Published June 30, 2006
Will the mystery behind missing groom George Smith , who disappeared from a cruise ship while on his honeymoon, ever be solved? The case has sparked intrigue and outrage among many 'Lineup' viewers.
E-mail No. 1
First loved you on Court TV. Great Job. I'm curious, in the majority of instances, i.e., possible homicide, missing person(s) etc., the spouse is the first to come under scrutiny. Maybe I am incorrect, why has it never appeared that Jennifer, new spouse of George Smith, never came under scrutiny? Of the allegations I've heard thus far she was extremely intoxicated (which is no offense), she was not in the room, and her departure from the cruise ship seemed to be expedited with her biggest concern being her clothes. Has she been investigated? I don't mean to insult her, however, I am curious.
Orangeburg, South Carolina
ANSWER: Janice, thank you for your e-mail. You are correct that in the majority of homicide and missing persons cases, the spouse is the first person to come under scrutiny by the authorities.
In the case of George Smith, his new wife Jennifer was ridiculed publicly because she was unable to provide much in the way of helpful information in solving the case. This was in part due to the fact that she was intoxicated at the time that her husband went missing. The authorities did question her extensively but have never accused her of being responsible for her husband's disappearance and death, as she was not even in the room when he disappeared from their cabin. She does not appear to be a suspect at this time.
Email No. 2
If you examine the pattern it tells you that he was swung overboard horizontally. The straight blood smear could have only been caused by his blood-soaked hair hanging down as he was swing overboard. A moving body moving on its own would bend some. It would not be that straight. One had him by the arms and the other by the knees. He was tall and the shoe marks are too short for his height which means his knees with the legs hanging down is the only way the scuffmarks could be left like that.
Also, the blood thins near the edge of the ship and that is due to the circular motion of the swing lifting his hair off the surface as he went overboard.
That means homicide.
Surely, someone saw it happen after the thud when he hit. Natural curiosity would cause them to watch even though they might not want to get involved. You find them and you have eyewitnesses to the people who swung him overboard.
ANSWER: Jim, thank you for your interesting e-mail. The blood is the key bit of compelling forensic evidence that is available in the case. The problem is that the crime scene was not adequately or properly maintained in a way that would be most illuminating and helpful to the investigators.
Given these challenges, the key to conclusively proving that this was a homicide and not an accident would be having an eyewitness to the crime itself. Short of that, it may prove next to impossible to ever solve the case. In my opinion, this was no accident.
E-mail No. 3
Dear Ms Guilfoyle,
I'm not a lawyer and here is an element of the Duke lacrosse question that confuses me: If the DA has to give the defense everything he has as part of the "discovery" process, how can he still have something up his sleeve? All of the analysts keep saying, "He has to have something." Many Thanks,
ANSWER: Perry, you bring up an excellent point. Many of us who are covering the case wonder why the district attorney is still proceeding in light of the case's numerous obstacles, inconsistencies and challenges.
You are correct that the DA is required to turn over all discoveries to the defense. However, the possibility exists that there is a witness for which a written statement or report does not exist. This is the reason many analysts keep saying, "He has to have something." So far, however, we have seen nothing.
— KimberlyWatch Kimberly Guilfoyle on "The Lineup," weekends at 9 p.m. ET