Replies

This article almost leaves me speechless......almost. I have to react to at least a few of these statements.....

"A kidnapper might still be waiting for the media frenzy to subside before issuing a ransom demand, he (Ed) said."
How is the media frenzy going to die down if Ed keeps giving these INTERVIEWS??

"Meanwhile, Smart worries that the now-10-year-old Mary Katherine, the lone witness to her sister's abduction, has not dealt with emotions stemming from that night. The younger girl acts "almost like it never happened," he said softly."
Come on, Ed!! ALL we have heard for 4 months now is how NOBODY has talked to MK about what happened so she wouldn't be "traumatized" by it!! What do you expect?? Is Ed warning us that our star witness might have "forgotten" some of the details of her story?

"The fateful night Elizabeth disappeared was much like any other, Smart said. At bedtime, the family said their usual prayers on a landing at the top of the stairs before bidding each other good night."
I see nothing has changed here......between the time they arrived home from the awards ceremony and the time they went to bed, saying their family prayers is the ONLY thing that Ed will mention about that evening.

"Mary Katherine came into her parents' room at 3:58 a.m., Smart said -- he looked at the clock when she woke him.....
Finally.....after 4 months, we are told the exact time that SOMETHING happened......why did this take so long?

"A man's taken Elizabeth," he remembered......"You're not going to find her. A man took her."
Ed has described himself as being "franic" and Lois as "getting pretty worked up"......yet all we have from MK are these two clearly spoken, dry, informative statements. Did MK show NO emotion whatsoever? More to the point.....NEITHER OF THESE STATEMENTS MENTION A GUN.

"With officers on the way, Smart ran across the street to a home where there had been an attempted abduction years before. Moving through "a blur," Smart warned his neighbors to check their children, he said.
Then, he went home and started calling friends, neighbors and relatives, saying his only thought was finding as many people as possible to start looking for his daughter. "We almost called the entire ward."
If Ed's first thought was "finding as many people as possible to start LOOKING FOR HIS DAUGHTER, why was his first action to "warn his neighbors to check their own children"? If Ed's first concern was LOOKING FOR HIS DAUGHTER, why was he on the phone calling "almost the entire ward" instead of out LOOKING FOR HIS DAUGHTER? Contrary to what has been suggested by some, it appears that a "phone tree" calling system was not used that night......rather, it seems Ed stood there calling people on the phone while precious minutes ticked by. It appears that Ed's FIRST concern was getting people over to his house......NOT looking for Elizabeth.

"The first call was to Suann Adams, a family friend living nearby. She and her husband arrived within minutes and found a lone police car, she said......Salt Lake City Police Chief Rick Dinse stands by the initial police report that arriving officers found a number of the Smarts' neighbors searching inside and outside the house."
Well, who are we going to believe here? Chief Dinse is standing by the original reports of the responding officers. Why is Ms. Adams the ONLY neighbor who has come forward to contradict these police reports?

"Adams dismissed reports that arriving officers found more than a dozen people in the home, trampling through the crime scene and hindering the investigation. "It's not like Ed went out and called a bunch of high school kids," she said. "These are responsible adults, who aren't going to put their handprints all over everything."
Wait a minute.....is Ms. Adams denying that the people were there, or is she just denying that they were "trampling and hindering"? What would Ms. Adams know about what is required in securing a crime scene? Contrary to what trained police investigators have told us, Ms. Adams seems to believe that "responsible adults" are incapable of disturbing a crime scene. I find her statement here downright embarrassing.

"Many only came by briefly, then went to check all-night convenience stores and restaurants in the hope Elizabeth hadn't gotten far, Adams said."
Wait a minute......I've got to ask again......WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ARMED GUNMAN??? An armed gunman is going to take his victim to an all-night convenience store or a restaurant???

I'll have to tie into the rest of the article later.....the inconsistencies contained in the first half alone have worn me out!! I have to wonder what in the world is going on with this case.....I find this absolutely incredible.

Also notice that Ed never mentioned that MK was scared or frightened to death. Nor did he mention how long MK waited to inform them of her sister's disappearance.

And those dry, matter-of-fact comments he attributed to MK are really weird. Sure doesn't sound like they came from a youngster who was scared out of her mind.

I cannot believe that MK, reportedly so close to her sister, would be so matter of fact or wait more than a few minutes to alert the parents if she was scared or worried. A 5 or 6 year old, maybe, NOT a smart, 9-year-old.

Did MK show NO emotion whatsoever? More to the point.....NEITHER OF THESE STATEMENTS MENTION A GUN.

I have thought and thought about this. There is NO WAY, a normal nine year old, seeing her sister taken at gunpoint....GUNPOINT...going to NOT tell her parents!!To a 9 yr old, the parents are EVERYTHING. Their protectors!!

The little kid had to be scared to death. If she wouldn't tell HER PARENTS right after it happened, as Ed is saying in THIS article...then how can I believe she fed the LEO's anthing?? This makes no sense.

"DADDY!! THE MAN HAD A GUN AT ELIZABETH!! " " HE HAD A GUN, DADDY!! "

[Warning to those who bore easily: Do not read this post. It is almost as long as an 8th grade essay.]

The accounts of what Mary K. said just sound so unnatural. "A man's taken Elizabeth." That can't be a direct, exact quote, can it?

I want to tell you about why I think Ed went ahead with Ricci even after Ricci drove off in the jeep and didn't come back.

My neighbor's house (outside) was being painted recently. I looked over often to see the painters, knowing that our own house needed outside painting, and planning to ask our neighbor what sort of job this painter was doing.

The painter saw me looking and came over and introduced himself. Nice guy, very personable. Works with his sons. Says he has 10 children. He urged me to hire him to paint our house. I told him I'd think about it. Every day after that, he'd come over and ring the doorbell, smile, and say, won't be long b/f your neighbor's house is done! Want me to paint your house? At one point, he gave me an estimate.

I arranged for another painter to come one day and give me HIS estimate, believing I shd get more than one estimate. The man didn't show up, though one or the other of us waited there all day. Late afternoon, here comes my neighbor's painter. This time, I was ready to hire him--if he'd come down on the price. He did, he came down nicely.
The neighbors and their in-laws recommended him highly when I asked them.

We signed a "contract." He wanted half up front. (I know, I know...) I gave him some cash (as he requested) but paid most of the down payment by check. He left, promising several times to come back the next day bright and early and get started. It was a Saturday; he said that didn't matter one bit. He never showed Saturday. He never showed Sunday. On Monday I called the bank and stopped payment on the check. But he'd still gotten the cash. About noon Monday he showed up. We talked about the stopped-pmt check and I was unapologetic. He said he understood. He got to work. For the next 2 weeks, he'd come by whenever, and work. Slowly but surely the job got done. In the middle of it, he asked for an advance again. I told him absolutely not, till he'd finished. But I did give him $100 cash towards payment one time. Still, most of his money was unpaid.

He finally finished the job to our satisfaction. I paid him by check. He'd wanted cash, but I insisted on check. (Found out later his driver's license is expired and he's afraid to go renew it b/c he has a misdemeanor warrant open; hence his trouble cashing checks.)

When he went to the bank to cash that last check, the bank called me. I said, pay the check, and they did.

Once you feel stuck in something like this, you end up just trying to make it work. If I had fired him after the 2 days he didn't show, I'd have lost the cash part of the down payment I'd given him. I thought of doing that. (Even went back to that other painter and finally got HIS estimate.) In the end I just kept on, and finally we had the house properly painted, and he had his money.

Later (again, this was stupid of me)--after he and I had already signed the "contract," but b/f he'd gotten much of a start painting, I ran him on the state computer and found he'd been convicted of crack possession almost 2 years ago. To me, that explained his erratic working hours.

Ever after, I will always pay the $6 or whatever to get an internet background check on workers. If they won't give me their DOB and real name, address, etc., they can take a hike.

Ed had more cojones than I. I wouldn't have gone to my painter's neighborhood to get him, even though I know very well where he lives--both places.

At one point, while talking to the painter I didn't hire, I told him I hoped to find someone w/o a criminal record to paint our house. He laughed, and said, well if you want that, you've just eliminated 70% of the housepainters in the county!

Yesterday our painter came by. Wanted to know if we needed the rain gutters cleaned. I told him, thanks, but I already had someone else coming to clean them.

FWIW, I have no daughters.

Well, who are we going to believe here? Chief Dinse is standing by the original reports of the responding officers. Why is Ms. Adams the ONLY neighbor who has come forward to contradict these police reports?

Timing is everything. Is it even a tiny bit concievable to you that both might be right. When Ms. Adams arrived there was only one police car. That is a fact. When the detectives arrived - much later - there were lots of neighbors in the house.

Why is it that everyone is lying or conspiring? Do you really have that much of a cynical, jaundiced view of the Smarts and LE? It would seem that the all-purpose critics on these threads are the least likely to grasp the complexities of this case.