Trunk, where's your evidence?

The BBQ Pit
61

Danke.
I stand corrected.

I’ve furnished you with a cite as to how SS works, and the facts of the case support that interpretation. Barring me stealing the records of her consultations with psychologists, I’m afraid we’re not gonna get any better than that. Present another hypothesis that takes the facts into consideration and explains the occurances without making too many WAG’s, and we can talk about it. As of yet, all anybody has done is try to open the door a crack via doubt and then try to sneak a purple elephant through while nobody’s looking.

Wrong-O sweetie pie.
You’re wrong, not because you disagree with me, but because you’ve been totally unable to craft a cohesive hypothesis which explains the abduction, captivity, and why ES was still loyal to her abductor even after he was captured. Notice, the claim that she wanted to go with him then requires you to, somehow, explain her sister’s story. Can you do that?

62

You obviously consider the right to have an opinion to be the same as the right to have said opinion, regardless of how little (zero) fact it’s based on, treated with respect. I am treating your opinion, which you admit is based on exactly nothing, with the respect it’s due: none.

Fine. Again I ask: on what facts do you base that decision? BTW, “because I don’t want her story to be true” doesn’t count as a factual basis for an intelligent opinion.

Again you admit that you’re basing your opinion on other than fact.

Try that again without the obvious falsehood regarding Finn & me. I’ve already addressed your “take” on the issue. If you want your opinion treated with respect, form one based on facts and not just the nifty cool vibrations you feel when the wind’s blowing in the right direction.

63

BTW, it seems to me that Finn’s “jedi hypothesis” is being used by said poster to ridicule the hypotheses of those posters who maintain that Miss Smart wasn’t kidnapped.

64

Thanks. :slight_smile: And by “raw data” I meant “news stories, preferably from reliable sources, preferably that quote people who actually had something to do with the goings-on”.

65

Please note that any hypothesis crafted, other than the reported story, explaining the abduction, captivity, and loyalty to kidnappers will also have to address the vast media conspiracy to cover up these items. That would include explaining why, in an oversaturated media market, no reputable source was willing to break from the pack to offer solid evidence of different motives.

When you’re done, then explain the Illuminati connection…or the Jedi connection. I’m flexible.

You’ll note that those of us who side with the given story have offered up solid, corroborated evidence supporting the story.

First, there is the history of news coverage by various, mainstream sources.

There are other cases of women held captive siding with their captors despite rape, abuse, and torture.

Let me add another story relating to the polygamist cults that spring up from disenfranchised Mormons. In another part of the world, these people would be suicide bombers or tribal leaders ordering gang rapes for perceived affronts.

Now it is your turn to offer any credible evidence, such as interviews with teachers or friends, indicating that Miss Smart might have been a willing participant.

I’ll go put on a pot of coffee while I wait, as I feel we will be here awhile.

This is not having a closed mind. This is not taking tales derived from a cheap romance novel or murder-mystery book and weaving them into real life. This is not needlessly complicating a story with wild, unsubstantiated theories that fly in the face of all currently available information.

66

Please point out where I ever claimed that she wanted to go with him. You must be confusing me with someone else, as I never said it.

What falsehood? Is it false that you are very annoyed with anyone who has disagreed with you? You seem annoyed to me. Perhaps you aren’t really.

67

My fairy tale was in response to a statement made in the Utah boy thread.

Trunk has since withdrawn the assertion that “every other Mormon in Utah knew about it”. He has not withdrawn the assertion that her parents knew that ES went with Mitchell to be one of his wives. My fairy tale attempted to point out the absurdity of thinking that the parents were knowledgeable or approving of ES’s “relation” with Mitchell. Does anyone still think the parents knew all along where ES was? If so, I’ll be glad to post a long list of reasons why that makes no sense at all.

Which leaves the question of whether or not ES went willingly. It is possible, although in my opinion extremely unlikely, that she did. However, even if she did, Mitchell is still guilty of kidnapping and rape. The age of consent in Utah is 16 (no physical coercion) or 18 (physical coercion). Even if ES’s parents turned her over to Mitchell with a title, he is still guilty of kidnapping and rape. “Ogre” is a kind word for men who kidnap and rape 14-year-old girls.

And it chills my blood to hear 14-year-old girls referred to as “sexually mature”, as was done in one post here. It may be true that they are physically capable of having children. Emotionally, they are not mature at all.

68

The falsehood is where you assert that I’m annoyed with you because you disagree with me. That you disagree with me does not annoy me. What does annoy me is that you spout ridiculous and asinine “opinions” as though they’re of any worth.

Try to notice the difference between what you said and reality there. I think it’ll help you in the future.

69

laina, I think the “mature” tag was only done to clinically define paedophilia. The probable cause statement filed states that the adbuction and captivity were non-consensual. I’m waiting for credible evidence otherwise.

Or maybe the Mormon church is railroading Immanuel, formerly known as Brian David Mitchell. Perhaps he is truly the One mighty and strong, and the current PTB are afraid of losing their comfy positions, so this whole affair is one big set-up. Everyone is lying at the behest of the Mormon church, and their obfuscating the facts so well no news organization can ferret out the real truth.

Time for me to rethink my position.

OK, I’m done. My position remains as it was.

70

A diagnosis of Stockholm System relies on the basis that she was indeed abducted.

It is possible that she told her sister to be quiet, and left willingly with Mitchell. her resultant life on the road with him could lead to her “brainwashing” as it has been termed.

there’s only one person who can really tell the whole version, and that’s Elisabeth Smart.

The problem is, if her story differenciated from what is currently reported, would the differences be accepted or put down to trauma/“brainwashing”?

71

It’s a good job then that noone has asserted that she was emotionally mature enough to make that decision.

72

Well, yes. That’s why no one calls her “emotionally mature.” I’m sorry calling her sexually mature chills your blood. I understand, though; I get the willies when the sky is described as blue, myself.

73

::SHUDDER::

Don’t do that! It feels like someone just walked over my grave! :mad:

74

Mizz Bunny,
Do not disagree with ‘happy fun Monty’, especially with an opinion.

I too do not really trust the ‘media’ to get all the facts right, especially before there is much investigation and stuff and such.

Remember, in the pit you have to quote chapter and verse, you must agree with Monty, especially about human nature and why they do things.

And heaven forbid, remember to ask permission first…

75

From the site linked above:

I don’t have an opinion in this matter, but I have a question regarding the above. Wouldn’t you get the same reaction from someone who was there voluntarily and didn’t want to be rescued?

76

I’ll see that an raise you a “Please point out where I said that you held that specific absurdity?” You (singular) are aware that you can also be plurlal?

In any case, if you’re arguing with the official version of events, you have to show some evidence to explain what would then be a series of inconsistencies, including a younger sister who didn’t care that her sister was gone forever and under the control of some looney. Or are you commiting the same error as the girl who keeps her face in a jar by the door, and trying to get out of making any specific hypotheses in any case?

Oh, I assure you, this isn’t personal. Simple exercise in epistemology and the construction of hypotheses. In order to dispute the hypothesis which requires the fewest leaps in logic (ie. Stockholm Syndrome), you have to provide alternate evidence. So far all anybody has done is to say that they feel weird about the truth, so that means other things might’ve happened. Weird feelings do not a great argument make.

This requires a good few leaps in logic though. First, we must assume that she wanted to go with her abductor. This begs the question as to why they staged it like a kidnapping where her sister saw the face of her abductor. Why not just have ES wander off during school? Second, we must assume that her sister was not just told to keep quiet, but kept to the lie even when all the adults around her were worrying that her sister was dead. Third, willingly going with someone would not produce the “brainwashing” as was seen, SS style “brainwashing” requires a harsh enviornment to break someone and make them reorient their survival tactics. Fourth, we’d still need to postulate a reason for her to run away forever with a strange man. Her father was given a polygraph, why didn’t inconsistencies in his story come out then?

Is it? Or are we back to the Jedi hypothesis?

My guess is, no. And then, again, if this was the case we’d still have to explain her sister’s behvior.

77

In the news and journalism world these are called Primary Sources. They are typically first-hand accounts of an event or the official record of an event. They encompass personal diaries, letters from/to the individuals involved, transcripts of speeches, etc. The term has its genesis in historical research where the weight of time and lack of access to the individual players makes analysis very difficult. The same term applies here though because you want to get direct first-hand sources just like historians do.

Just FYI. It may make it easier for others to understand what you’re looking for if you use the keywords of “primary sources” in your requests for information in the future.

Enjoy,
Steven

78

** Finnagain**-I see that you are not familiar with the Gary Dotson case.
I have never tried to link here, and am not sure if I am doing this correctly. here goes;
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/Dotson.htm

I apologize if it doesn’t work–I have rouble iwth linking, so I never do it. I googled “Gary Dotson” and used the first hit.

Cathleen never had sex with Gary–this was not case of consensual sex covered up or maligned.** This was a fantasy entirely made up so that a girl didn’t have to face the wrath of her parents/she would have an explanation of a possible pregnancy.**

NONE of it happend–and yet a man went to jail for years. The IL police and the prosectors etc–all believed Cathleen–a meek, somewhat attractive white girl who tearfully and hesistatingly told her story, identified the “rapist” and testified against him. He got out on DNA evidence used as exoneration.

My point is that EVERYONE believed CC. Everyone.

I draw a parallel between the two cases. I think there is more to ES than what is published. I have said several times that I could be wrong and the facts could stand as is. But, I have some doubts–the CC/GD case showed me, upclose (I went to HS with CC) that a girl can lie her ass off and convict someone. I don’t know how CC lives with herself–but stuff like this does happen.

I didn’t say that it was likely–just possible. I don’t know why that is hard for you–but again, that is not my problem.

79

And the worthless piece of trash trifecta all by itself shows up in the carcass of Gus. It’s not bad enough that Trunk’s lies are defended, now we get a whole new set of lies from that jackass.

80

The problem is that you hold an opinion to be asinine whenever it doesn’t agree with your own.