Re: Jennifer Hagel Smith Interview

she's stupid to give a public interview when she is unwilling to answer the
simplest, most obvious questions forthrightly.

"EnEss" <starword@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dOBpf.103$oW.85@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "PattyC" wrote:
>
>> "EnEss" wrote:
>>> I really wonder if the parents of the missing man suspect their new
>>> daughter-in-law was screwing around or was overly flirty w/ some guy on
>>> the ship, leading to a serious altercation between the bridegroom and
>>> the rival that maybe turned deadly. I wonder if they suspect Jenny
>>> helped her new admirer toss new hubby's body overboard. I would imagine
>>> such suspicious would serious cool relations between dead man's parents
>>> and DIL.
>
>> I saw some of all this on Dateline tonight. The parents and sister of
>> the victim/groom clearly indicated the bride had not told them where she
>> was at the time her groom went missing. And that they would not press
>> about that, because they just want to find out what happened to HIM and
>> apparently some officials (FBI?) have told them she is not a 'suspect' in
>> his death. But can you imagine how much they want to wring her neck
>> wondering where the hell she was while he went missing????
>
> 1. Just because FBI or whoever says someone is not a suspect, doesn't mean
> the person is innocent.
>
> 2. I would think just about any parent who has a son or daughter disappear
> on the kid's honeymoon would grill the new spouse rather intensively the
> moment the parent has the chance to talk to the SIL/DIL about everything
> that went on at the time of the disappearance. And getting an answer to
> the question of "Where were you when this was going on?" like "I can't
> tell you" would not go over OK w/ me. Such an answer would make the person
> highly suspect in my mind.
>
> I don't think it takes a Sherlock Holmes to deduce that if Ms. Hagel Smith
> had gone back to her cabin to turn in while her husband stayed in the bar
> or casino to party a little longer there would be no reason she couldn't
> and wouldn't put that up front. And there'd be no reason I can think of
> that the FBI wouldn't be OK w/ her saying that publicly.
>
> This leaves only one conclusion: she couldn't have been in her cabin
> alone, sleeping for the night when George Smith disappeared. She had to be
> someplace else that's either too incriminating or too embarrassing to
> admit to publicly (and even to her in-laws). And if she had still been in
> the bar or casino and had lost sight of her new hubby, turned around to
> see him nowhere in sight and never sees him again, there's no reason she
> shouldn't be able to say that. Don't you agree?
>
> And I can't see any reason why, in a situation like this, she'd want to
> play coy and give the public reason to think she was doing something she
> shouldn't have been doing the night her husband disappeared. If she was a
> big drama queen and liked the attention, she would've gone public way
> earlier than this.
>
> I think she had to be up to something not good, or she'd be able to say
> it.
>
>> The bride's story about the cruise ship leaving her behind struck me as
>> 'off' somehow. And all her/their stuff was on the dock?? Apparently the
>> cruise line's story is that she WANTEd off the ship. Surely there are
>> more people who know the truth...
>
> You would think! Why is so little coming out about this?
>
>> Just a side note.. I was on a cruise in November. I made an effort to
>> find a bar on the ship that had Monday Night Football, so I could see the
>> Steelers. Since my cruise mates were all Cleveland Browns fans (feh!), I
>> went to that bar alone. I took no money or ID, since on the cruise you
>> pay for things only with your cruise card, which is also your room key
>> and ID. HAD I not returned to my room and been taken off the ship the
>> next day, I would certainly had no cash with me. (Since I didn't see the
>> original question about money, I am curious... how/when did she get her
>> passport?)
>
> I do know that a person on a cruise doesn't need to pay for anything on
> the ship because it's all included in the price of the cruise. But
> passengers who get off at various ports to tour the area would certainly
> bring a wallet w/ currency or credit cards along. I find it very difficult
> to believe that she could've been put off the ship to talk to Turkish
> officials w/o her purse. And if she did, but all her belongings were later
> put out in plastic bags on the dock, it seems to me she would've been able
> to reclaim her purse at that time. And like you point out, she would've
> needed her passport at the very least.
>
> It's possible that part of the story is true...that the ship sailed w/o
> her and they put all her and hubby's things on the dock. If they did that,
> I agree that's really disgusting. But the part of not having any money w/
> her at all...that just doesn't ring true. Does she even say what she did
> at that point? What she leaves out of her accounts of things casts more
> shadows on her credibility than what she leaves in.
>
>> Anyhow, back to the side note... there were less than 20 people in that
>> bar watching football. TWO of them were grooms (one with all the guys
>> from the wedding party) on their honeymoon cruise. But their wives were
>> not there for football.
>
> I don't doubt that there are times on a cruise that 2 people traveling
> together--even honeymooners--may do things separately. My problem w/
> Hagel-Smith's story is that she can't say just what it was she was doing
> the night her husband disappeared. The farthest she's gone in her story of
> that night is going to the casino w/ him around 11 pm. Then there's
> nothing else until the next morning when she reports on her conversation
> w/ the cruise staff.
>
> There's something wrong w/ this IMO. If George stayed in the casino while
> she went off to her cabin, or off to a lounge area on the ship w/ female
> friends she made on the cruise to play a game of cards or have a "hen
> party", I could believe that. But then why can't she say that? If her
> whereabouts at the time George disappeared are "nothing scandalous" as she
> claimed to Scarborough, then why not say specifically what they were? Her
> story stinks. That's the long and short of it for me. What bugs me most
> about this interview she gave is that it seems she used the opportunity to
> try to garner sympathy from the public by making herself out to be a
> victim, while providing no account whatsoever for her conduct on the
> cruise leading to her husband's disappearance.
>
> She looks guilty as sin of something if you ask me. This evasiveness and
> answer-dodging of hers is not the way a person who has nothing to hide
> behaves.
>
> NS
> (add sbc before global to email)
>


.