Elizabeth Smart Thread, 9/26/02 to ???

[stlnative]

NEW THREAD - PING WHOM EVER YOU LIKE - I DON'T PING ANYMORE - SORRY

[Sherlock]

I don't think it was anyone with a past criminal record.

In spite of the fact it was Ricci's M.O. (breaking into neighbor's house in middle of the night, burglary with pistol), you don't think this kidnapper was a dirtbag friend and cohort of Ricci????? When Ricci knew where Elizabeth slept, may have had a key but knew how to get in anyway like the neighbor's house, had the pistol, bragged to his friends what an easy place to knock off the Smart place was and what easy pickins there were inside??????? Doesn't this at least give you some pause to at least give some brief consideration to the obvious to the thinking posters on the thread, varina?????............................I didn't think so.

[jandji]

the discovery of the cut screen story is one more bit of evidence of coverup. there are 3 different versions from 3 different family members; ed said one of his sons discovered it first; charles the oldest son said lois discovered it first,[both of these versions were before the family left the house for the 3rd version] After meeting with other family members at his father's house around the corner, Tom Smart said he returned with other family members to Elizabeth's home. They found the kitchen window open and the screen cut.

[jandji]

yeah, and mk described the "intruder" as 5'8, 30-40yrs old, dark hair, hair on arms and hands...if she could see hair on his arms, then she would've seen the one physical trait most prominent on ricci; the Giant Paintbrush Mustache. and if ricci was the perp, he knew mk saw him, and would have at least shaved.

[jandji]

i agree, but the one thing heroin addicts and or methadone addicts[which i beleive ricci was on methadone as rehab treatment] are very logical about, is getting their dose on time. they literally can't function without it.

[Sherlock]

I don't think anyone thinks Ricci was the person that went in the house and took Elizabeth. But by the fact it was his M.O. having broken into the neighbor's house in the middle of the night, used the pistol in the bank robbery, and bragged to his friends what an easy place the Smart house is to knock off, and his inability to explain his actions with the Jeep (or even acknowledge he had the Jeep) or tell LE who he left Moul's Repair Shop with on Jun 8, it's pretty obvious he was an accomplice in the crime. Ricci knew where Elizabeth's bedroom was, probably had a key to the house and knew how to get in if he didn't (like the neighbor's sliding door, he bragged to his friends it was easy to knock off), had the pistol from previous crime, and had the idea to give to the accomplice.

The man Ricci left Moul's Repair Shop with on Jun 8 matches the description of the person seen by the milkman, the man seen on video in a Federal Heights convenience store shortly before the kidnapping, seen by Fred Trujillo in the Shriner's parking lot just before driving up into Federal Heights, seen by MK, seen by the searchers when the gunshots were heard (red, blue, & green tatoo), seen digging the pig roast pit with a blue SUV, and seen by Moul leaving in a blue van.

[jandji]

if they knew he commited burglary april 2001, and possesed booze, or hadn't been to rehab,.. why didn't they book him on june 5th, 2002, when they interviewed him?

[Devil_Anse]

I don't think it was anyone with a past criminal record.

If you rule out anyone with a past criminal record, Varina, then you have not been around criminals or the criminal justice system much.

It could have been someone without a past criminal record, but it couldn't have been someone without a PAST of some sort. I'm even including a hypothetical older teenaged boy in that, b/c it wouldn't have been a boy with an absolutely trouble-free past.

If this was someone more sophisticated than the average stereotypical criminal, I still believe that this person would at least have been seen to do a few questionable things, by his family and those who knew him best, at least. That would be the Westerfield type. Westerfield, though he'd been smart enough to avoid police, had done some pretty perverted things in the past--and people knew about them, but they just never reached "critical mass" to the point that they became known to all.

It's hard to be a perv like Westerfield, and get through half your life w/o at least having a couple of scrapes. Whoever did this had a past of some sort.

The fact that whoever did this boldly entered someone else's property in the middle of the night tells me he is such a risk-taker, that he probably acted incautiously in the past and got caught. That would mean a criminal record, probably.

Westerfield was no fool. He knew a lot about the goings-on at Danielle's home. And notice that he indicated surprise when police told him that it had been Damon, the dad, who was home with the kids the night Westerfield boldly walked in and took Danielle. He said, "Are you sure? I could have sworn she [Brenda] told me there was a babysitter that night." He was thinking probably, "man, I could have had some really angry guy coming after me with a baseball bat!" As I said b/f, the guys who do this sort of thing are BIG cowards.

And Ricci may or may not have done it, but there is no denying that he was such a risk-taker, that he walked around in that bedroom at night where that young woman, Lin Lee, was right there sleeping, knowing she could wake up. In fact, she did wake up! He was so good at the game, he still got away with it.

[Devil_Anse]

one thing heroin addicts and or methadone addicts...are very logical about, is getting their dose on time.

That has a ring of truth to me. BUT if he was getting his fix by simply buying heroin and shooting up, he wouldn't have needed the methadone...would he?

[cherry]

"They weren't dealing with some Mormon bishop here, they were dealing with some crazy ex-con with a gun."

you mean on the morning of the kidnapping they already knew it was an ex-con who did it?......my, my, my...

that was quick....

[Devil_Anse]

if they knew he committed buglary April 2001, and possessed booze, or hadn't been to rehab,...why didn't they book him on June 5th, 2002, when they interviewed him?

I think his parole officer was giving him more than one chance, warning him, as such officers do, to stop using and start back with his drug testing or whatever it was he was skipping, and threatening to request that Ricci's parole be revoked. Same for the booze thing. Now, the burglary...that, to me, would lead the parole officer to immediately start writing up a revocation request. But when exactly did police notify the parole officer that Ricci had confessed to this burglary? How long after knowing that did it take b/f the parole officer dictated the letter or form to the sentencing judge, asking him to revoke parole?

And, as you've said, why did they date that Habitual Offender charge "June 6, 2002?" Why that particular date?

[Devil_Anse]

My problem with Ricci having done this has mainly been that the height thing was wrong. (The age thing was wrong, too, but a little girl would not be able to tell an adult's age that accurately.)

Someone freepmailed me this idea:

First, it's likely that the way police got the height estimate (5'8"--5'10") was by asking Mary K. to tell how much taller the man looked than Elizabeth was. Suppose Mary K. had said, "this much," indicating about 4 inches. Elizabeth is 5'6", so they would have said, okay, he was in the neighborhood of 4 inches taller than that--which would be 5'10".

But suppose Elizabeth already had on her running shoes at the time Mary K. saw them standing together? (If she did see them standing together.) Running shoes are known to have thick soles, to absorb shock. The shoes could have added as much as 2 inches to Elizabeth's height. So, if the man was 4 inches taller, and Elizabeth was 5'8" in the shoes, that means the man could have been 6'. Ricci was 6'. Maybe the police, or whoever, mistakenly added the 4 inches to Elizabeth's real height, instead of adding the 4 inches to Elizabeth's height while wearing running shoes.

Also, the freepmailer suggested that it is possible Elizabeth slumped a little b/c perhaps she had her arms in front of her--that would be a likely posture for some 14-yr-old girl who was not wearing a bra, and who would probably have felt funny about having some man looking at her while she didn't have a bra on. Seems to me that's a really big issue when one is a 14-yr-old girl. (Of course, with some people, it's a bigger "issue" than with others!)

[Devil_Anse]

Ricci's mustache is important. Seems that it would have been a dead giveaway.

The problem we have is that they have been so weird about telling us what did Mary K. see/not see, we don't even know if she really saw the guy's face.

One other thing is, we've seen plenty of mugshots of Ricci, showing the mustache but we don't know when they were taken.
We saw video of Ricci in court, from July--and he had long hair and a mustache and scraggly beard. I think he could have grown the facial hair in a month and a half--I think that was the time that had passed. Are there any pictures out there of Ricci, from right around the time of the abduction? That's what I'd like to see--on the mustache question.

And one thing which argues in favor of what you said about the mustache is, since I think every picture shows him with one, it's likely he had one at all times. (If anyone remembers a pic of him w/o a mustache, pls tell me. I don't remember such a pic.)

[TREGEN]

That's no more than 10 minutes away..

[TREGEN]

Doesn't it just figure that it is Tom who once again throws the wrench into the machinery--casting suspicion on what his brother really did that night. But however that discrepancy in time came about, it's out there!


What is Tom's aliby, he was missing since 11pm, Who was he with and where?

[anatolfz]

she could have previously stashed other clothes, etc. somewhere else prior to leaving June 5.

I thought we discussed this: she had all she needed for flight, Chinese red pyjamas! Seriously, wouldn't it be simpler to stash her clothes somwhere close by, like in her bedroom?

[Devil_Anse]

Be careful, Anatolfz--we don't want to start up the "what color pajamas is best to run away in" debate!

[sandude]

Tom was home in bed with his wife.

[FR_addict]

the discovery of the cut screen story is one more bit of evidence of coverup. there are 3 different versions from 3 different family members; ed said one of his sons discovered it first; charles the oldest son said lois discovered it first,[both of these versions were before the family left the house for the 3rd version] After meeting with other family members at his father's house around the corner, Tom Smart said he returned with other family members to Elizabeth's home. They found the kitchen window open and the screen cut.

Thanks for the post on the "cut screen". I think more consideration needs to be put on this and the other evidence at the scene.

There was a chair under the cousin's home in that attempted breakin, but we never found out if there was a chair used in the break-in of the neighbor's home or for that matter if the breakin was reported at the time of the breakin or a year later. We hadn't heard about the chair at the Smart's home until after the break-in of the cousin's home, which indicates someone that knew about the chair at the Smart's home, someone that knew the family, the abductor, someone that knew the abductor, or an amazing coincidence.

[Neenah]

Law enforcement authorities had emphasized to them the importance of not doing this

Who said this? The only person I remember saying this on air was Ed Smart (bashing the family here, you can see)I would like word from the PD on this please.

One or more law enforcement agents was living in the Smart home to monitor various aspects of the case, such as making sure the witness wasn't coached or subjected to potentially leading questions, and probably also in the home of the grandparent(s?) with whom MK was placed for a few days?

Can you give stats on the fact that LE was living in the house? You also state here that PROBABLY they were also at the grandparents home. It is best to stick with what has been stated. Just a thought.

Why would the Smarts deliberately defy the instructions of the competent and diligent law enforcement personnel who were knocking themselves out trying to identify the kidnapper and find Elizabeth? Especially when their defiance would almost certainly be detected, and would tend to cast suspicion on them?

I don't recall anyone saying the Smarts deliberately defied anyone. I am just questioning if the PD has stated they told Mr. and Mrs. Smart not to talk to their daughter. I think that is important. It would be something brought up in court.And I do seem to remembe Ed saying this in answer to a question by a reporter. Do you know? I would like to see where anyoe in LE said that. Thanks GS.