Police now say abductor of 14-year-old Utah girl didn't know he was watched by her sister

AP | June 18, 2002 | RICH VOSEPKA

[Spiff]

Talk about one-stop shopping..... 8~)

Oh, you've noticed that too. Actually, every FBI Agent that I've ever known was a member of the Church. Hmmmm...

[tracer]

Ya know, 1967 was a good year for Catawba juice.....

[lady lawyer]

I think it is immaterial whether the younger sister was threatened directly, or overheard a threat to her sister. The only thing that has everybody in an uproar is the mistaken perception that the little sister has changed her story on that point. If you look at the June 11 article I posted, the police stopped characterizing the story as they original did very soon after the story broke. The police also said the little girl's story has been consistent.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

No- only joking! See private reply. (Actually, that was a pretty funny one-liner! I may steal it.)

[tracer]

Hey, if "Mormons" are good enough for Howard Hughes, we're good enough for J. Edgar Hoover.

Oops. Now I've really gone and done it...

P.S. - I am not a member of the FBI. My screen name derives from my skill with crayons....

[Grig]

If it's light enough in a bedroom at 1 or 2 a.m. to see hair on the back of a person's hand, it follows that it might be light enough too see his face

Don't be too hard on Illbay. Some of us Mormon freepers are more than a little tired of having to answer the same questions over and over from people who are quite eager to jump to conclusions when they know very few facts.

Now, you asked: If she saw all that, I wonder how she missed a glimpse of his face. and the way that question is phrased does lead the reader to think that you think she is lying.

Do you know what light sources were on? Do you know what phase the moon was in and what the sky conditions were like? Do you know what direction the bedroom window faces and were the beds are placed in the room? Were they bunk beds, and if so was she in the top or bottom? All these things would have a big effect on what she saw (while trying to pretend to be asleep) and I don't think its reasonable to hold a scared 9 year old to the standards you set.

You quickly pass judgment without pausing to consider anything more then how it can be interpeted to fit your pet theory, and that is what bugs so many of us.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

4 a.m? I thought the dad said she was missing at their morning prayer time around 7 or so.

Jon Benet #2

[baseballfanjm]

That's what my mom tells my sisters to do. The last thing any criminal wants is confrontation.

[r9etb]

I think it is immaterial whether the younger sister was threatened directly, or overheard a threat to her sister.

And possibly interpreted it as a threat to her.

[freedox]

Surely no one on here believes that the police are telling EVERTHING that has come out of their interviews with Mary Katherine! The suggestion that her story has remained "consistent" could mean almost anything. I find it hard to believe that they would continue to interview her unless they had some hope or expectation of additional information........I suspect they have learned plenty that they are not telling.

[TheDon]

I was the first poster to speak out that the sisters story didnt add up way back on the original 'breaking' thread of this girls 'kidnapping'.

Perhaps not as reported by the media anyway.

[Grig]

Hehe, you remind me of an guy the elders were teaching who was very paranoid about Mormons. They brough him to church one sunday and he saw one of the elders get the attention of of the other and tap his left wrist with his finger three times. He demanded to know right away what that secret sign was. The other elder just leaned over to his companion and said, "It's 10:35, why don't you get your own watch?".

[The G Man]

I think it is immaterial whether the younger sister was threatened directly, or overheard a threat to her sister

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

On another note, have the police actually said that Elizabeth was "threatened" or did the assailant supposedly caution her to be quiet so she wouldnt wake someone up? A big distinction I think. As in, not wanting to get caught when you are running away with your boyfriend (?) right before you stage your own kidnapping?

And before I get slammed for frivilous speculation, consider this issue of the screen that was cut from the inside. I think we can all agree that that was done to give the appearance of someone breaking in, no? But why would that be? What possible motivation could there be for a hostile assailant to sneak into the house and then stage a forced entry? I can't think of too many possibilities, but only a couple make sense to me:

* Elizabeth was not abducted, but went along willingly. You may recall alot of stuff on these boards about how sad she looked in photos, etc, etc. Baloney. I focused instead on the recent video footage of her in what appeared to be almost a one woman show in that play she was in and I see a very confident looking young woman. And an actress to boot.

* A family member abducted her (forcibly or otherwise) and wishes to make it appear to be the act of a some unknown predator

[TheDon]

This time lapse has been generally attributed to Mary Catherine being terrified by the threats made to her. But now we find that no such threats were made to her, and the reason for her not telling her parents disappears.

Perhaps "changes" would be more accurate than "disappears".

[lady lawyer]

If someone says "be quiet" while pointing a gun at you, that can reasonably interpreted as a threat.

[TheDon]

FR attracts its share of conspiracy theorists. This case is perfect for them, no facts to get in the way.

[The G Man]

Now, you asked: If she saw all that, I wonder how she missed a glimpse of his face. and the way that question is phrased does lead the reader to think that you think she is lying.

Hardly. I for one wonder if the sister not only saw the assailant but has told the police exactly who it was. The only problem is they have no no idea where Elizabeth is.

And on an unrelated matter, why does it seem that so many folks (not meaning you) are so willing to try and explain away any and all inconsistancies whatsoever involving any member of the family whereas in, oh say the Jon Benet case, there was no such phalanx of supporters here???

I find that odd.

[nmh]

<p.If the abductor didn't know her sister was watching then WHY did she wait TOW HOURS to tell anyone? This doesn't make sense. The abductor must have seen her and told her to be quiet for TWO HOURS or maybe her sister was in on the abduction. Something smells here.

[TheDon]

None of your three ideas add up. As long as we're throwing crap on the wall to see what sticks, how about the way the guy was dressed and the way he abducted the girl?