possessing alcohol and failing to complete a treatment program.

Thanks so much for that quote! (Devil speaking)

Parole/probation officers, when they want to get someone's parole/probation revoked, will put in a written request to the judge who sentenced the guy on whatever offense it was he was on parole/probation for. The judge, on getting the request, will issue a warrant for the guy's arrest. When police arrest him, he will almost always be held w/o bond. Then the judge will hold a hearing to give the guy a chance to explain. There is no right to counsel at this type of hearing. After hearing what the guy has to say, the judge will either revoke probation/parole, making the guy have to go back and finish out the prison time he was originally given on the underlying offense, or will forgive the guy and reinstate him on probation/parole.

Often a parole/probation officer will see one of his people screwing up, but will at first call him in and warn him. I think that's what happened when Ricci first fell off the wagon. He was given a chance or two, and his sentencing judge was told nothing at that point.

But then when police heard Ricci confess to at least one felony committed while he was out on parole (burglary), the parole officer would have been told of that. At that point, he'd have given up on giving Ricci any more chances, and have issued the request to the judge to revoke parole.

116 posted on 9/27/02 12:52 AM Central by Devil_Anse

{end}

**********************************************************

My brother's respons to my email ...

{I must interject here, that my brother does not know where I got this quote of yours from, he does not even know I post on Free Republic, or what Free Republic is. I didn't mention who said the quote I sent him, or where it was from )...His reply says:

No, this is not correct, at least not in the state of XXX. It may be accurate for other states but in XX. the Dept. of Corrections has the revoking authority, not the judge. The P&P officer investigates the violation, has the power to issue an apprehension request, and the violator is placed in custody without the ability to post bond.

Within seven days the officer must determine if he is going to proceed with revocation and if he does the offender is given a written notice and he is entitled to an attorney. The Dept. of Corrections serves as magistrates for a preliminary and final revocation hearing (I was a preliminary hearing magistrate).

The violator can waive these hearings. If he waives or if revocation is upheld after hearings the offender is then ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence. If he is on what is called a withheld sentence he is returned to court and the judge sentences him.

If he is on a imposed and stayed sentence he automatically starts serving the sentence without going back before the judge. If he is a parole case he automatically goes back to prison to serve the balance of his sentence.

Yes, many times a P&P officer will warn their clients before iniating revocation and that, of course, is determined by the seriousness of the violation and whether other alternatives (like AODA treatment) is appropriate rather than revocation and jail or prison.

There you have a mini-revocation lesson. May I asked what this is for?

End of email.

[Utah Girl]

Bush gives green light to Amber warnings

Alerts aim to quickly locate abducted kids

By Jennifer Loven
Associated Press writer

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Wednesday announced a federal push to broaden a voluntary rapid-response alert system for abducted children in the hope of preventing the "terrible, terrible loss" of a child.

With the heartbroken-but-still-hopeful parents of missing Elizabeth Smart looking on, Bush said that the Justice Department would develop a national standard for the Amber Alert electronic notifications that speed information about kidnapped children to the public. According to a White House fact sheet, the goal is to limit the alerts to "rare instances of serious child abductions" and ensure their effectiveness is not undermined by overuse.

The president also announced a new Amber Alert coordinator at the Justice Department who will work on increasing cooperation among state and local plans and help disburse $10 million in federal money for training and equipment upgrades.

"The kidnapping of a child is every parent's worst nightmare, yet too many moms and dads have experienced this nightmare across America. Too many have suffered," Bush told about 600 family members, law enforcement officials and experts attending the daylong White House Conference on Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children. "Our society has a solemn duty to shield children from exploitation and danger."

Activists have sought to expand the use of the alerts, developed after the 1996 kidnapping and murder of 9-year Amber Hagerman in Arlington, Texas, and now in use in more than a dozen states. The Senate approved a bill in September that would provide $25 million to help create a national network; similar legislation is moving through the House.

Thirty-two children have been found as a result of an Amber Alert in which law enforcement agencies that choose to participate distribute photos and other information about missing children and their abductors to television and radio stations via the Emergency Alert System created during the Cold War. Some states are also flashing alerts to drivers on roadside emergency signs.

A series of high-profile child abductions — Samantha Runnion and Danielle van Dam in California, Cassandra Williamson in Missouri and Smart — have filled the headlines this year and terrified parents.

Though the other girls were found slain, Elizabeth Smart remains missing and her kidnapping unsolved. She was taken from her Salt Lake bedroom on June 5.

Elizabeth's mother, Lois Smart, called the conference "the best thing that's ever happened to promote the safety of children."

Before his remarks, Bush met privately for about 45 minutes with about a dozen people involved in missing children cases.

Among those in the meeting were the sheriff in the Runnion case and teenager Tamara Brooks, with her mother, Sharon. Tamara and Jacqueline Marris were abducted at gunpoint in Lancaster, Calif., and rescued 12 hours later when sheriff's deputies closed in on their abductors stolen car in a remote location and shot him to death.

"Some of these parents were eventually reunited with their children. Some are still hoping and waiting. Some know they will never see their loved ones again in this earthly life," Bush said. "When a child's life or liberty or innocence is taken, it is a terrible, terrible loss."

Despite the attention to recent cases, experts say abductions by strangers — the most dangerous type — remain rare. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children estimates the total number of cases annually at 100 now, down from 200 to 300 in the 1980s. However, the Justice Department estimates that about 40 percent of these children are killed and that another 4 percent are never found.

Overall, about 800,000 children are reported missing to police nationwide each year, most runaways or children taken by a parent or other family member, the Justice Department said.

[Devil_Anse]

Thanks for the info on probation revocations. You are correct in asserting that procedure will differ from state to state.

My spouse used to be a probation and parole officer, also. That was in State A. We now live in State B.

Let's examine the similarities and differences btw State X--your brother's state, and States A and B. In all 3 states, the offender is given a written notice. In X, there is a right to counsel at the revocation hearing. In A and B, there is no right to counsel, but if there is pre-existing counsel, they are usually notified. In all 3 states, looks like, the Probation/Parole Officer investigates the violation. What do you think the odds are that Ricci's officer did not investigate to see if his parolee had really violated the terms by using drugs and possessing alcohol?

In all 3 states, once the "apprehension request" (if this is not the same as a warrant, pls advise), once executed, results in the offender being held w/o bond. In State X, there is no requirement that the offender be taken b/f a judge--your mention of a DOC magistrate is close, but is not the same as the sentencing judge, which is whom they'd go b/f in States A and B. If your magistrate were not an employee of the DOC, I'd say that the difference was minimal. In all 3 states, the defendant/offender/violator can waive these hearings. (Yes, in State A and State B, there is also preliminary and then final hearing--but I always just do the whole thing at the prelim if my client is willing. I'm in State B.)

In all 3 states, once a finding is made that he violated, it's adios, back to prison.

In all 3 states, the parole/probation officer has a chance to use their own judgment in giving the offender a chance to straighten up.

You shd have engaged your brother in this discussion sooner, since the specifics of it were so integral to what was being talked about here, especially as I recall btw Jandji and me.

Now, Neenah, you've gone to great lengths to check on this, haven't you? You came up with: I shd post a disclaimer as to the fact that I only practice in one state. I only practice in State B right now; I have experience of practicing in State A also. That's it!

I suggest you also check around and see what judges and attorneys think of polygraph tests. I'm not saying they all reject them 100% (but they do reject them as evidence.) I'm just saying, you shd check on that and get back with Bella, who is the first attorney I've ever seen who seemed to believe in them 100% completely.

One more thing, Neenah. I have a dim memory that this discussion began about a parolee in Utah. Would you please share with us the specifics of what is done in Utah regarding parole violators?

[scaredkat]

Its too quiet makes you wonder???

[Devil_Anse]

Come to think of it, Neenah, this disclaimer thing is kind of an insult to the posters' intelligence. Shouldn't it be obvious that I only practice in one state? I know there are people who go around the country, but they generally still have to associate with a person from the specific state, in order to appear/practice there. Surely free republic members know that the law differs from state to state.

If one is admitted to the bar of a state, one can then practice in all federal courts. However, each different federal district will require your "admission" to it, but it's a minor thing to be "admitted" b/f a particular federal court if you're already in a state bar.

Doesn't Bella have connections w/ SLC? Could she be a Utah attorney? Couldn't we then ask her about parole violation in UTAH? Even if she doesn't do criminal law, she's bound to have had a classmate, etc., who does.

[Neenah]

My only point in posting what I did above, and I have had it for some time, is that I think anyone, including me, when we post, should state, especially when it pertains to a statute or law, that it pertain to this case, and the state of Utah.

I do not question your expertise at all. I do know that laymen, not aquainted with legal issues, do pay attention to what is given by a person on boards.

I initially checked for my education on it.

I don't have to examine anything, or state the odds. That would be speculation on my part. I just know that what is exercised in one state, may differ in another. That is what I wanted to say.

It makes no difference what happen's in state A or state B. It does matter what happens in Utah.Now, Neenah, you've gone to great lengths to check on this, haven't you? You came up with: I shd post a disclaimer as to the fact that I only practice in one state.

Why I bother to post, I don't know. I was trying to be helpful in posting what I did..but...First, I did not go to "great lengths" to check on this. I wanted to learn, so that if I had a reason to post, I would say it accurately. Then you say "You come up with"..devil, I didn't come up with anything, I only made a suggestion that I think is a very reasoned one to anybody, including me when posting on an area some don't have alot of knowlege on.

You , sorry to say, have misquoted me again. I did not say that you should post a disclamer " as to the fact that I only practice in one state."I just asked that if you were going to post things that pertain to law, that you should state that the law in Utah, may be different.

I have no interest in "checking" on polygraphs at this time. Nor am I going to engage Bella for my information. If I need information, I will do as I have done. I don't know Bella, but I think it was uncalled for to give a litttle jab to her in regard to what I posted. That was not necessary. If you have a qualm with her, take it up with her. Not me.

As far as looking up Utah law..I looked up and found alot. But before I would or could post it, I would have to give it to someone else to decipher for me. It was hard for me to understand, to be honest. Hense, my calling on my brother. I think you could do that better than I. If I posted what I had found, I am very sure, I would make a mistake.

[Neenah]

Come to think of it, Neenah, this disclaimer thing is kind of an insult to the posters' intelligence.

What part of my earlier post did you miss? If you WANT to see it as an insult, than you can see it like that. If you can't take my words as honest, then don't take them. If you want to interject Bella in a post that has nothing to do with her, then people will see exactly what worth you have.

I stand by what I said. On this thread or any thread pertaining to law, it should be stipulated either in terms of that particular state law or a disclaimer that the law in the state of the case MAY be different. That is logical, and it is the RIGHT thing to do for ALL of us.

If you want to twist my word, or bring in other people on the board, then do it. Show your real worth.

I will stand by my post 100%, because it is right.

[Devil_Anse]

You say you were trying to be helpful in posting what you did. I am sure it was helpful, especially to those who have been going over the details of when Ricci went to jail initially, exactly what he went there on, initially and later, etc.

You now criticize me for "interjecting" another poster into a post to you. Gee, I can't imagine why I would associate you with some other posters--oh, wait, maybe it's b/c I see you giving one another high fives and back pats when one of you "trumps", corrects, or ridicules someone who is not in your clique.

You say what the procedure is in State A or State B doesn't matter. I would venture to say that what happens in those states, neither of which is Utah, is exactly as relevant to the discussion as is what happens in your brother's State X, which is also not Utah.

I offer it as my opinion that you take pleasure in "getting" people, perhaps in occasionally offering something that you think will intimidate them. One thing which led me to think this was the way you very clearly implied that Sandude's using the term "Smart-haters" was some sort of "libel." That is ludicrous, of course, but it gives me an idea that you do want to intimidate people by trying to make them think they are doing something wrong, something that will get them in some sort of trouble.

It is my opinion that you are now working up to some sort of claim that I, or someone on here, is giving legal advice in states in which they are not licensed to do so. Sorry, Neen, it won't fly. All the comments on this board are general comments about the Smart case. No one on this board has asked for individual legal advice pertaining to them. No one would be silly enough to seek such a thing on a discussion forum, anyway. Nor would any individual legal advice be given.

And you might consider that one doesn't have to be a lawyer to give legal advice in a state where they are not licensed. (BTW, what state are we in when we're on here, anyway?) I know what state I'm in physically... I've seen a lot of talk about legalities in the Smart case, and many posters have engaged in it. This is called free speech.

I know who on here claims to be in or from Utah. I suspect you do too. I also strongly suspect that everyone who reads these threads knows, too.

Stand by your post all you want. I found its information of interest. But please do drop your penchant for engaging in verbal intimidation--both subtle, and not-so-subtle--of people, simply b/c they don't hold exactly the same opinions you do.

And try to keep the Constitution in mind, instead of just individual rules and laws. It pertains to all of us in the U.S., and we are simply exercising our rights under it.

[Neenah]

ED SMART WILL BE ON ASHLEIGH BANFIELD TONIGHT.

Check your listing.

[jo6pac]

#934, etc. : Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts.

[partialpressures]

Okay, now I'm confused. I came to this discussion late and I'm sure I've missed something in catching up. Maybe you can clarify it for me. Are you saying you are an attorney? I thought I read a reference to your practicing.

Thanks DA!

[Jolly Green]

I realize I was questioning accepted dogma there. If I am cast out as a heretic, perhaps I will be joined in the wilderness by a few other tortured souls, and we will be called the Cult of Tom's Innocence.

Heaven forbid anyone should question accepted "fact," and re-think early conclusions that were made based on rumors of polygraph results, dislike of pushy news media people, and bizarre remarks made on Larry King Live.

This gives you a true sense of the deep hatred of the Smarts on these threads.

[Devil_Anse]

A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts.

LOL!! Or I could have just been irritated b/c she was nitpicking!

Thanks for the detailed definition of projection. I've been trying to think of those very words to say to Varina!

[Devil_Anse]

Yes, partialpressures, I have said that.

What I want to know now is, is Jo6pac a psychiatrist?