Posted on 07/22/2002 9:00:21 PM PDT by Jolly Green
Hmmmmmm, she did ok for the FBI. Just a thought.
I've seen this argument bantered around by the half dozen hard core defenders of Ricci on this thread for more than a month and this is the first time I've seen a reference to anything like it. These are the people that deny Ricci ever took the Jeep. I think these people need a fresh perspective on the case.
No information given by Mary Katherine will have any value in a court of law -- not just because her story changed, but because it changed after interviews with "child interviewing specialists": Any halfway competent lawyer will remind the jury of the McMartin Preschool case, in which experts manipulated children into believing things that never happened. I'm certainly not saying this happened here; only that this eliminates Mary Katherine's value as a potential witness.
McMartin Preschool case--
http://crime.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra%5Fmcmar.htm
Do you happen to know if Moul made Ricci sign the vehicle out - then sign it back in? Ordinarily, don't we do that? If there is that proof, & the signatures are proved to be legitimate, then I'll back off.
This is what the poster wrote - I have yet to read an explanation of why Elizabeth and her parents/family missed the awards ceremony and recital the day before she disappeared and welcome any comments on this.
This is what the article says - Hours before the abduction, the Smart family returned from an end-of-the-year function at Bryant Intermediate School, where Elizabeth was supposed to perform her harp. Her family arrived too late for that, but she received awards for academics and physical fitness.
This is a family with 6 kids, they were late.
May I add that the family had just buried Mrs. Smarts father a few days before the recital. Perhaps they were grieving the loss of father/grandfather. This could make anyone with 6 kids run late.
Very doubtful it has any bearing on Elizabeth's subsequent disappearance.
OR because the police didn't want a sketch released to the public. As has been speculated above, IF the cops knew who it was early on, they didn't want a sketch released because if the perp knew they were on to him, he would destroy the evidence i.e. Elizabeth.
Hmmmmmm. Just possibly the SLCPD/FBI already thought of that all by themselves AND have a damn good reason for not involving her.
You are assuming they are interested in facts.
Oh contrare! You are making a good case as to why the police would not want to have a sketch.
Sunday, June 16, 2002
Sister reported the abduction relatively quickly
Wait was quite short for child, an expert says
By Jake Parkinson
Deseret News staff writer
Elizabeth Smart's little sister was the only eyewitness to her sister's abduction.
Mary Katherine, 9, watched as an armed man entered her bedroom and led Elizabeth away at gunpoint.
Then she waited.
According to police, the kidnapper threatened to hurt Elizabeth if Mary Katherine told anyone about the abduction.
So she sat in her room for as long as two hours before telling her parents who, when told, called 911 at 4:01 a.m.
Certified forensic psychologist Gerald P. Koocher said it is remarkable the child notified the parents as soon as she did.
Koocher, dean of Health Studies at Boston's Simmon's College and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, pointed out that in other scenarios such as sexual abuse, a child will refrain from telling on or speaking about the incident for years if there is a threat to hurt other members of the victim's family.
From her brief encounter and with the help of police examiners, the soon-to-be fourth-grader gave a description of the kidnapper: a white male, possibly in his 30s, about 5 feet 8 inches, with dark hair and a medium build.
The morning of the incident, Salt Lake Police Sgt. Dwayne Baird said Mary Katherine "saw a little bit of what was going on, but she couldn't see him real clearly."
A few days later, authorities brought a child forensic specialist to Salt Lake City to re-interview Mary Katherine, but the description didn't change, and any new information found in the interview, if there was any, was not reported to the media. To date, authorities say Mary Katherine has been interviewed four times, all along insisting her testimony remains consistent.
"Police will have a hard time gauging the amount of time that passed before the girl told her parents," Koocher said. "Children gauge time differently."
But Koocher said a child's testimony of the event should be considered as credible as an adult's.
"Any person, a child or adult, in a situation like this is subject to a lot of stress, but the facts of what took place will be accurate," Koocher said.
But the details might be a little distorted, he said.
"A child laying down is going to have a hard time telling just how tall a man is who is standing over her."
In questioning children, an investigator must be careful not to ask pointed questions such as, "Was the man about the same height as your father?" Koocher said. But at the same time, investigators must be quick in gathering testimony.
Over time, a person can fabricate thoughts and experiences, Koocher said.
"Most people don't actually have memories of being 3 years old; instead they remember what their parents told them and fabricate the scenario in their own minds."
But Koocher said in the disappearance of Elizabeth, her sister could not have been coached by an adult to produce the testimony.
"Kids are not good secret keepers unless they feel threatened, and in this case it doesn't appear there would have been a lot of time for coaching. If there were, after four separate interviews there would be some level of inconsistency," he said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.