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

[stlnative]

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

[freedox]

This article almost leaves me speechless......almost. I have to react to at least a few of these statements.....

"A kidnapper might still be waiting for the media frenzy to subside before issuing a ransom demand, he (Ed) said."
How is the media frenzy going to die down if Ed keeps giving these INTERVIEWS??

"Meanwhile, Smart worries that the now-10-year-old Mary Katherine, the lone witness to her sister's abduction, has not dealt with emotions stemming from that night. The younger girl acts "almost like it never happened," he said softly."
Come on, Ed!! ALL we have heard for 4 months now is how NOBODY has talked to MK about what happened so she wouldn't be "traumatized" by it!! What do you expect?? Is Ed warning us that our star witness might have "forgotten" some of the details of her story?

"The fateful night Elizabeth disappeared was much like any other, Smart said. At bedtime, the family said their usual prayers on a landing at the top of the stairs before bidding each other good night."
I see nothing has changed here......between the time they arrived home from the awards ceremony and the time they went to bed, saying their family prayers is the ONLY thing that Ed will mention about that evening.

"Mary Katherine came into her parents' room at 3:58 a.m., Smart said -- he looked at the clock when she woke him.....
Finally.....after 4 months, we are told the exact time that SOMETHING happened......why did this take so long?

"A man's taken Elizabeth," he remembered......"You're not going to find her. A man took her."
Ed has described himself as being "franic" and Lois as "getting pretty worked up"......yet all we have from MK are these two clearly spoken, dry, informative statements. Did MK show NO emotion whatsoever? More to the point.....NEITHER OF THESE STATEMENTS MENTION A GUN.

"With officers on the way, Smart ran across the street to a home where there had been an attempted abduction years before. Moving through "a blur," Smart warned his neighbors to check their children, he said.
Then, he went home and started calling friends, neighbors and relatives, saying his only thought was finding as many people as possible to start looking for his daughter. "We almost called the entire ward."
If Ed's first thought was "finding as many people as possible to start LOOKING FOR HIS DAUGHTER, why was his first action to "warn his neighbors to check their own children"? If Ed's first concern was LOOKING FOR HIS DAUGHTER, why was he on the phone calling "almost the entire ward" instead of out LOOKING FOR HIS DAUGHTER? Contrary to what has been suggested by some, it appears that a "phone tree" calling system was not used that night......rather, it seems Ed stood there calling people on the phone while precious minutes ticked by. It appears that Ed's FIRST concern was getting people over to his house......NOT looking for Elizabeth.

"The first call was to Suann Adams, a family friend living nearby. She and her husband arrived within minutes and found a lone police car, she said......Salt Lake City Police Chief Rick Dinse stands by the initial police report that arriving officers found a number of the Smarts' neighbors searching inside and outside the house."
Well, who are we going to believe here? Chief Dinse is standing by the original reports of the responding officers. Why is Ms. Adams the ONLY neighbor who has come forward to contradict these police reports?

"Adams dismissed reports that arriving officers found more than a dozen people in the home, trampling through the crime scene and hindering the investigation. "It's not like Ed went out and called a bunch of high school kids," she said. "These are responsible adults, who aren't going to put their handprints all over everything."
Wait a minute.....is Ms. Adams denying that the people were there, or is she just denying that they were "trampling and hindering"? What would Ms. Adams know about what is required in securing a crime scene? Contrary to what trained police investigators have told us, Ms. Adams seems to believe that "responsible adults" are incapable of disturbing a crime scene. I find her statement here downright embarrassing.

"Many only came by briefly, then went to check all-night convenience stores and restaurants in the hope Elizabeth hadn't gotten far, Adams said."
Wait a minute......I've got to ask again......WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ARMED GUNMAN??? An armed gunman is going to take his victim to an all-night convenience store or a restaurant???

I'll have to tie into the rest of the article later.....the inconsistencies contained in the first half alone have worn me out!! I have to wonder what in the world is going on with this case.....I find this absolutely incredible.

[varina davis]

Also notice that Ed never mentioned that MK was scared or frightened to death. Nor did he mention how long MK waited to inform them of her sister's disappearance.

And those dry, matter-of-fact comments he attributed to MK are really weird. Sure doesn't sound like they came from a youngster who was scared out of her mind.

I cannot believe that MK, reportedly so close to her sister, would be so matter of fact or wait more than a few minutes to alert the parents if she was scared or worried. A 5 or 6 year old, maybe, NOT a smart, 9-year-old.

[Neenah]

Did MK show NO emotion whatsoever? More to the point.....NEITHER OF THESE STATEMENTS MENTION A GUN.

I have thought and thought about this. There is NO WAY, a normal nine year old, seeing her sister taken at gunpoint....GUNPOINT...going to NOT tell her parents!!To a 9 yr old, the parents are EVERYTHING. Their protectors!!

The little kid had to be scared to death. If she wouldn't tell HER PARENTS right after it happened, as Ed is saying in THIS article...then how can I believe she fed the LEO's anthing?? This makes no sense.

"DADDY!! THE MAN HAD A GUN AT ELIZABETH!! " " HE HAD A GUN, DADDY!! "

[Neenah]

There is another thing.....in THIS article, it states ..

With officers on the way, Smart ran across the street to a home where there had been an attempted abduction years before. Moving through "a blur," Smart warned his neighbors to check their children, he said.

But....further in the article, it says ...

"But remember," Dinse continued, "at the very beginning, these officers were trying to determine what sort of case they had."

What is it? Ed is running around the neighborhood , telling people to check their kids...and THE CHIEF OF POLICE is saying they were trying to determine what kind of case they had????

What??? Did Ed tell the police E. had been taken by a man? Taken by a man with a gun? Did he say it may have been an attempted burglery? If it was an attempted burglery, would Ed run to the neighbors and tell them to check their children?????

Dinse..Ed...Dinse....Ed...this thing gets more confusing every time a new point is made in the press.

Looks to me like Ed was interviewed by the SLCT, and then Dinse was intervieewed. Why wasn't the story the same? What was the purpose of telling the "sitting in the car with the engine running" for? New evidence? This article has a wealth of information.

[Devil_Anse]

[Warning to those who bore easily: Do not read this post. It is almost as long as an 8th grade essay.]

The accounts of what Mary K. said just sound so unnatural. "A man's taken Elizabeth." That can't be a direct, exact quote, can it?

I want to tell you about why I think Ed went ahead with Ricci even after Ricci drove off in the jeep and didn't come back.

My neighbor's house (outside) was being painted recently. I looked over often to see the painters, knowing that our own house needed outside painting, and planning to ask our neighbor what sort of job this painter was doing.

The painter saw me looking and came over and introduced himself. Nice guy, very personable. Works with his sons. Says he has 10 children. He urged me to hire him to paint our house. I told him I'd think about it. Every day after that, he'd come over and ring the doorbell, smile, and say, won't be long b/f your neighbor's house is done! Want me to paint your house? At one point, he gave me an estimate.

I arranged for another painter to come one day and give me HIS estimate, believing I shd get more than one estimate. The man didn't show up, though one or the other of us waited there all day. Late afternoon, here comes my neighbor's painter. This time, I was ready to hire him--if he'd come down on the price. He did, he came down nicely.
The neighbors and their in-laws recommended him highly when I asked them.

We signed a "contract." He wanted half up front. (I know, I know...) I gave him some cash (as he requested) but paid most of the down payment by check. He left, promising several times to come back the next day bright and early and get started. It was a Saturday; he said that didn't matter one bit. He never showed Saturday. He never showed Sunday. On Monday I called the bank and stopped payment on the check. But he'd still gotten the cash. About noon Monday he showed up. We talked about the stopped-pmt check and I was unapologetic. He said he understood. He got to work. For the next 2 weeks, he'd come by whenever, and work. Slowly but surely the job got done. In the middle of it, he asked for an advance again. I told him absolutely not, till he'd finished. But I did give him $100 cash towards payment one time. Still, most of his money was unpaid.

He finally finished the job to our satisfaction. I paid him by check. He'd wanted cash, but I insisted on check. (Found out later his driver's license is expired and he's afraid to go renew it b/c he has a misdemeanor warrant open; hence his trouble cashing checks.)

When he went to the bank to cash that last check, the bank called me. I said, pay the check, and they did.

Once you feel stuck in something like this, you end up just trying to make it work. If I had fired him after the 2 days he didn't show, I'd have lost the cash part of the down payment I'd given him. I thought of doing that. (Even went back to that other painter and finally got HIS estimate.) In the end I just kept on, and finally we had the house properly painted, and he had his money.

Later (again, this was stupid of me)--after he and I had already signed the "contract," but b/f he'd gotten much of a start painting, I ran him on the state computer and found he'd been convicted of crack possession almost 2 years ago. To me, that explained his erratic working hours.

Ever after, I will always pay the $6 or whatever to get an internet background check on workers. If they won't give me their DOB and real name, address, etc., they can take a hike.

Ed had more cojones than I. I wouldn't have gone to my painter's neighborhood to get him, even though I know very well where he lives--both places.

At one point, while talking to the painter I didn't hire, I told him I hoped to find someone w/o a criminal record to paint our house. He laughed, and said, well if you want that, you've just eliminated 70% of the housepainters in the county!

Yesterday our painter came by. Wanted to know if we needed the rain gutters cleaned. I told him, thanks, but I already had someone else coming to clean them.

FWIW, I have no daughters.

[Neenah]

CONT.

Also...notice the article says:Smart ran across the street to a home where there had been an attempted abduction years before.

Yet the Chief of Police says....""at the very beginning, these officers were trying to determine what sort of case they had."

Ed was telling the paper..there had been an attempted abduction there years before, and that is why he went to the neighbors...but Dinse says..THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SORT OF CASE THEY HAD?.......Huh? Could it be AT THE TIME, Ed didn't tell him Elizabeth was missing? Laugh if you will, but going by this report, in context, the Chief of Police is saying at THIS TIME, they didn't know what kind of case they had.

If Ed had told 911 of an ABDUCTION..the WOULD HAVE KNOWN !!

[sandude]

THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SORT OF CASE THEY HAD?

Relax Neenah. The arriving officers were probably thinking it was a runaway regardless of what Ed told them.

[Devil_Anse]

So there was a $1000 bracelet of Lois' that was taken by Ricci in 2001?

Looks to me like there was more evidence to back up that charge than just Ricci's admission. To my knowledge, pawn shops are required to keep good records, including videotapes and driver's license numbers, etc. There apparently was such evidence, showing Ricci pawned the bracelet.

Clearly, Ed and Rick were not always on good terms. Ed may have felt they were, perhaps b/c that is just the way he looks at things. But seems to me that's rather "un-intuitive" or whatever you might call it, for Ed to ignore the problems they'd had. Of course, Ed deals with contractors all the time...

I think Rick may have harbored some resentment towards Ed. Ed, on the other hand, had Rick back to the house after the jeep confrontation, and after the unexplained thefts. Capacity for denial? Who knows?

Why did the AMW re-enactment that Sandude described show an abductor with a full beard?

Why was Mary K. so seemingly fatalistic, even calm, about the whole thing?

If this kidnapping was some elaborately planned event, I don't see Ricci being the mastermind. Look at how he behaved in other situations: he drives the guy's jeep off and just doesn't come back, surely knowing that the guy would eventually come to hold him accountable and might be mad. (And Ricci was on parole, and knew he had to watch his step.) Then Ricci calmly goes and pawns the stolen bracelet? How could he have missed the videocams, and driver's license checks, that the pawnshop would have? How could he have expected not to be associated with the stolen bracelet?

I think Ricci was a very impulsive person.

Ed said Elizabeth wouldn't wake up unless touched? Remember there was an allegation that Mary K. was tapped on the shoulder? Could the kidnapper have wanted to take both of them? Could the extra time spent in the house been b/c Elizabeth was begging the guy to leave her sister alone?

[Devil_Anse]

They didn't know if it was a runaway or not. Police always think of that with teenagers--even if the parents don't want them to.

[Devil_Anse]

I agree that the accounts of Mary K.'s reaction make her sound way too calm.

[freedox]

Ok, I'm refreshed. I have a few comments on the remainder of the article.....

"When the bracelet, valued at more than $1,000, turned up missing, police interviewed Ricci along with two other subcontractors working in the Smart home. Smart now questions why police didn't tell him then that Ricci was a parolee with a long criminal history. Officers should have passed along whatever they may have discovered about Ricci's criminal past, Dinse said. But "keep in mind, it wasn't a kidnapping" they were investigating, he said. "It was just a potential theft."
Since when does "just a potential theft" justify failing to inform a citizen that he has an ex-con working in his home? Ricci's criminal history is a matter of public record. There would have been no reason in the world for this information to have been kept secret from Ed. I have to wonder if the investigating officers have ADMITTED that they failed to inform Ed of Ricci's history, or if this is just Ed's story.

"At the time, investigators found no proof Ricci was behind the thefts, Smart said. But while investigating Elizabeth's disappearance a year later, he said, police determined Ricci had pawned the bracelet along with other items."
Wait a minute.....a $1000 bracelet goes missing from a home where an ex-con is working, and the police don't check the pawn shops immediately?? What DID they do to "investigate" this apparent theft? I would love to see the police reports on this 2001 "theft investigation."

"After the two men signed the agreement, he let Ricci drive the Jeep away. But Ricci failed to show up to work afterward, and Smart became concerned he was being taken for a ride."
This is the first I remember hearing anything like this! Ed's previous descriptions of the jeep transfer have made it sound like it went off without a hitch. Why is Ed bringing this out now?

"After two days, he went to the Capitol Hill apartment complex where Ricci lived at the time, and discovered the Jeep sitting in the parking lot with the engine idling. Smart got inside the Jeep, and Ricci appeared, asking him what he was doing. An angry Smart told him he was taking the Jeep back, that he believed he had been taken advantage of after going "the extra mile" for him."
Hmmmmm....sounds like Ed and Ricci had some sort of an angry confrontation in the parking lot at Ricci's apartment complex. This would have likely been witnessed by others. Maybe after 4 months, Ed has decided that he needs to explain what he was doing over at Ricci's apartment. One thing has me confused here.....how did Ed get to Ricci's apartment? Did Ed leave his own vehicle there at the apartment and drive the jeep back home? Did someone accompany Ed on this "repossession" mission? Since Ed doesn't mention anyone being with him, we are left with the question of HOW DID ED GET TWO CARS HOME?

"Ricci began showing up for work again but was chronically late. After Smart was convinced Ricci would live up to their agreement, he again let him have the Jeep."
This is the first I've heard of the jeep going from Ed's possession, to Ricci's possession, back to Ed's possession, and then back to Ricci's possession. If Ed really wanted to sell the jeep, why did he put up with all of this melodrama? This doesn't sound like a business arrangement......it sounds more like a spat over who gets to wear someone's high school ring. Did Ed continue to carry insurance coverage on this vehicle while he and an ex-con bickered over it?

"I don't feel like I've had a scrap" of luck, Smart said. "I just want this to be over."
What about ELIZABETH, Ed?? YOU haven't had a scrap of luck?? What about ELIZABETH, Ed?? YOU just want this to be over?? Take a look at it, folks.....this article is all about ED. Where does he even mention ELIZABETH???

[varina davis]

This is the first I remember hearing anything like this! Ed's previous descriptions of the jeep transfer have made it sound like it went off without a hitch. Why is Ed bringing this out now?

It sounds like the old ploy of letting out bits of info because more info is sure to coming out. Remember the Clintons were/are masters of this.

No, I don't think Ed went to Ricci's apartment alone, knowing Ricci's street smarts and suspecting Ricci might be scamming him. If he did go alone, how? By bus, taxi...? Or maybe someone in the family drove him there.

[partialpressures]

So Ricci leaves his jeep in the parking lot with the engine running. I think maybe Ed still had a key to the jeep. I would if I was in his place. Let Ricci drive it, but keep a key just in case Ricci didn't make a payment.

[Neenah]

No excuse...Utah law is there for you to check on employee's.

OBTAINING THE UTAH CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS OF YOUR EMPLOYEES

There are several options available to employers, depending upon their qualifications.

Working with children and vulnerable adults - Utah Law 53-10-108 allows qualifying entities to request Utah criminal history information. Public law 105-251, the Volunteers for Children Act which amended the National Child Protection Act of 1993, was enacted October 9, 1998 to allow these same qualifying entities to request fingerprint-based national criminal history record checks of their volunteers and employees. For more information, download the Application Form.

Fiduciary Funds, National Security, Statutory Authority - Utah Code Annotated 53-10-108 allows the release of Utah Criminal History information to qualifying entities. Determination of your agency's eligibility may be made by referring to this code. If your agency qualifies, download the application.

Other Employers - If your agency does not fall under one of the two categories mentioned above, your only option is to request that your employees apply directly to BCI for a copy of their own criminal history. (Find out more about obtaining a copy of your own Utah criminal history record.)

For more information, please contact BCI at 801-965-4445

Source

[varina davis]

A key thing in this story, IMO, is that Ed Smart allowed a man he claims he believed was scamming him, BACK INTO HIS HOME TO WORK WHILE HIS YOUNG DAUGHTERS WERE THERE.

Either he is a really irresponsible father or a thousand times more naive than anyone has thought so far.

[cookiedough]

My former husband's 2-carat diamond ring, appraised value $15,000, was stolen from our home years ago. The police took a report, dusted for fingerprints only to shut me up, and did absolutely no investigation of pawn shops or of the painter who had been hired to paint the outside of our rented house and who was working there on the day of the theft.

Stolen jewelry wasn't high on their list of priorities, I guess.

[Palladin]

This admission to being in the white jeep after it was turned over to Ricci....maybe it is a pre-emptive strike conjured up with a defense lawyer to have an excuse WHY Ed's DNA...possibly able to be dated....has been found in the jeep. If Ricci had new seat covers in the front, placed there in say, May of this year, and Ed's DNA is on them, it could prove that Ed was in possession of the jeep while it was missing from Moul's lot. Ed kept a set of keys. He had angrily threatened repossession before. Things are starting to add up now.

[Neenah]

He doesn't mention the ARMED GUNMAN either. And being a bit higher than the average Blue Collar Worker.....you would think he checked on his workers. It is redily available according to Utah law.

You are right, varina, he allowed him back in. What MILLIONARE has these people working for him, much less as some say..TWO MORE of Ricci's pals !!

[freedox]

"So Ricci leaves his jeep in the parking lot with the engine running. I think maybe Ed still had a key to the jeep."

Yes, that was a very interesting detail for Ed to have included. It serves absolutely no purpose, other than to cast doubt upon whether Ed had his own key to the jeep. Come to think of it.....is it possible that Ed STILL has a key to the jeep?

[varina davis]

Things are starting to add up now.

They do seem to be adding up. And the sum may get larger as more and more bits and pieces of information seep out.

Another point about investigating the 13 computers: LE said the family had been questioned about the computer contents and had responded. I don't recall if they said the responses were satisfactory to LE. And, yes, I know LE said they didn't find computer links to the alleged kidnapping.