[RANGERAIRBORNE]

I actually made a vow not to post anymore on this topic- shouldn't have done so today. However, since you ask, this whole story stank from the beginning. The "abduction" was clearly bogus (how many kidnappers send the victim back to get her shoes?). The story kept changing, and I'm still not sure whether the sister was in on it, or just cruelly duped.
The very strange Mr Ed Smart had a regular revival meeting at the house- PRIOR to calling the police, he had something like 20 neighbors at the house, destroying any hope of finding evidence. These anomalies go on and on- but basically, I just dislike the simpering, whimpering fatuous Ed Smart, and I don't believe a word that comes out of his lying mouth.
Call it a "gut feeling"- but I have worked with lots of liars, criminals, and psychopaths- and this guy has been lying from Day One.
I can see no benefit to anyone involved in the true story (whatever it is)ever being made public, so last-ditch defenders like ILBAY will always be able to shout down anyone who points out the gaping holes in this story.
You can bet that the movie made from this will be the sappiest sort of fiction- I'm sure the script has been written already.

By the way, I am not one of the "Westerfield was innocent" crowd. I only said that it was very likely that he had been at the Van Damme's home BY INVITATION that night, and left with the child while the other adults were otherwise occupied. (ILBAY has made the blanket charge that all of us who doubt the Elizabeth Smart hoax are also secret supporters of the murdering pedophile Westerfield. Not so.)

[Hildy]

So you believe that the Van Dams were more concerned about "what people would think of them" than about finding their daughter... and you're gut feeling is that the Smarts are lying SOBs. You're a real creep, aren't you?

[Risa]

>>I actually made a vow not to post anymore on this topic- shouldn't have done so today...However, since you ask...<<

I understand -- your opinion is based on your observations of the father's behavior and your direct experience with lots of duplicitous people. I consider your opinion a reasoned one, much more so than mine, since I never saw the father (barely followed the case), and even if I had, I've been known not to detect human duplicity as easily as the next guy. (actually my intution is on target--I just refuse to believe my intuition, at times.)

As for Westerfield, never did it occur to me to connect your assessment of the Smarts with him. He's an entirely different case, and I'd be a fool to make such a judgement.

I am really astonished at some of the reaction to your opinion. If we all had the same one, what would be the use of being on the Free Republic forum? How would anyone learn anything new?

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

regards,
risa