Replies

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.

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.

The business about the sketch artist is just one of many pieces of misinformation that has been used to point fingers of blame at the family. At a lengthy press conference just after Elizabeth was found, the chief of police said that artist DID meet with the younger sister. More than once. But she couldn't get enough information to do a reliable sketch.

They got the child out of the house because their house was a zoo, and the parents were basket cases. They had been advised that, if they wanted the little girl to remember anything, they should keep her in as calm an environment as possible. Too much talking to her could plant "memories" in her mind that wouldn't otherwise be there.

As it happened, after a long enough period of time had passed that the family was apparently settling down, the little girl said it "might" have been a guy named "Emmanuel" that had been at the house months before the kidnapping. At that point, the police artist did come in, interviewed three different family members who had seen Emmanuel on the day that he worked there, and got three different pictures. The police were reluctant to release the picture(s) for fear of getting a lot of false leads.

The family decided on one picture as being the most accurate, and released it, along with the name "Emmanuel," after the police balked. The picture showed that Mitchell was clean shaven and had a normal haircut when he was at the Smart's. And it didn't really look very much like him. But Mitchell's stepchildren recognized the name, and immediately came forward to help the police, and give them pictures of Mitchell in his "prophet" outfit.

You know, these cases seldom proceed in a straight line. There was never anything to point a finger at the Smart family. But people have seized upon every little inconsistency as evidence of some kind of guilt on the part of the family. I just don't get it.

There is going to be a probe into how the police handled the investigation, but it appears, that the Police department didn't want to release a sketch of the suspect the younger sister identified. Now I don't know if that means they didn't believe her or what, but part of the parents complaints are that the sisters sketch is accuate to the actual suspect, and another gripe they have, is that the police went after the first suspect and never even conceded that they could be wrong. The sister was made avalable to the cops, but the cops, kept focusing on the original suspect (which the younger sisters story contradicted), and on the family (standard, but usually, they get ruled out eventually, as seems to have happened halfway here). Basically they focused the investigation in 2 directions, and were wrong on both counts, which is why they never actually got Smart, she fell into there laps.