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?
I've always said that is the blunder of the case. It sounds to me like they didn't bother checking out his background before they visited him on Jun 5. If he was one of the first people on their shortlist why didn't they do a background check on him and know his record on Jun 5? If they had taken him into custody or started tailing him on Jun 5 Elizabeth may well be back at home safe today. This was a horrendous blunder.
An ex-con with an in home business relationship with the family, the Jeep deal, fired by Ed Smart, etc. I don't know if Ed Smart told them about the Jeep deal but if he did if they had tried to track down the Jeep's whereabouts on Jun 5 (it wasn't at the trailer park) that would have probably cracked the case right there. Ricci would have either had to take them to the Jeep or started lying about it and giving them reason to suspect him right away, let alone all the aforementioned factors.