KING: All right, now let's help us, Ed, to understand something with regard to young Catherine in all of this.
Initially police said that she was threatened by the kidnapper, and that's why she didn't immediately tell you. They now say the abductor didn't speak at all or even realize that she'd seen him. The kidnapper said to -- that Mary Catherine got out of bed soon after, and then did not head to her parents' room, but retreated in fear when she thought the man -- or saw the man still in the house.
What -- can you get us up to date on what that aspect of the story is?
E. SMART: You know, I really can't go into the details, other than, you know, if you were in a room experiencing -- if somebody was threatening your sister, what would you do? I mean, would you get up, would you stay in bed? What would you do?
That's the only thing that I can even think of.
And, you know, Mary Catherine has been incredibly strong through this whole ordeal. And, you know, we have not asked her questions.Sorry, but this does not compute with me. Why wouldn't you sit with your daughter and ask her what happened? You are the people she loves and trusts more than anyone in the world. This is hard to believe. We -- you know, we don't want to have -- see any more scars on her than what was initially put there by this perpetrator.So the reason for not asking her any questions, is they don't want any more scars on her than what was initially put there by this perp? Please, for you parents here on this board...do you belive this?
And we just -- you know, we've tried so hard to, you know, keep our children out of the limelight just so that they could maintain some kind of sense of innocence or a normal life-trend.
I mean, we're not really public people. When I say that, we don't like to be in the limelight. We never would have, in our wildest dreams, ever have thought that this would happen.
And so we just feel a tremendous need not to put any pressure on Mary Catherine.It is one thing to keep MK sheltered from the press, and out of the public view, that I agree with. But to imply that by them, the parents to not ask her ANYTHING because it would put pressure on her, is to me a calculated story in front of a national audience of people who sincerely care about what happened to this beautiful girl.
KING: Well Lois, can we say then that the initial stories about the kidnapper threatening her were wrong?
E. SMART: You know, it's easy to me to perceive that there's a threat there. And, you know, the rest of it's really in the hands of the police and what they've talked to her. We just -- we really try to stay away from it as much as possible.
KING: How then is she, Lois? How is this 9-year-old?
L. SMART: She is doing remarkably well. She has a lot of family -- cousins, aunts and uncles -- who have rallied around her and the other children. They do fun things that help her, try to take her mind off what has happened.
She's doing very well. She has a little dog now that follows her around.
KING: Is she still in school, or is school out for the summer?
L. SMART: No. School is out for the summer.
Source, Larry King Transcripts
This is one of the reasons why I have alot of trouble with the little information we have. Every time they speak..it is not coherent. This has nothing to do with HATING the Smarts. It has everything to do with pointing out that many have problems in this country following this, when there are so many things said that just don't make sense. It sounds like a purposfull runaround.
And they ignored the blood on her pajamas and beanbag chair, by the way. They didn't test the spot in the carpet either that Demon VanDam steam cleaned before the police got there. They didn't identify the fingerprints on the outside door or the blood on the cement outside or the drag marks outside. They didn't put her journal into testimony where she has some very telling comments - the type of comments that sexually-abused children use.
But all of that evidence in the Van Dam home can never be tested in the future. They re-carpeted and re-painted the entire house. All evidence is lost forever. We will never know, probably, the real killer of little Danielle.
I believe Westerfield was set up by a swingers group and that he is not just "not guilty" but that he is INNOCENT of this horrible crime.
Exerpts from this post by Neenah trashing this time the Smart parents and accusing them of lying:
And, you know, Mary Catherine has been incredibly strong through this whole ordeal. And, you know, we have not asked her questions.Sorry, but this does not compute with me. Why wouldn't you sit with your daughter and ask her what happened? You are the people she loves and trusts more than anyone in the world. This is hard to believe. We -- you know, we don't want to have -- see any more scars on her than what was initially put there by this perpetrator.So the reason for not asking her any questions, is they don't want any more scars on her than what was initially put there by this perp? Please, for you parents here on this board...do you belive this?
And so we just feel a tremendous need not to put any pressure on Mary Catherine.It is one thing to keep MK sheltered from the press, and out of the public view, that I agree with. But to imply that by them, the parents to not ask her ANYTHING because it would put pressure on her, is to me a calculated story in front of a national audience of people who sincerely care about what happened to this beautiful girl.
Why is it all your posts are trashing the families, Neenah? Didn't you learn your lesson from the Van Dam case? Please realize that this drive to trash the parents is unrelated to the facts of the case, it's just something within you. You were wrong on Westerfield, do you thing you're right this time?
E. SMART: You know, it's easy to me to perceive that there's a threat there. And, you know, the rest of it's really in the hands of the police and what they've talked to her. We just -- we really try to stay away from it as much as possible.
Ed's statement, in combination with other statements and events, makes me further question the "armed gunman" story. "It's easy to me to PERCEIVE that there's a threat there"?? If there is a gun involved, the threat is THERE......it doesn't have to be PERCEIVED. I think that whoever took Elizabeth from the house was indeed PERCEIVED as a threat to Elizabeth.......however, I seriously doubt that there was a physical threat. My suspicion is that the gun was added to the story in order to qualify for the Rachel Alert system. I am becoming more and more convinced that Elizabeth left the house willingly with someone who is PERCEIVED as a threat to a vulnerable, naive young girl.
The questions that remain in my mind are: WHO added the gun to the story? Are the police aware of it, and if so WHEN did they become aware of it? IN WHAT WAY was this person perceived to be a threat to Elizabeth? (And, of course, WHO THE HELL WAS HE???)