FOX News -Smart Family Doesn't Want Sexual Assualt Charges Filed Against MItchells

FOX News ^ | March 18, 2003 | Shepard Smith

[ewing]

just the update

[ml/nj]

But if the kidnapping charges are enough to put the two of them away for life, then what is to be gained by forcing Elizabeth to describe every detail of what they did to her in public.

Because slimeballs in your profession, might beat the prosecutor on the kidnapping charges. (Certainly, you've seen the folks even here at FR who think she left voluntarily with this guy.)

ML/NJ

[TheSpottedOwl]

If they pressed charges for sexual assault, Elizabeth would be questioned, in all matter of things, all kinds of nasty specifics would have to come out.....humiliating her for the rest of her life......poor girl.

Her parents are odd, However I don't blame any parent for protecting their child from further abuse. The girl having to be grilled about being that guy's wife could crack her. Weird, weird, weird....

[hole_n_one]

Something here ain't right.

You, for instance.

[lady lawyer]

I don't think so. His own court-appointed lawyer is referring to Mitchell as "the perpetrator." He will probably try an insanity defense.

[cajungirl]

Get a clue,,they have enough on kidnapping to put them away forever. I think there is some voyeurism at work here,,some people really just are dying to hear the gory details not caring if a child is destroyed in public. Sick.

[GovernmentShrinker]

You're totally missing the point. They have plenty of other charges with which to put these creeps away for life. Adding the sexual assault charges would have no effect whatsoever on "protecting your daughters". No one here has even remotely suggested that child rapists shouldn't be charged with rape if that's the only way to lock them up for good, but when they can be locked up for good AND the child spared the trauma of reliving the nightmare on the witness stand, that's obviously a better route.

[leslie_is_cooking]

I hate to, but I have to agree with you. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy freak, but. . .

So many things about this case do not pass the smell test.

Before anything though, let me say that I think Elizabeth Smart is innocent of any wrongdoing and is the victim of at least these two lunatics that are in custody, and maybe others.

First, why did the Smart's never make the younger sister available to sketch artists? The woman who did the Unabomber sketch and was the one who figured out the truth about the woman who claimed her children were kidnapped when in fact she had drowned them by locking them in a car and submerging them in a lake actually went to Salt Lake, at her own cost. At the last moment, the Smarts decided not to let her see the younger daughter.

Second, why was the younger daughter not made more available to the police for questioning initially? This girl was the ONLY witness. As soon as they could, the Smarts spirited her away to relatives and kept her away from the police. Then, the Smarts have the chutzpah to complain that the police did not take the girl's i.d. of the transient handyman--the i.d. that came months after the kidnapping--seriously.

Third, for all of their protestations about the police asking Elizabeth about any sexual molestatation, I can't seem to turn on the news without hearing about some member of the immediate family talking about it. If they are that concerned about Elizabeth's well-being, why do the Smarts themselves seem to be keeping this issue alive in the media?

I hope I'm wrong and it is simply a lunatic with a lunatic wife who are alone responsible for these horrible things visited upon Elizabeth.

[cajungirl]

It's Utah. The guy and his woman don't have a prayer. Utah is alot like Texass,,,and that is a good thing in my opinion. They will send him down the river so far he won't ever paddle back.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Not surprisingly, that Long guy is no longer the Creep's lawyer, and it's not clear he ever was. The Creep has announced he plans to represent himself, and Long has a history of run-ins with the Bar.

[ml/nj]

He will probably try an insanity defense.

Then she wouldn't have to testify, would she? (It's not as easy here on FR where logic prevails, is it?)

ML/NJ

[Always A Marine]

So I guess you're against prosecuting any case against anyone who rapes a child? After all, that child victim might have to testify. The reason to "put her through all of this" (if that really has to happen) is to protect your daughters.

You missed the point, I believe. The kidnapping charge is serious enough to put them away for a very long time, so Elizabeth's testimony about the sexual assault is not necessary. If charged with sexual assault, the defendant would have every right to directly confront the victim in his own defense; given her age and the control he has wielded over her for nine months of her young life, this would amount to raping her all over again in front of everyone. Fortunately in this case, the kidnapping charge might be enough to do what needs to be done.

[demnomo]

There is no changing the minds of people who really believe that Elizabeth and her family are evil and deserve what they got.

Even after reading the latest news articles regarding Elizabeth being held at knifepoint, stripped by that awful woman, tied to a tree, raped by that creep, threatened and then thrown into a hole covered with boards and dirt, could the doubters ever believe that there may be very good explanations on why a terrified young girl--in fear of her life and doing anything to survive--did not run away or was not rescued sooner by her family!!!

[xm177e2]

I was thinking about this earlier: most families do not want the shame that goes along with having admitted that their daughter was raped. They want to pretend it never happened. As long as Elizabeth is getting the counseling she needs privately, there is no reason to make this a public affair. Also, for authorities to file sexual assault charges against Mitchell, Elizabeth would have to testify against him, and the family probably doesn't want that.

[xm177e2]

I'm sure it's hard on Elizabeth, but facing the truth and fighting back will be better for her than pretending it didn't happen. I bet most therapists would agree with that.

Grandstanding in a courtroom should not be confused with therapy.

[cajungirl]

It would be a travesty wouldn't it to allow that animal to question her,,I am sickened at the thought. And to think it could happen in a court in this country galls me. I think a parent with any guts would solve that problem if it looked like it would happen.

[demnomo]

Cheers to you, too, Mombonn. (You notice I no longer end my posts with Cheers. Not since 9/11. Although in this case, I say Cheers to Elizabeth for surviving such a terrible ordeal as best she could.)

[Nita Nuprez]

Could she have been bartered/sold/traded/? Was the family blackmailed? Did they know where she was?

Something here ain't right.

Sick, buddy, sick.

Oh, that's nothing. By the time the thread reaches 100 replies, Elizabeth will have been sent to the Virgin Islands on someone's playboy bunny yacht, tied to a 40-foot phallic statue, and offered up to the Sun gods every night for the last 9 months.

(sigh) Just as long as they don't drag Elvis into it, I suppose.

[nicmarlo]

He's got plenty of other charges to be nailed with....and DON'T lecture me about "not pressing charges." We are talking about THIS CASE.

[GovernmentShrinker]

You sound as if you haven't been folowing this case very closely and yet are making a lot of accusations and insinuations.

The younger sister was made available to a sketch artist when the police wanted it -- they said no to the artist proposed by Mark Klaas when they found out that both Klaas and the artist were being paid by Fox News and just in it to get the first scoop.

Where did you ever get the idea that the younger sister wasn't "made more available to police for questioning initially"? According to police, their forensic psychologists interviewed her several times early on, and at police request she was not allowed to live with her family for several weeks so that the family couldn't taint her memories (inadvertently or deliberately). Furthermore, police never made a peep about having any problems interviewing the little girl when they wanted to.

And you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between the vague references to sexual assault which are being made public (mainly by prosecutors, not by the Smarts who have been much more vague than the prosecutors), and the prospect of Elizabeth being grilled on the gory details in an open courtroom.

If you're interested in the case, read up on the facts.

[Nita Nuprez]

ROFLOL!