Elizabeth Smart Raped At Least Once a Day, Forced Into Sex With a Woman? and Tied to a Tree; But Shows No Sign of Having Suffered Trauma and Never Needed Therapy?
Elizabeth Smart, who says she was raped daily, and sometimes four times a day, testified on the stand last week that she was also tethered between two trees “like an animal,” and CNN has reported that she was forced “to watch and participate in sex acts she found repugnant.”
Being that Wanda Barzee was also charged with sexual assault against Elizabeth Smart, does this comment mean that Ms. Smart was made to engage in sex acts with a woman? If so, I do not believe for one second that Elizabeth Smart was not affected by her “ordeal.” If she was raped four times a day and forced into sex acts with a woman, then she is either hiding something, totally repressing deep shame, trauma, and emotional distress –or she is lying about what happened to her in those mountains of Utah, and lying about how she got there.
If her account of things are truthful, then no amount of ‘talking to her parents’ will heal what she endured. If she is denying her pain and trauma by pretending that she is so special that she can just ‘move on with her life,’ then she has no right to tell other victims and survivors of rape and trauma that they can also just wave away their pain and suffering. This is something she has publicly professed to other victims. NOT OKAY.
“Smart told the jury she thought about running away that first morning, despite the threats against her life and her family. “I didn’t want to spend another day with him. I never wanted to see him again.”
“I never wanted to see him again?” Sounds more like a break-up with a boyfriend than trying to get away from a deranged rapist.
She then continues, “I’d seen what he had done to me. I’d seen how he had come in and taken me from my the bed, the place I thought was the safest place in the world, in my home, with my sister beside me.”
If you truly look at her words in that sentence, they might read ‘I had imagined what he had done to me, if the scenario that I made up were true.’
She didn’t say, “He did this to me.” No, she said, “I’d seen what he did to me.” What, she suddenly had a revelation that she had been kidnapped and raped? She didn’t ‘get it’ until then?
CNN states that E. Smart said that, “He was an unholy hypocrite. There was nothing divine about his mission to steal her in the dark of night and make her his unwilling child bride.”
Hmmmm. Nothing Divine about his mission? Does that reflect that she had gone willingly because Mitchell had duped her into thinking that he had a Divine mission that she would be a part of, and a nice adventure away from the confines of a strict Mormon home? Why would she even say this in the first place? Most people know that kidnapping and rape are not Divine acts of God. Did he originally coax her to willingly go with him because he told her it would be a “Divine mission?”
“Well, nine months of living with him and seeing him proclaim that he was God’s servant and he had been called to do God’s work, and everything that he did to me and to my family is something I know God would never tell someone to do,” she said. (CNN)
Nine months of “living with him?” Not “nine months of captivity?
”
CNN also states that she said, ”God would never tell someone to kidnap a young girl from her family’s home in the middle of the night, from her bed that she shared with her sister, from her sister’s side, and continue to rape her and sexually abuse her. … I know he was not called of God because God would never do something like that.”
E. Smart sure talks a lot about God not calling Mitchell to do these things and that he was ‘not of God’ etc etc. Is she trying to convince herself or us? Did E. Smart become entranced by Mitchell when he was invited to her family home and did she believe that he was of God? So much so- that she willingly took off with him the night of the so-called “kidnapping?”
And why was a fourteen year-old girl sleeping in the same bed with her little sister? The Smarts certainly had enough money for two beds. I find this weird.
“Defense attorney Robert Steele was gentle in his brief cross-examination of Smart, mainly clarifying small points about her direct testimony. Asked about a statement she gave to a forensic psychologist shortly after she was found in March 2003, Smart conceded that her memory was probably better back then. She crisply thanked the lawyer for refreshing her memory on another point.” ~CNN
I would like to hear what that ‘mistake in her memory’ was all about. Curiously, it was left out of the article.
“Smart was followed by several other prosecution witnesses. The prosecution and defense agreed to what two of the witnesses had to offer, and their testimony was read into the court record as a stipulation. A waitress testified that she often served Mitchell and Barzee and saw them joined by another woman wearing a veil during the late summer or early fall of 2002. Another woman testified her husband briefly brought them home for a night or two; the women were silent but Mitchell smoked cigars and talked religion with her husband, Ada Chestnut said.”
At age fourteen, so many chances for Elizabeth to tell people who she was and to freely walk away. At age fourteen, Elizabeth Smart was not a child anymore.
CNN is reporting that Elizabeth testified that she had wanted to return to Salt Lake City in March of 2003 and told her alleged kidnapper that “the Lord was calling them back to Salt Lake, and Mormon girls in the hills above the city would be potential wives to add to the family.” This doesn’t sound like someone suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. It sounds like someone who has all of their wits about them. If she could come up with this plan, then she very well could have taken her veil off at those restaurants and revealed her true self to the staff and customers.
If Elizabeth Smart was truly a victim of all of this trauma, and of the daily vile and degrading sexual abuse; and if she truly only talked to her parents for therapy and never showed any signs of having suffered trauma, then one day, she will suffer from PTSD, psychosomatic symptoms, fears, phobias, nightmares, sexual dysfunction, and numerous other problems. That is– if she was truly kidnapped against her will at knife point, raped four times a day, tied to a tree for a long period of time, and made to engage in sex acts with a woman (or at the very least, watch vile sex acts between Barzee and Mitchell.) Time tells the truth. We’ll see.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/10/utah.elizabeth.smart.case/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1217726/Elizabeth-Smart-Woman-kidnapped-prophet-claims-captor-raped-times-day-tied-cable.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/08/utah.elizabeth.smart.testimony/index.html
http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/17/mitchell-defense-he-received-a-calling-from-god-to-return-to-utah/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_insession+%28Blog%3A+In+Session%29
Explore posts in the same categories: Child Abuse, child molestation, child sexual abuse, Crime, Denial, female sexual offenders, Headlines, News, rape and abuse, Religion
Tags: child sexual abuse, female sexual offenders, rape and trauma, repressed memory, child molestation, Psychotherapy, Nancy Grace, Entertainment, TV, celebrities, Child Abuse, News, True Crime, Psychology
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
Being that Wanda Barzee was also charged with sexual assault against Elizabeth Smart, does this comment mean that Ms. Smart was made to engage in sex acts with a woman? If so, I do not believe for one second that Elizabeth Smart was not affected by her “ordeal.” If she was raped four times a day and forced into sex acts with a woman, then she is either hiding something, totally repressing deep shame, trauma, and emotional distress –or she is lying about what happened to her in those mountains of Utah, and lying about how she got there.
If her account of things are truthful, then no amount of ‘talking to her parents’ will heal what she endured. If she is denying her pain and trauma by pretending that she is so special that she can just ‘move on with her life,’ then she has no right to tell other victims and survivors of rape and trauma that they can also just wave away their pain and suffering. This is something she has publicly professed to other victims. NOT OKAY.
“Smart told the jury she thought about running away that first morning, despite the threats against her life and her family. “I didn’t want to spend another day with him. I never wanted to see him again.”
“I never wanted to see him again?” Sounds more like a break-up with a boyfriend than trying to get away from a deranged rapist.
She then continues, “I’d seen what he had done to me. I’d seen how he had come in and taken me from my the bed, the place I thought was the safest place in the world, in my home, with my sister beside me.”
If you truly look at her words in that sentence, they might read ‘I had imagined what he had done to me, if the scenario that I made up were true.’
She didn’t say, “He did this to me.” No, she said, “I’d seen what he did to me.” What, she suddenly had a revelation that she had been kidnapped and raped? She didn’t ‘get it’ until then?
CNN states that E. Smart said that, “He was an unholy hypocrite. There was nothing divine about his mission to steal her in the dark of night and make her his unwilling child bride.”
Hmmmm. Nothing Divine about his mission? Does that reflect that she had gone willingly because Mitchell had duped her into thinking that he had a Divine mission that she would be a part of, and a nice adventure away from the confines of a strict Mormon home? Why would she even say this in the first place? Most people know that kidnapping and rape are not Divine acts of God. Did he originally coax her to willingly go with him because he told her it would be a “Divine mission?”
“Well, nine months of living with him and seeing him proclaim that he was God’s servant and he had been called to do God’s work, and everything that he did to me and to my family is something I know God would never tell someone to do,” she said. (CNN)
Nine months of “living with him?” Not “nine months of captivity?
”
CNN also states that she said, ”God would never tell someone to kidnap a young girl from her family’s home in the middle of the night, from her bed that she shared with her sister, from her sister’s side, and continue to rape her and sexually abuse her. … I know he was not called of God because God would never do something like that.”
E. Smart sure talks a lot about God not calling Mitchell to do these things and that he was ‘not of God’ etc etc. Is she trying to convince herself or us? Did E. Smart become entranced by Mitchell when he was invited to her family home and did she believe that he was of God? So much so- that she willingly took off with him the night of the so-called “kidnapping?”
And why was a fourteen year-old girl sleeping in the same bed with her little sister? The Smarts certainly had enough money for two beds. I find this weird.
“Defense attorney Robert Steele was gentle in his brief cross-examination of Smart, mainly clarifying small points about her direct testimony. Asked about a statement she gave to a forensic psychologist shortly after she was found in March 2003, Smart conceded that her memory was probably better back then. She crisply thanked the lawyer for refreshing her memory on another point.” ~CNN
I would like to hear what that ‘mistake in her memory’ was all about. Curiously, it was left out of the article.
“Smart was followed by several other prosecution witnesses. The prosecution and defense agreed to what two of the witnesses had to offer, and their testimony was read into the court record as a stipulation. A waitress testified that she often served Mitchell and Barzee and saw them joined by another woman wearing a veil during the late summer or early fall of 2002. Another woman testified her husband briefly brought them home for a night or two; the women were silent but Mitchell smoked cigars and talked religion with her husband, Ada Chestnut said.”
At age fourteen, so many chances for Elizabeth to tell people who she was and to freely walk away. At age fourteen, Elizabeth Smart was not a child anymore.
CNN is reporting that Elizabeth testified that she had wanted to return to Salt Lake City in March of 2003 and told her alleged kidnapper that “the Lord was calling them back to Salt Lake, and Mormon girls in the hills above the city would be potential wives to add to the family.” This doesn’t sound like someone suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. It sounds like someone who has all of their wits about them. If she could come up with this plan, then she very well could have taken her veil off at those restaurants and revealed her true self to the staff and customers.
If Elizabeth Smart was truly a victim of all of this trauma, and of the daily vile and degrading sexual abuse; and if she truly only talked to her parents for therapy and never showed any signs of having suffered trauma, then one day, she will suffer from PTSD, psychosomatic symptoms, fears, phobias, nightmares, sexual dysfunction, and numerous other problems. That is– if she was truly kidnapped against her will at knife point, raped four times a day, tied to a tree for a long period of time, and made to engage in sex acts with a woman (or at the very least, watch vile sex acts between Barzee and Mitchell.) Time tells the truth. We’ll see.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/10/utah.elizabeth.smart.case/index.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1217726/Elizabeth-Smart-Woman-kidnapped-prophet-claims-captor-raped-times-day-tied-cable.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/08/utah.elizabeth.smart.testimony/index.html
http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/17/mitchell-defense-he-received-a-calling-from-god-to-return-to-utah/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_insession+%28Blog%3A+In+Session%29
Explore posts in the same categories: Child Abuse, child molestation, child sexual abuse, Crime, Denial, female sexual offenders, Headlines, News, rape and abuse, Religion
Tags: child sexual abuse, female sexual offenders, rape and trauma, repressed memory, child molestation, Psychotherapy, Nancy Grace, Entertainment, TV, celebrities, Child Abuse, News, True Crime, Psychology
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
Be the first to like this post.
November 22, 2010 at 12:32 am Hello Alethea,
I first have to say how saddened I am to hear your personal story. I am so sorry for what you had to endure. It is unimaginable. You certainly are not to blame for the way you mind and body have responded to your abuse, as no victim of abuse is. I believe that it is natural to respond to abuse in the ways that most victims respond. I think it is a protection so that you do not completely lose your sanity. I think that having been survivors of abuse gives us more realistic insight into Elizabeth’s actions than others can appreciate.
I just read your previous article about this subject. Once again, I agree with everything you stated. Elizabeth’s behavior was not and still is not consistent with someone who experienced 9 months of rape and trauma. I think it is ironic that she reassured her parents that she would still be in bed the next morning after her first day home. You would think they would have been the ones reassuring her! She had such confidence that she would still be there the next day. Hmmmm I wonder why?
I never knew that she said in People that she was so glad she came out of this “unscarred.” This girl is unbelievable.
I have read that Elizabeth’s behavior is being attributed to Stockholm syndrome. While I am no expert on this Syndrome, and feel free to correct me where I am wrong, everything I have read about this syndrome supports the fact that she was not suffering from this at all. For example:
When a victim is experiencing Stockholm syndrome they supposedly forms a bond with their captor – Elizabeth always maintained that she despised this man throughout the entire ordeal.
The victim is isolated from other people – Elizabeth was in public all the time.
The victim would usually not be physically harmed – I think rape 4x a day constitutes physical harm
The victim would express adulation for their abductor- Elizabeth consistently stated that she did not like her abductor
The perpetrator would have to commit kind acts- according to Elizabeth the entire ordeal was one horrendous act after another.
I also agree with you on the point that if she was suffering from Stockholm how did she magically become cured from this on the very day that she was discovered? From some accounts I have read that she was at home watching her favorite movie and playing her blessed harp.
In one account she made the statement that during her abduction she “scratched” the word “help” into the partition in the bathroom at the Hard Rock Café. What, did she suddenly lose her ability to speak? I would love to find the location of this store to see if she really did this.
I also 1000x agree with you that Elizabeth is a very strong willed. This aspect of her personality is clearly seen in her interviews. Let me get this straight, this girl has such a strong individual that she is able to dismiss 9 months of deprivation, torture and rape, yet she could not once try to flee her “abductor?” I don’t think so. I also totally agree with you in your description “intelligent and calculating.” Absolutely!
I think that Brian David Mitchell is nuts, but I do not think he is a pedophile or a rapist. I have been wondering why Elizabeth would put such a strong sexual slant on her story. Maybe she had consensual sex with Mitchell and now regrets it. I think she made most of the story up so that she could escape the wrath of her parents for running away. Hey, maybe it got her out of trying to get into Juilliard and disappointing her parents by not being accepted. I have heard that she isn’t even studying the harp in school or music at all for that matter. Interesting for a girl who claimed she was going to Juilliard shortly after her “abduction.” This girl must have been under tremendous pressure from her parents.
I think it will be interesting to see what happens with this case in the future.
Any theories as to why Wanda Barzee pleaded guilty?
November 22, 2010 at 7:51 pm Hi Car Lady. Thanks for another wonderful comment.
Thank you for your kind words about my childhood, and about my suffering as an adult.
“I think it is a protection so that you do not completely lose your sanity.”
I absolutely agree. I think that -had I not repressed my trauma and then stored it in my body for so many years- I would have been on drugs, in a mental hospital, or dead from suicide. I certainly would have been a mess and unable to function in society.
“She had such confidence that she would still be there [in her bed] the next day. Hmmmm I wonder why?”
I believe it is because she knew she went willingly the first time. She also gave a statement shortly after being “rescued” that she did not fear her kidnappers ever getting to her again. People who have been severely traumatized and frightened with death with a knife FEAR their perpetrators for a very long time after being rescued. My father died when I was 12 and I continued to fear him long after he was dead. The death threats do not fly out of the subconscious mind like a pesky fly right after the person’s trauma is over.
“In one account she made the statement that during her abduction she “scratched” the word “help” into the partition in the bathroom at the Hard Rock Café…”
I heard that too. So dumb. Sounds made up. If she had her wits about her enough to scratch “help” in the bathroom, she surely would have been able to yell, or even say “help” at one of those restaurants or parties with DOZENS of people to rescue her, people, who were standing right there! I also know that Mitchell was gone for a week or two and Smart was left alone with Barzee. Elizabeth had been an excellent runner, she surely would have been able to escape the weaker Barzee while Mitchell was away for so long.
“Maybe she had consensual sex with Mitchell and now regrets it.”
I also wonder the same thing.
“Any theories as to why Wanda Barzee pleaded guilty?”
All I know is that they kept Barzee pretty drugged up for a long time while she was in custody. God only knows who got to her and what she was told to agree to while under the influence of those prescription drugs. Maybe someone told her the apple-pie version of the story so many times that Barzee began to believe it. Maybe she took a plea deal so that she would not have to face a longer sentence if Elizabeth’s version was believed at trial (a given).
It’s hard to say when things are suppressed and honest face to face interviews with the defendants are non-existent for the public to see. Funny that Smart’s testimony was not visible to the American public. I would have loved to see her on the stand.
November 23, 2010 at 6:36 pm Hi Alethea!
I would have loved to have seen her on the stand too!
I was being sarcastic when I said I wonder why she told her parents not to worry about her missing from bed the next morning. I think she said this because she felt guilty, and was trying to reassure them, because she was realizing what mental hell she had put them through. In my opinion, this is one of the most self incriminating statements she made. It was really damning.
I wasn’t aware that she had made a similar comment shortly after her “rescue.” It doesn’t surprise me though. I need to read more of the earlier information about the case.
I will be interested in seeing how this all plays out in the end. It will probably never go to trial. We’ll see.
November 24, 2010 at 10:54 am Good morning Car Lady,
“People respond to trauma of even a much lesser nature than 9 months of rape, torture, etc. For example, if you are driving in your car, and you get hit from behind, your mind naturally responds. You will look over your shoulder at stops, etc. For at least a little while after you will have a degree of fear. This is a natural response. This is why I do not buy that Elizabeth could go through all of that and just go off to the same bed she was supposedly taken from. What a joke.”
When my dog had an unexpected major seizure (She had unknowingly gotten into a toxic plant on a hike), I was shocked and afraid for her life. It was horrible. It happened in our garage. She survived and is fine now, but it took me a couple of weeks before I could even walk through the garage. I had to go around to the front door to exit the house.
“It will probably never go to trial. We’ll see.”
The trial took place last week, but we never got to see E. SMART on the stand –just court artist drawings of her, and reports from her number one fan on Court TV, Jean Casarez. The American public was not allowed the ability to judge her testimony.
November 24, 2010 at 3:59 pm Greetings! Alethea,
You probably really think I’m crazy now! I didn’t even know the trial took place. Ha Ha – shows you how well I am following the story. The last I heard they were having competency hearings. I guess Mitchell was found competent to stand trial. I do not have television service at this time. We were doing some remodeling on our home, and we have to redo the wiring for the television. I saw the recent footage of Elizabeth at my sisters house a few weeks ago.
The public will be able to read the court transcripts, will they not? I did read the transcripts from the competency hearing online.
Keep me posted on any further developments!
November 24, 2010 at 9:08 pm Yes, but transcripts don’t pick up mannerisms, tone, emotion, etc., so not as good.
I will keep you posted.
Have a beautiful Thanksgiving.
November 19, 2010 at 7:57 am Hmmmm…your words here are more repulsive than what I read from the court transcript.
Let me clarify a few things: 1) the “watch and participate in sex acts she found repugnant.” was being forced to give oral sex to this homeless guy who didn’t shower at all, & after seeing how they did it.
2) “tell other victims and survivors of rape and trauma that they can also just wave away their pain and suffering” She said a lot more than that in the booklet the department of justice published with 3 other kidnapping victims. She never said or suggested to simply “wave away” anything.
3) Smart did see several psychiatrist the year she arrived back home. Only most sessions were with her parents present. She also had counseling with her church’s ministers who helped somewhat. Plus she was involved in women’s/victims issues at BYU
4)”“I never wanted to see him again?” Sounds more like a break-up with a boyfriend than trying to get away from a deranged rapist”…. When has there been a victim who wanted to spend more time with the rapist? She spoke what she thought at the time which was to get away somehow -but that sadly it didn’t happen.
I could go on correcting more of your inaccuracies but I’m wondering whether it’s worth the effort.
For example “This doesn’t sound like someone suffering from Stockholm Syndrome” because she wasn’t a Stockholm Syndrome case. She was an abused/terrorized case and reacted accordingly, like many others do especially battered wives. Many teen girls suffer the same at home with their relatives but take years to speak out. Jacy Dugard took more than 20 to speak out. It isn’t easy for them.
Several psychologists can be seen commenting on sites like ksl.com about this and they paint a picture which is dramatically opposite to what you suggest here in this offensive piece of work!
November 19, 2010 at 10:55 am “Hmmmm…your words here are more repulsive than what I read from the court transcript.”
Yes, opinions contrary to the ‘expected norm’ are usually repulsive to those who live in a bubble.
“the “watch and participate in sex acts she found repugnant.” was being forced to give oral sex to this homeless guy who didn’t shower at all, & after seeing how they did it.”
Can you provide a link?
“tell other victims and survivors of rape and trauma that they can also just wave away their pain and suffering” She said a lot more than that in the booklet the department of justice published with 3 other kidnapping victims. She never said or suggested to simply “wave away” anything.”
I am going to try and get a hold of that booklet and read what she said. I will then post my thoughts, which may or may not be contrary to my current opinion.
“Smart did see several psychiatrist the year she arrived back home. Only most sessions were with her parents present.”
Why? Why are they always hovering over her private space?
“She also had counseling with her church’s ministers who helped somewhat.”
This is not real treatment for a trauma victim. It’s merely talking to a church elder about God in relation to life.
“Plus she was involved in women’s/victims issues at BYU”
This tells me nothing.
““I never wanted to see him again?” Sounds more like a break-up with a boyfriend than trying to get away from a deranged rapist”…. When has there been a victim who wanted to spend more time with the rapist?”
Me. I loved my father the rapist. I began to have ‘an affair’ with him as a child and enjoyed having sex with him.
“For example “This doesn’t sound like someone suffering from Stockholm Syndrome” because she wasn’t a Stockholm Syndrome case. She was an abused/terrorized case and reacted accordingly, like many others do especially battered wives.”
Either she was traumatized to the point of not being able to tell anyone standing right next to her in a safe environment, or she was not. If she was, then where is the evidence of her trauma after the fact? if not, then she could have told many people and ended her “nightmare.”
“Many teen girls suffer the same at home with their relatives but take years to speak out. Jacy Dugard took more than 20 to speak out. It isn’t easy for them.”
Jaycee Lee Dugard was a victim for eighteen years, and was taken as a young child, not a teenager. DO NOT try and compare her hell to E. Smart’s nine months as a teen.
“Several psychologists can be seen commenting on sites like ksl.com about this and they paint a picture which is dramatically opposite to what you suggest here in this offensive piece of work!”
My opinion may be offensive to some, but other survivors of abuse have agreed with me. I don’t give much credit to what “several psychologists” say when I have LIVED through rape, confinement, isolation, on-going sexual abuse, and death threats with a knife.
December 7, 2010 at 1:02 pm [““I never wanted to see him again?” Sounds more like a break-up with a boyfriend than trying to get away from a deranged rapist”…. When has there been a victim who wanted to spend more time with the rapist?”
Me. I loved my father the rapist. I began to have ‘an affair’ with him as a child and enjoyed having sex with him.]
Wow. I completely respect your honosty and while I disagree with most of what you I would love to see E.Smart say something like this because I have the suspicion it is true. I haven’t read/seen everything about her but I also get the feeling she is/was not traumatized and/or not dealing with such trauma. I also agree that “If Elizabeth Smart was truly a victim of all of this trauma, and of the daily vile and degrading sexual abuse; and if she truly only talked to her parents for therapy and never showed any signs of having suffered trauma, then one day, she will suffer from PTSD, psychosomatic symptoms, fears, phobias, nightmares, sexual dysfunction, and numerous other problems.”
December 7, 2010 at 9:43 pm TylDurden,
I have thought about it. I have wondered if she developed a relationship with Mitchell. It is NOT unheard of. If a child can do it, and they often do, then a fourteen year-old can certainly bond with her rapist and begin to have affection, and a form of love for him, and even begin to enjoy the sexual acts.
Thank you for your comment.
Alethea
November 19, 2010 at 1:26 am These seem like dangerous speculations. Sure, Smart sounds like an unreliable witness. She sounds nuts, but this could be from a number of causes. We have no way to know for sure what happened to her.
November 19, 2010 at 10:15 am “Dangerous” speculations? Dangerous for who?
November 21, 2010 at 7:50 pm No. Pedophiles are dangerous. Bank robbers are dangerous. Parents are dangerous. As is cigarette smoke, kittens with their sharp claws, and…the world.
We don’t know for sure what happened to Elizabeth. But speculations can be made. Lawyers take speculations and make them into opening and closing arguments that they try to base on fact, emotion, evidence, conscience, etc.
Dangerous? Yes, I ask in unison with the author of this article, dangerous for whom?
Those that are disturbed by the idea of the bublles that allow them to live in la-la land being popped?
If so…IT’S ABOUT TIME!
November 21, 2010 at 10:13 pm Serieve, you were awesome in this post!
Bottom line, those who try and suppress truth, or opinions contrary to the social norms, are the dangerous ones!
November 19, 2010 at 12:17 am Or she was already abused and used to it. So it didnt mean much to her. Something isnt right about this story. Mormons are also a masonic church. And many churches are used as fronts for satanic/ritual abuse activity.
November 20, 2010 at 8:43 pm They say molesters choose kids who have already been abused.
If she was forced to particpate in all those acts, and she was raised by a family who didn’t teach her to think well, she could have developed a personality who “doesn’t need therapy” to deal with this all and remain in denial.
November 20, 2010 at 11:50 pm I agree with you 100% about the Elizabeth Smart case, and I am so happy to find someone who shares my views! This girl is either lying or is completely repressing her feelings. I personally think that she is lying based on many statements from her own mouth. I just recently started looking into this case because of Elizabeth’s recent appearances on television. I was watching old videos and reading statements she had made about the case, and I thought to myself that something was not right. I was actually starting to feel bad about myself because I was physically abused (not even sexually) by both my parents, and this has significantly affected my life – including my married life and sexual relations. I have had tons of problems because of physical abuse alone. I am also a religious person, and I do rely on God. This is why I am still alive today. I guess I just wasn’t “special” enough for God to heal me instantaneously, like he supposedly did Elizabeth.
I was also very insulted by the fact that Elizabeth said in an interview with Oprah that she didn’t need therapy and that her mother told her one day “You know, Elizabeth, you can either, you know, forgive them and move on and just forget that it ever happened to you and just, you know, continue on in your life or….” So Elizabeth explains that she chose to take the advice of her mother and “forget” about everything. I guess this would be easy if NOTHING ever happened. In discussing how she has been able to miraculously get over her trauma Elizabeth stated to Oprah “If a person dwells upon something it is harder for them to move on.” I guess the PTSD, severe anxiety disorder, and flashbacks are all my fault and the fault of every other survivor of abuse!!!
The worst thing that I heard come out of her mouth, and convinced me that she is a liar, is when she stated on Oprah that she is “no longer sorry that this happened to her.” ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!?
Anyone who has ever suffered from any type of abuse knows that just walking away from a trauma like this is impossible. I do not care what religion you are. Elizabeth Smart and her family are doing such a disservice to women and girls by minimizing the effects of abuse. I am disgusted that she is being held up as this poster child for survivors of abuse! And I am outraged!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 21, 2010 at 10:08 am Car Lady, welcome and thank you for posting your thoughts!
I too am happy that you found my articles and feel as I do. I too lean more towards E. Smart being a liar than repressing all of her trauma. She doesn’t fit the profile of one who represses. She was rescued (found), she was able to talk about it to people, and she was told that it did indeed happen to her. Children and teens who repress traumatic experiences are almost always not rescued, they are not allowed to express their pain to anyone, and family members deny that any abuse happened to them.
Nevertheless, even if she has been validated and able to speak about what she went through, this will NOT get rid of her trauma. The subconscious and physical affects of being raped daily, tied to a tree, threatened with death with a knife, and made to engage in vile sex acts does not magically disappear by talking to your parents, horseback riding, harp playing and signing some bills to enact laws.
I too have felt she has self-incriminated Have you read my other article on her?
http://ordinaryevil.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/elizabeth-smart-victim-or-calculating-runaway/
Her old videos and statements right after her “rescue” also made me think that something was not right. I have not seen her recently but I tend to value her earlier statements because they will be more true and raw. By now, she has convinced herself and the world that she was a victim 100% –something I do not yet buy.
I too felt very badly about myself! I cried and was thinking that something was wrong with me because I had so many psychological and phsycial problems from my experience with rape, threats of death with a knife and isolation etc.
It’s so interesting to me that you were physically, but not sexually abused, and you still suffer more than E. Smart.
So many children who have been sexually or physically abused have loved God during their abuse, and after. So many of them talked to God and their angels, but still suffered greatly after the abuse ended, and did so into adulthood.
“I guess I just wasn’t “special” enough for God to heal me instantaneously, like he supposedly did Elizabeth.”
I love this statement.
“I was also very insulted by the fact that Elizabeth said in an interview with Oprah that she didn’t need therapy and that her mother told her one day “You know, Elizabeth, you can either, you know, forgive them and move on and just forget that it ever happened to you and just, you know, continue on in your life or….” So Elizabeth explains that she chose to take the advice of her mother and “forget” about everything. I guess this would be easy if NOTHING ever happened.”
Yes, I heard that statement too and it sounded to me more like a mother telling her runaway daughter that she needs to forgive herself for doing what she did and for how badly it turned out –that she needs to forget about what SHE did, not what THEY did.
“In discussing how she has been able to miraculously get over her trauma Elizabeth stated to Oprah “If a person dwells upon something it is harder for them to move on.” I guess the PTSD, severe anxiety disorder, and flashbacks are all my fault and the fault of every other survivor of abuse!!!”
I love this! I too must be at fault for all of the physical suffering and psychological disorders I have endured. Gee, if only I had just not “dwelled on it and moved on!” Well, I have news for Ms. Smart. I did in a sense do just this as a child. I repressed everything completely and it all came back to hit me when I was in my early thirties, because the subconscious mind DOES NOT let things go. The subconscious mind carries all of the trauma and emotions felt at the time of the abuse and threats. The subconscious will NOT let that go until it is healed at the subconscious level. This is why talk therapy, and ‘talking to your parents’ doesn’t heal a person.
“The worst thing that I heard come out of her mouth, and convinced me that she is a liar, is when she stated on Oprah that she is “no longer sorry that this happened to her.” ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!? She says that this “experience” has opened her eyes and made her see a “much bigger picture” than she was previously aware of.”
I took this to mean that she realized that she didn’t have it so bad at home when she felt confined by two strict parents and that her adventure did not turn out like she had expected. I took this that she found out what it’s like to be hungry and how the homeless live, compared to her comfortable home in Utah. I felt that she was saying that she now realizes that running away wasn’t such a good idea after-all.
“She goes on to state that she was just an average 14 year old who went to junior high. She stated “you know, just very narrow sighted, so having this experience really opened my eyes to the world around me.” This sounds like a girl describing a cross country joy ride in her parents car with friends.”
Or like a girl who went to a poor country on her parents’ money to see how the other side of the world lives, and realized how good she has it. This does not sound like a girl who was kidnapped, traumatized and raped up to four times a day.
“Elizabeth then goes on to admit how incredibly sheltered her life was at the time. Elizabeth wanted an escape from her “sheltered” life, and I believe that she went with this man because he convinced her that she would have fun with him galavanting the countryside, going to parties and doing drugs. I am sure that she was a typical rebellious teenager who wanted to have fun and escape the rigidity of her paren’ts household – for while at least.”
Yes yes. I too share your belief. She might have gotten more than she bargained for, but I too feel this is what happened in the beginning.
“I am sure there is way more to this family that goes on behind closed doors.”
Amen to that!
“Anyone who has ever suffered from any type of abuse knows that just walking away from a trauma like this is impossible. I do not care what religion you are. Elizabeth Smart and her family are doing such a disservice to women and girls by minimizing the effects of abuse. I am disgusted that she is being held up as this poster child for survivors of abuse! And I am outraged!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
ME TOO! Thank you for posting! It’s nice to know we are not alone in our feelings. I’m sure there are others out there too.
November 21, 2010 at 12:10 pm Talkingbbok; you’re right about abusers choosing weak and already-abused kids. That’s why I find it hard to believe she was such a victim at his hands –E. Smart does not portray a victim-like personality. She seems to be very intelligent, strong-willed, strong-minded -and in my opinion- calculating.
November 21, 2010 at 8:00 pm Andre, I’ve never found myself needing or wanting to bow to anyone – but you may be the exception!
Or it meant an incredible amount to her, as it did in my experience, but as you say, she was used to it. It had become ‘normalized.’ Really, once you are abused by one person, what’s a stranger in a robe? Yes, that is meant to be both serious and sarcastic.
I have always wondered if Elizabeth and Mary Katherine were sexually abused by someone within their immediate ‘family.’ Their father. An uncle. A priest. A teacher. Their mother. An aunt. A grandparent. A cousin. A sibling. SOMEBODY. My guess is within the family. A close blood relative.
It is my OPINION – read, opinion, NOT granite – that it is likely that Elizabeth and her siblings come from an abusive immediate family in some form.
There I said it.
And these are my words. They don’t reflect this blog.