Guests: Marc Klaas, Pat Reavy, Patrick Camden, Arthur Miller, Mike Celizic
ANNOUNCER: Here now, Dan Abrams.
DAN ABRAMS, HOST: Hi, everyone.
On “The Abrams Agenda” tonight: Elizabeth Smart kidnapped almost two months ago. Now her mother says Elizabeth’s sister was able to identify the abductor’s voice. Could this be a major break? This as Richard Ricci, the handyman police call a potential suspect-he may be the chief suspect — pleads not guilty to criminal charges, including stealing items from the Smart home. We’ll have an in-depth look at the latest on the case.
New information in the investigation of 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart:
The only witness to her abduction, her 9-year-old sister, not only saw the kidnapper, but apparently heard him. And according to Elizabeth’s mother, Lois, was able to recognize his voice. A local Salt Lake City reporter asked Lois Smart-quote-”If Richard Ricci,” the chief suspect, “did abduct Elizabeth, wouldn’t Elizabeth’s sister, Mary Katherine, have recognized him?”
Lois Smart answered by saying-quote-”She saw the person. She did see him. And we can’t comment any further on that, but she did. And she recognized the voice.” And a family spokesperson confirmed to us that Lois Smart has said her daughter saw and heard the abductor well enough to identify him.
Joining us from Salt Lake City is Pat Reavy, a reporter for “The Deseret News,” and Marc Klaas, president of the Klaas Kids Foundation.
Gentlemen, thanks very much for joining us.
Marc, let me start with you. You’re the one who brought our attention to this story. What do you make of this? What do you make of the fact that Lois Smart is saying that her little daughter, the one who was also in the room at the time, was able to identify the abductor’s voice?
MARC KLAAS, KLAAS KIDS FOUNDATION: Well, the one thing we know from the Samantha Runnion case, Dan, is that, as soon as you can put out a viable likeness of the person that kidnapped the child, the more likely you are to recover the child and bring this guy in.
Now, I think it’s vitally important that certain things be made known to the public. And I understand there’s an ongoing investigation. But, certainly, little Mary Katherine knows enough that they know whether or not it was Richard Ricci. And, in fact, if it wasn’t Richard Ricci, she knows enough that she either recognized the voice or saw enough of his face to know whether or not he had a mustache.
And I think this is extremely important, simply because, if the guy that was in that room that night was not Richard Ricci, did not have a mustache, that means there’s a kidnapper out on the streets of Salt Lake City. And the public desperately needs to have that information so that they can make arrangements to protect their children from that potential risk.
ABRAMS: Mr. Reavy, this was all news to me. Let me ask, was this news to you?
PAT REAVY, “DESERET NEWS”: This was the first I’ve heard of it, yes.
ABRAMS: Yes. What do you make of this? What do you make of the confirmation? And, again, we spoke with the family spokesperson today, who confirmed that is what Lois Smart has been saying.
Now, this doesn’t tell who did it. But it does seem to be a piece in the puzzle, does it not?
REAVY: You would certainly think so.
If she can recognize the voice, she would seem to recognize Reavy’s voice. But Salt Lake City police have been pretty quiet about exactly who they’ve talked to, what evidence they’ve collected. And so whether or not this is something they’ve talked to Mary Katherine about, I don’t think anybody knows right now.
ABRAMS: I have got to believe that, if this police department-let’s assume this is all correct for a minute. Let’s assume that Lois Smart is right on, that Mary Katherine can identify the voice. It has got to be, I would think at this point, that she believes, the little girl believes, it was Richard Ricci, because, otherwise, I would think the police would come out and say, “Look, it’s not Richard Ricci,” don’t you think, Marc Klaas?
KLAAS: Well, I don’t know, Dan. I wouldn’t speculate on that.
What I would speculate on-or what would I say is what I just said a minute ago, that if the guy doesn’t have a mustache, then it’s not Richard Ricci. If it is Richard Ricci, then they should-I would think they would tell us. But, you know, as far as getting this guy’s face out there, they’ve been stalling on this from day one.
I almost convinced Ed Smart to do this very, very early on. Yet somebody from his family intervened and said that they didn’t want to bring Jeanne Boylan in, supposedly because she was connected to me. But then it turn out...
ABRAMS: Marc, let’s just-let’s explain who Jeanne Boylan is. Will you...
KLAAS: Oh, I’m sorry. Sure.
She’s the world’s foremost forensic artist.
ABRAMS: Who has now been called in to the case, correct?
KLAAS: But it was a month late.
ABRAMS: Right.
KLAAS: It was a month late. They could have used anybody up front.
ABRAMS: And let me ask Pat Reavy that.
Why only now? Look, when you talk about the Runnion case, the reason, it appears, this guy Avila was captured is because they put out this sketch of him, based on a 5-year-old girl’s description. And yet why haven’t the police put out a description now, Pat Reavy?
REAVY: You know, they’ve really been foggy on that, the police have.
At first it was because they claimed it wasn’t light enough in the room. Then they said, well, maybe she didn’t get a good enough look at him. Then later their explanation was, well, if Mary Katherine thinks that Ricci is the one that we want, then she will do a description of him, because that’s what she believes the police are after, rather than who she really saw.
So I think they were worried at first about really intimidating, I guess, or pressuring the young girl into naming somebody who wasn’t really the suspect, but somebody who she thought they wanted to be the suspect, so they could put this thing to bed a lot earlier.
ABRAMS: Marc, you seem to be jumping out of your seat there.
KLAAS: Well, that’s not the way it works.
They trusted the little girl in Southern California to produce this likeness very quickly and put it out there. They could have done the very same thing to Mary Katherine long before Richard Ricci came ever into the picture.
ABRAMS: But see, here’s my theory, Marc. Let me lay out my theory.
I’m going to trust the police on this. I’m going to assume that they’re not just sort of out there not having any idea what they’re doing. My guess is that the little girl said it was dark. She said: “I saw the kind of cap he was wearing. I saw basically the clothing he was wearing.” And if she was able to maybe identify his voice, I’ve got to believe she hasn’t said it was X, Y or Z person. And so it may have just been too dark to create a very good sketch.
You don’t buy it, Marc.
KLAAS: No, because that was the first story.
The second story-and this is part of the problem, is that the truth keep seemingly changing. The second time, we understand that she saw the guy in two different locations, that she was able to describe not only the kind of clothing that he was wearing, but the color of clothing that he was wearing, the color of his hair that came out from underneath his cap, and the hair on the back of his hands, which indicates he wasn’t wearing gloves.
She would know enough-even without seeing a full frontal, she would know enough as to whether or not this guy had a mustache. And that’s so critical. That’s such a critical piece of information. And now, several weeks later, we find out that she recognizes his voice. We also find out that, although they didn’t want to bring in a sketch artist at the beginning-because, for whatever reason, they didn’t want to put the face out or they didn’t trust the little girl-a month down the road, they’ve changed their minds. But they don’t want to talk about it.
ABRAMS: Marc, I got to tell you. I’m going to talk about this with you after the break. I disagree with you about them not trusting the little girl. Keep in mind, the only description they have of him comes from that little girl. They were releasing that from day one.
We’ll talk about it in a moment. We’ll take a quick break.
We’re going to talk also about the fact that Richard Ricci was in court today. He was charged with criminal charges, one of them regarding a theft from the Smart home. We’ll discuss that in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: We continue now with our discussion about the Elizabeth Smart case, abducted back on June the 5th. Now her mother is saying that little Mary Katherine, the little 9-year-old sister who was in the bedroom at the time that Elizabeth was kidnapped, can identify the abductor based on his voice. We don’t know exactly what that means with regard to who did it, but it certainly is an important element in this case. She is the key witness here.
Now, remember, the Smart handyman, Richard Ricci, considered sort of the prime suspect at this point, pleaded not guilty to theft and burglary charges today, accused of stealing $3,500 worth of items from the Smarts’ home well before Elizabeth disappeared. Among the items: jewelry, cash, a perfume bottle, and a wine glass filled with seashells. Ricci was also charged with one count of burglary and another count of theft for allegedly taking items from a different home in the Smarts’ neighborhood while the people were sleeping.
Elizabeth’s father, Ed Smart, continues to think Ricci was somehow involved. Today, he even met privately with Ricci’s wife, pleading for her help.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ED SMART, FATHER OF ELIZABETH SMART: I know that it’s hard for her. I know it’s very hard for her seeing her husband there in chains and so forth. And Angela believes in Richard. She loves Richard. And I know that. And I was just trying to convey to her, as she is there watching what is happening, we are here watching what is happening to us and to our family. And we need Elizabeth back.
And I was just asking her if there is any care-which I believe there is care in her heart for us. She said that she was praying for us-if there is a care, that I would plead with her to please talk to Richard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: Now, Ricci has apparently admitted to taking items from the Smart home, but denied any involvement in Elizabeth’s disappearance. If convicted, he could get up to life in prison. Remember, it’s been eight weeks since Elizabeth was taken from her bedroom at gunpoint. Still, no charge has been filed, no arrests have been made in connection with the kidnapping. Authorities continue to focus on Ricci.
Investigators have told MSNBC Ricci is-quote-”totally unbelievable” and that they believe he is trying to hide something. They’re suspicious of his alibi.
Pat Reavy, reporter for “The Deseret News,” if he has apparently admitted to stealing these items, why didn’t he plead guilty? Do we have any sense of why the judge ultimately had to enter a not-guilty plea for him today?
REAVY: I think it’s more of a procedural thing through the courts. After this, they will have a roll-call hearing next month, at which time he will probably again plead not guilty. And they’ll set up a preliminary hearing, at which time they will have probable cause established and then move on to a trial, if they make it that far. And we look for the plea bargains to happen around the time the preliminary hearing is set up.
And I think it was more just procedural today to plead not guilty.
ABRAMS: Do you get the sense that they have something on Ricci beyond this? I mean, the fact that he stole something from their house weeks before does not make him a kidnapper. Do you think that they have something more on him that’s leading them to believe he is their chief suspect?
REAVY: I think it’s all of the things combined that make him the lead suspect, not just the things stolen out of the house, but the fact that he is familiar with the house, the fact that he was brazen enough to break into another house in the Smarts’ neighborhood in the middle of the night while people were there and take something.
I think it’s-they’re developing more of a pattern of criminal conduct. And I think, right now, they have the circumstantial evidence growing against him. They are just missing that one key piece of evidence that is going to link him directly to the kidnapping, if he is involved.
ABRAMS: Marc Klaas, before the break, we were talking about this issue about Mary Katherine, the little sister, the 9-year-old, who is really the only eyewitness to this happening.
And you were saying you don’t think the police are believing what she’s saying or trusting her? Why do you think that?
KLAAS: Well, because nobody wanted to put a face out on this guy. The possibility also exists, Dan, that maybe even nobody even asked her. Has anybody thought of that?
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: Come on. What do you mean? Do you really think that’s possible? Come on.
REAVY: Dan, it’s real simple. She knows Richard Ricci. He worked around her house the summer before. Has anybody said, “Mary Katherine, was that Richard Ricci?” Has anybody said that? If she saw him and she recognized the voice, she knows whether or not it’s him. What’s the cat-and-mouse game?
ABRAMS: Pat Reavy, I have got to believe-and I know Marc Klaas is not going to accept this, because all I’m saying is I have got to believe it, because I don’t know the answer. But I have got to believe the police have asked Mary Katherine that question.
REAVY: You know, you would think so, but they’ve really skirted around that question, also, because the reporters have asked that question to police. As I think their-as I said before, their excuse is: “We’re afraid of intimidating Mary Katherine into saying, ‘Yes, this is the suspect,’” because they think, “We don’t want her to believe that this is the man we want her to point out as the suspect.”
If you asked the family about it, the family has really stayed away from asking Mary Katherine, “Is this the man?” They’re kind of leaving that to police and not picking her brain as much about: “Hey, what did you see that night? Was it Ricci?”
ABRAMS: Quickly, final word, Marc, yes.
KLAAS: Well, this is unbelievable. Elizabeth Smart has been missing for two months, practically. And nobody wants to ask Mary Katherine if the guy that took her was Richard Ricci? This makes no sense at all.
What’s the goal here? Is the goal to return the little girl or is the goal to protect the other child and somehow provide for some kind of family unity? This is-it’s crazy.
ABRAMS: Pat Reavy, Marc Klaas, thanks a lot for coming on the program. Appreciate it.
Marc's frustration is showing and I think that we all can relate to that on some level. I think the interview on Hannity and Colmes of Jeanne Boylan last night was instructive. She had many of her feelings of frustration alleviated once she became privy to the inside information in this case. Her support of the effort by LE and the Smart family was comforting. We can only guess at what it is that they are keeping under wraps but it must be significant. My speculation would be that MK has already fingered Ricci or that they want him to suspect that she ID'd him. I think they are still looking for the mysterious man who picked up Rick at Moul's auto shop. They may have reason to believe that Elizabeth is still being held captive by this individual and that tipping their hand may cause her demise. Perhaps they know that Elizabeth was sold to someone as has been speculated and they are still tracking down leads in that area. The best we can do is to monitor the story for new information and to hash out what is known in this forum. It is healthy to speculate, even wildly speculate because somebody just may come up with something valuable. We should all be willing to listen to reasoned criticism of our posts and not get offended. And when we are critical on someone's theories we should do so in a civil manner. Just my two cents.
this is the perplexing part.
why not come out and say that Ricci is the perp?
He is in jail for life no matter what.. there is no need to protect him or the family from him.
This is why I think that perhaps it is not Ricci....if they are so secretive about who it is that they can not comment...then it must be someone who would be a very sensational perp...someone that the cops can not finger until all their ducks are in a row...until all the legal "i's " are dotted and the "t's" crossed...someone they can not risk a lawsuit with or someone that could disrupt a lot of things in the family or neighborhood or the SLC community..
Tell me I am wrong but tell me why I am wrong...and tell me why they need to keep MK's id of Ricci a secret...because that does not make sense anymore...the only way it would make sense is if they thought Ricci had Lizzie hidden away somewhere...and Id'ing him would be her death for sure...but that is a long shot imo..