Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Salt Lake City Police Address Reporters

Aired March 13, 2003 - 19:08   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


RICK DINSE, SALT LAKE CITY POLICE: I apologize for having to keep referring down to my notes. You never leave me enough room to put my notes on the podium. And contrary to relief my shoulder harness yesterday was not due to a rabid reporter attacking me. I had some shoulder surgery, so I'm a little tender with it right now. So forgive me if I wince every now and then.
With me today is special agent in charge, Chip Burros, of the Salt Lake City regional FBI office, and we're going to talk today a little bit about what we've accomplished or what we know.

I can tell you right now, and you're used to these briefings from many months ago, not a lot. We're not going to be able to give why you a lot of information. We're going to try to give you some.

We coordinated this press conference today late in the afternoon so that we could get some information and hopefully be able to fill in some gaps and provide some idea of what happened with Elizabeth over the last nine months. And that was the reason we didn't coordinate our press conference today with the family.

I just recently met with the family. In fact, just before coming out here, talked to them about what we are going to discuss so that they also can be aware of this.

The second thing I want to talk about aside from the timeline regarding Elizabeth is I know there's a lot of interest in Emmanuel, what the police department knew, when they knew it and what they did about it. And I'll try to add some clarity there.

First let me read a brief statement on the timeline and admittedly, there will be some gaps and then I'm going to turn over to Chip and let him speak briefly on some other things that have developed today during the investigation.

As you all know, on June 5 in the early morning hours, Elizabeth Smart was taken from her bedroom and this time, and I think it's been broadcast already, at knifepoint by Brian David Mitchell, a.k.a. Emmanuel. They traveled through the backyard up into the canyon area where Elizabeth was held against her will at a remote camp site approximately -- for approximately two months they were up there.

In August of 2002 Elizabeth was brought to Salt Lake City area and was seen by several different individuals at a number of locations. Elizabeth was forced to wear a wig and full robe and veil. In early October, Elizabeth was taken to San Diego City area by Emmanuel and Wanda. She was moved to different locations within the San Diego area until just recently. Most of those were camp sites or a camp site that they had in the San Diego area.

Emmanuel and Wanda, with Elizabeth, traveled back through California, Nevada and Utah. And they arrived in Utah on or about March the 12th, the day of their arrest, at approximately 3:00 a.m. Those hours after arriving in Utah, Elizabeth was spotted by witnesses who then notified Sandy Police Department and, of course, the rest you already know.

This is still an ongoing investigation and the law enforcement community as a whole is following up on a large number of leads and information. We will continue to urge members of the community to call with any information regarding this case. It is still very active.

Now let me turn it over to Chip.

CHIP BURRUS, FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Thank you, Rick. The sky is just a little bit brighter in Utah today, I'd say, because Elizabeth's back. She's with her family. From the very beginning of this investigation in June that was our goal.

We had two goals. The first one was to bring her back safely, and the second was to locate the people who did this. On both of those objectives we think we've accomplished that. Let me go through with you today -- thank you. Let me go through with you a little bit of what's gone on today.

With some excellence work from the Sandy Police Department and some bright, alert citizens, we were able to get Elizabeth yesterday and to apprehend the two people we think are responsible for her kidnapping.

We don't have a lot of models to work with this. As you know, most of the investigations of this type don't end in this way. So we're basically building from scratch. We've got the puzzle pieces now. We know what it looks like and we're putting them together slowly, but surely.

This afternoon with the help of Elizabeth and other information, we were able to obtain, we think we found the camp site up in the hills. Right now it's marked off and it's being processed by the FBI's evidence response team. They'll be up there turning the place over until we get a thorough crime scene conducted up there.

In San Diego this afternoon, based on the information that Elizabeth was able to provide, we think we found the camp site in San Diego and our evidence teams are down there again, turning that over with the help of the San Diego County Sheriff's Office and in an attempt to find any and all relevant evidence to this particular case.

We're conducting leads throughout the country. We've got search warrants being conducted in Montana and any other lead that we find that's relevant to this case.

Let me tell you how we've divided this up, right now. The FBI has taken out of state leads and any leads that are relatively at a far distance from Salt Lake and inside the state of Utah. Our evidence response team will send the evidence, once it's obtained from the site on the mountains to the state crime laboratory for analysis.

The Salt Lake City Police Department is conducting any and all leads within the city of Salt Lake and surrounding areas, close surrounding areas.

But let me tell you this, from the beginning of this investigation, it's an absolute 100 percent partnership. Agents, detectives working together. At this point we're having meetings two and three times a day to compare notes, compare investigative strategies and make sure we have all the pieces together so we can present the prosecutors with the most complete picture as we possibly can.

We'll continue to sift through the evidence and we continue to ask the public to come forward with any information regarding the travels, locations or any other information of these three individuals, Elizabeth, Wanda and Emmanuel.

I want to -- before I close and send it back to Rick, I think we all owe in law enforcement a debt of gratitude to the family for their not only their patience with us, but with their willingness to share not only their extremely bright intellect but their ideas, and their notions as to where this should go.

We thank them for that and we thank the citizens of the state of Utah for all of their help in this investigation. And last, but not least, the media also. We'll continue to put the pieces together.

At this point, Rick will come back and tell you a little bit more about Emmanuel.

DINSE: All right. I'd like to now take a little bit about some of the questions concerning Emmanuel and our investigation into him.

You know we first learned of Emmanuel and the comments of Mary Katherine on October 13, 2002 from the Smart family. The fact that she thought that Emmanuel may have been the person in the room that night that Elizabeth was taken.

On about October the 15th we had a -- Mary Katherine interviewed by the Children's Justice Center again here in Salt Lake City. And at that time all we had was a name and a description by some of the Smart family of this Emmanuel.

Between October 15 and February 10 of 2003, half of our investigators were committed to follow up on all outstanding leads we had and that included Emmanuel and half were devoted to Richard Ricci, who was clearly a focus of our attention. And I don't think I need to go into all of the specifics regarding Mr. Ricci that led to that focus. I believe those speak for themselves. In regards to trying to identify and locate Emmanuel between October 21 and November 18, investigators did canvass many of the areas homeless are known to congregate and frequent and even check video with the LDS Church as we heard that he was found in and around the Crossroads Mall believing their video may or other video there may have picked that up.

We did identify a person who the church security identified him as Emmanuel. But with photographs, those photographs did not turn out to be the person that the family knew as Emmanuel.

Also during this time there were three composite drawings made, or sketches completed utilizing the Smart family members. And unfortunately the three composites were different. However, the third one, the family did believe there was a close resemblance and wanted to go public with that.

The task force was not supportive of going public for a couple of reasons. One, we did not believe that we had a clear consensus which sketch was the right sketch although the family was fairly confident that this was a -- third one who was the better of all three.

By going out, if we went out with a bad sketch we ran the risk of generating hundreds of leads that could lead eat up valuable time and may not take us to anybody, including this Emmanuel, if it was the wrong person that we were looking for.

And, of course, at that point we had very limited information other than Mary Katherine had recognized -- or had stated that he may have been the suspect and that's basically all we knew about him at that time. He had spent a short amount of time at the residence, although he was there one day. And he was somebody we definitely wanted to talk to and were attempting to locate.

At about the same time, we had also done a 48-hour episode with one of our chief investigators, again surrounding Richard Ricci and we were expecting that that may turn up some information, that even today we cannot account for Mr. Ricci's time or things that occurred and why they occurred.

On February 10, the family wanted to go public with that. We did not oppose that. They went on "America's Most Wanted" and shortly thereafter, in fact, the same day, we did get a lead right away that led us to Mr. Mitchell and we have continued to work towards locating and finding him in various ways since.

Let me tell you that in hindsight is 20/20 vision. If we had to go back over it again, that decision by the investigators, I think every and each one of them would say I wish we had gone public with that photograph sooner.

The result is a happy result. We're glad she is free. We're glad she is home. We believe that we were close to maybe being able to make that occur before her discovery on the 12th, but we are ecstatic that she was home and there isn't an investigator in this investigation that isn't happy and pleased that she's home and feels tremendous about that.

Now, if you will conduct yourselves appropriately, we'll take some questions.

Oh, excuse me, can -- forgive me. We'll take your questions, but Tom Smart wanted to say something.

TOM SMART, ELIZABETH SMART'S UNCLE: Just on behalf of the family we want to stress that hindsight is 20/20 and we in no way want to impugn anybody. I mean, I think I probably made a mistake or two in the last nine months, you know? We are so grateful to everybody in law enforcement who's worked on this and we want the -- whether it's the Utah Highway Patrol or the Salt Lake Police or the FBI or the, you know, the hundreds and thousands of people. This is a joint effort with the media, the family, law enforcement and the community and we thank God for that.

We don't go, What if we would have done that. We go, God bless that she's here today. Thank you very much.

QUESTION: I have a question about the charges. Mitchell and Barzee -- are they both going to face aggravated kidnapping on the same level and what kind of penalties does that hold? And also, does Mitchell have other charges, because maybe -- in other states?

DINSE: Well, let me just deal with it.

First of all, they are -- have been booked in aggravate kidnapping charges right now and are being held. They have not been screened for charges to be filed yet. We anticipate that to occur in the near future, maybe tomorrow. I can't tell you that.

I can't tell you what -- just for aggravated kidnapping what the penalties are, but I know they're very severe and we certainly are going to be going to the severe.

BURRUS: Let me address that.

DINSE: Sure.

BURRUS: Just real quick, because of the interstate aspect that we're attempting to put together now, United States Attorney Paul Warner has taken a very strong aggressive stance in that manner and we intend to fully provide him with a case that will hopefully allow him to move forward in a prosecution. But those are decisions that are being undertaken right now and I can't give you the federal penalties either, I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Can you clarify the Montana connection? That did not fit in with the chief's description of where they actually went.

And are you looking into other places, other states that they might have been and could you tell us which ones?

BURRUS: I can't tell you anything about the Montana because it's ongoing. But we don't think that had to do with her travels. We think that had to do with additional evidence that we'd like to gather and the additional states where we're executing both leads and potentially warrants we won't discuss right now.

QUESTION: Maybe the chief will be able to answer this. Is it the position of law enforcement that Wanda was involved with the kidnapping from the very start, when the act took place in the bedroom?

BURRUS: At this point I think that's -- those are still facts that we're attempting to gather and straighten out. But right now I think the only person that we think was physically in the bedroom was Emmanuel, Mr. Mitchell.

QUESTION: And do you believe that she was aware of the kidnapping? She assumed part of this group when Elizabeth was taken out of the bedroom into the mountains? Was she immediately became part of the threesome immediately?

BURRUS: I'm just not going to be able to answer that. Those are facts that you'll find out in pleading.

QUESTION: Why did Mitchell kidnap her?

DINSE: You know, I think it would be premature what the motive was.

You know, a lot of our hesitancy to talk, as during the previous interviews that we've had with you, has been to harm any possible investigation. In this case, it's a prosecution. So as far as the motive, I think I'd like to stay away from that at this point if it's OK.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: I believe you said last night that one reason she didn't escape was there were two people with her at all times. It turns out Emmanuel was in jail in San Diego County for six days. Therefore, only Wanda was with her. Could she not have escaped then?

DINSE: You know, there is clearly a psychological impact that occurred during this abduction at some point and, you know, we're not going to go into that. Again, those are things that have to be looked at in the investigation. But there's no question that she was psychologically affected by the connections with this group.

Yes?

QUESTION: Are you ready to clear the memory of Richard Ricci once and for all? Not for the crimes that he committed, but once and for all because there is another family in this city, Angela Ricci's family, who sits there and has had to live for the last eight months with the knowledge up until two days ago, until your police department decided it wasn't Richard Ricci -- are you ready to clear him with any involvement in the disappearance of Elizabeth Smart?

DINSE: Well, in answer to your editorial, yes. I am here to say that we do not believe that Richard Ricci was involved in this kidnap at this point. The evidence...

Yes?

Go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. At what point would legal triggers allow you to return the property, including the jeep to the widow and at what point will he be delisted as a person of interest?

DINSE: Well, he can be delisted now. I mean, that's something that's just part of an investigation.

As far as getting the property back, that will be done and we are going to start that process.

Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: Have you spoken to the suspects?

DINSE: I have not personally spoken to them, but yes, we have interviewed the suspects.

QUESTION: Were they cooperative?

DINSE: Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: Have you decided as far as the Mitchells, is there anyone else in custody involved in this case?

DINSE: There is not at this time.

QUESTION: Do you expect some one will be?

QUESTION: Is it frustrating to know that for so many weeks (OFF MIKE)

DINSE: If you follow the helicopter, you may find the camp site.

The reality is -- the question was -- how close was the camp site? I can't tell you. I think -- I do not know where it is. It was some distance from the home, but it was up in the hills behind the home. As far as the frustration knowing that she had been there for that period of time and we hadn't located her -- Yes, very frustrating.

Let me say this about that, though -- about the searches. I have not seen a search for an individual, a lost person or an abducted individual more thorough, more better coordinated and better staffed than that search that went around here and all over the state of Utah. I -- and I don't take any credit for that because that was done by the private foundation that came in here and worked with the Smart family and they did a tremendous job.

It's one of those things. It's a big area. It's a huge area. And while they came close, they didn't come close enough.

Yes?

QUESTION: Do you believed Mitchell was actually with Elizabeth at Immigration Canyon that the giant search went on until about 3 or 4 in the morning?

DINSE: Our information is yes.

QUESTION: Where did Mitchell get the money, the funds to travel around the country?

DINSE: From God. Yes?

QUESTION: Do you expect additional arrests?

DINSE: The question, do we expect an earlier arrest. No, we don't. Back there.

QUESTION: In "The Seattle Times," today there was a report that Emmanuel told one of your officers that he took Elizabeth because God told him to and to take her as a five wife. Can you talk about that please?

DINSE: No, I can't talk about that. I can't confirm or deny that. That will come out eventually.

It's right behind you.

QUESTION: I don't know about anybody else, but I am really getting sick of hearing him called Emmanuel. I wish the press would quit doing that because he calls himself that. He isn't that, you know? I mean not on you, I'm just it really irritates me.

DINSE: OK. Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) -- why she didn't just run. Any indication why Elizabeth just didn't take off?

DINSE: I think the best that I can answer you right now is that she was psychologically impacted by this abduction and I can't comment further on why.

QUESTION: Follow-up?

DINSE: OK, one follow-up.

QUESTION: Any physical or sexual problems with Elizabeth as far as -- did he harm her in any way?

DINSE: You know, and that's some thing else we're not going to talk about is what physically happened to her. That, again, will come out in the pleadings.

Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: Are detectives pursuing the idea that maybe some people in this Bohemian-type community knew exactly who she was and what was going on and in fact protected themselves from the situation?

DINSE: We don't have evidence of that at this point, but we're still pretty early in this part, or this phase of the investigation. So we don't know.

QUESTION: Does Mr. Mitchell have a record of pedophilia?

QUESTION: You said that you -- as I understand, you don't want to deal with issues of whether or not she was physically abused. Can I ask you a very carefully worded question? Do you feel confident that you know whether or not she was physically abused?

DINSE: We believe we know that, yes. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: You said group (ph) a moment ago. Are you talking about more than the three people that we know about, or was it just Wanda?

DINSE: Well I apologize if I led you to believe there was more than the people that we talked about. The three of them are the ones that we're talking about -- yes, sir.

QUESTION: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Mitchell seemed to employ a name given to Elizabeth.. Can you tell us what it was?

DINSE: You know I can't. There were names given to Elizabeth. They all had their own names that were different from their own, as has been pointed out here. But I can't tell you what that name is, not because I wouldn't. It's just I don't know it right now. you.

QUESTION: Can you tell us whether the two in custody are cooperating in any way with investigators?

DINSE: I can't really discuss that at this point.

QUESTION: Has anyone from Mitchell's family past, present, whether they're stepchild, current child ever accused Mr. Mitchell of sexual incest or pedophilia? And was that ever brought to your attention? Specifically by the ex-wife of Mr. Mitchell last month?

DINSE: You know Mr. Mitchell has more than one ex-wife as I understand it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.

DINSE: And we did have some information. He has never been arrested for any -- nor does he have a criminal background for any sexual abuse. His criminal background really is very minor criminal background. We did have some information that there may have been some sexual abuse in the family.

We have contacted one of the ex-wives and a daughter. We did not learn that from that part of the family; however, we understand there are other people, and we left information for them. And they had not contacted us up to his arrest -- yes.

QUESTION: In fact, didn't they go to the Smart family and tell them about that?

DINSE: Yes.

QUESTION: I'm wondering if you can comment on the alias -- obviously Mitchell -- that Elizabeth Smart was said to have given to Sandy police officers yesterday afternoon? And, if so, if you know anything about that at all?

DINSE: No. I don't know about that. My understanding is she has used other names when she has come in contact with other people. Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: Can you clarify when that campsite was discovered? It was only today or was it discovered a couple of weeks ago?

DINSE: Well we had information that there may have been a campsite up in the back of the area before they were captured.

QUESTION: When did you have that information?

DINSE: Probably a couple of weeks ago, and we had...

QUESTION: Did you give out that information?

DINSE: To the family, yes.

QUESTION: Did they give it to you?

DINSE: It could have come from the family, but we certainly did get that information and we did look up in the area and located some areas that seemed to fit the description that we had. However, we now had a very direct location and we now have identified that location based on some specific information. Way in the back.

QUESTION: Yes, what's the protocol for interviewing Elizabeth now? I understand her interview yesterday was very productive and it gave you a lot of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) leads. Where do you go from now in trying to (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

DINSE: The question has to do with where we are going now with the questioning of Elizabeth Smart. We did have a productive day yesterday. She's a very bright, very smart young lady who answered our questions very articulately. She was very specific. She was very helpful in our decisions with her.

Whether we have to interview her again or not, that will be subject of what the information is that we develop. We certainly are going to have to prepare her for a prosecution and certainly she will be a big part of the of that. So we have to play that. We are considerate of the family, considerate of her. But we also and they also know that there's a prosecution to be had and we need to go forward. Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: You said that they were up there for about two months at the campsite. Can you tell whether it was pre-planned? How did they get supplies up there? DINSE: You know that's all part of what -- some of the questions we will answer, and we may have some of the those answers. I couldn't tell you at this point. I'm happy to let Chip take this.

BURRUS: Thank you.

QUESTION: I have a question for you. Did the FBI ever submit this case to profiling?

BURRUS: Absolutely.

QUESTION: And does Brian Mitchell fit that profile?

BURRUS: There's a number of profiles. As you know, profilers have opinions, just like each and every one of you have opinions. And the profile -- a lot of the different profiles, a lot of the different things that we were looking for that helped us out I can say contributed to this. But, you know, did he say he was going to be wearing robes with a weird hat and have a long beard? No, that's not specific to that.

QUESTION: No, did he say his motivation might be spiritual or religious rather than, say, ransom or sexual.

BURRUS: Well, Elizabeth's victim profile from the very start has been low key. So part of the profile has been to focus on someone coming in from the outside into her world. She had school, she had church, she had music, and she had home, generally. We didn't find she was aggressive on the Internet or hanging out at malls or anything like that.

And as a result, the profilers used all that information to try to determine. I don't remember religious motivation entering into it, but it's been a long time since I've reviewed those profiles.

QUESTION: Well what were some of the profiles? Can you tell us?

BURRUS: No.

QUESTION: Sir, is it possible for Mitchell now to get a fair trial?

BURRUS: That will be a question for the prosecutors and the judge, not me.

QUESTION: Where in relation to the city of San Diego was the San Diego area campsite?

BURRUS: My understanding is that it's towards the city of Lakeside? Does that make sense? I don't know the geography. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: Chief, there was also another Smart family home robbery. Is Mitchell the suspect in that other Smart family home robbery that happened after Elizabeth's disappearance? DINSE: Well, you're absolutely right. We are looking at him as a suspect in that case, and that is a case that's currently being investigated by Salt Lake County.

QUESTION: So he would have struck the Smarts possibly twice in the last year?

DINSE: That's possible, yes -- yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Ed Smart said today that he was kind of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) about the screen being cut from the outside. Do you agree that the screen was cut from the outside, that he climbed on the chair, that at one point police said was placed there as sort of a decoy? Do you now think that's exactly how he got in the house?

DINSE: We believe now based on the statements we have that he got in the house through that screen. And the review of that screen after the forensic people had done it, there was an appearance of a cut from the outside and cuts from the inside as though somebody had reached around inside and cut from the inside, too. So it could have been both ways on that situation.

QUESTION: Can I ask you, are you pretty confident on this timeline issue as far as you're pretty certain that she only went from here to San Diego then back? I know you're not done with the investigation, but there have been some reports of Florida and other states.

DINSE: No. We know of some of the reports in the southern states. And at least the ones that have come to our attention, we've checked those out. And none of those have proven to be accurate. However, we're open to any information that comes to us and we'll follow up. And if they did turn up at this point, we do not believe they were in any other state other than California, Nevada and Utah.

(CROSSTALK)

DINSE: Religious.

QUESTION: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or how were they traveling?

DINSE: You know they actually left here from Salt Lake to the San Diego area by bus. And he got the money from god. Yes? Was Elizabeth drugged? I don't have any indication of that as yet.

QUESTION: Are you investigating if there are other victims out there?

DINSE: Go ahead -- you. Sorry.

QUESTION: Do you have any indication of whether or not he was (UNINTELLIGIBLE) following what she was doing before the kidnapping and made some kind of reference to that?

DINSE: You know we do have some indication that he had familiarized himself with the exterior of the house other than just the time he'd been there -- yes?

QUESTION: I'm sorry about that. Are you investigating if there is a possibility of other victims out there?

DINSE: You know that's always a possibility at this point. Right now, we don't have an indication of other victims, but that is a possibility, yes. Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: Is it true that Mr. Mitchell has admitted to breaking into the Wright's (ph) home? That's the cousin of the Smart family. I can't comment on that at this point.

QUESTION: Chief, I don't need specifics, but I'm wondering if you can tell us from the interviews with Elizabeth, has she indicated that for the most part or always she was in fear, or has she indicated any compassion for these two suspects?

DINSE: Well, there's no question that at the time of the abduction she was in fear and was fearful for a period of time. The other part of the question is whether she had compassion for them. Again, she was psychologically affected by this abduction and by this imprisonment. And to say that she could walk around in a free area where she could have walked away is to say that she was affected by them psychologically. So you can draw your own conclusion there.

QUESTION: Did Mitchell utilize hypnosis?

DINSE: Did Mitchell utilize hypnosis? I do not know. I do not think so.

QUESTION: Chief, did he use weapons beyond the knife that he got her out of her room with? Did he have any other guns or anything at the time when you found him?

DINSE: To our knowledge only a knife.

QUESTION: Were there any drugs found in his possession when he was arrested? There is some talk that he had sort of -- some interest in LSD and heroin.

DINSE: Were there was any drugs, that that he had an interest in LSD and heroin? I don't have that information. To my knowledge, there was no drugs at the time we arrested him. Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Were Elizabeth's fingerprints found in the house in Salt Lake City in the last couple of weeks?

DINSE: The question is, was Elizabeth's found in a house in Salt Lake City within the last couple of weeks. And I think you're talking about a gentleman who said that Elizabeth, the three of them, in fact, had stayed in a house back in October, had lived with him for about a week. And we did do a fingerprint of that house, but we did it, I believe, it was Monday or Tuesday.

I may be off. This Monday or Tuesday. We had learned about that information prior to her arrest and we did the prints there. And to my knowledge, we have not identified prints to her at that time.

QUESTION: Chief, now that you ruled out those southern states, why was the interest there to begin with?

DINSE: The interest was because of leads that come to with us some substantial aspect to it that we can follow up on. And we follow up on all of the leads -- yes.

QUESTION: Chief, when did you determine that a knife was used rather than a gun? Did that come out before yesterday?

DINSE: That came up from Elizabeth.

QUESTION: Chief, is there any reason why he went to San Diego? Did he know you were looking for him? Was he on the run or was he just thinking, oh, finally I can walk wherever I want?

DINSE: We don't know at this point why they went there?

QUESTION: Why did he come back?

QUESTION: A follow-up to an earlier question about the stalking. Just how long before the kidnapping was Emmanuel, Brian Mitchell stalking her, and what was that about? Was he around the house lurking, did anybody see him in the neighborhood?

DINSE: We understand that he had spent some time looking at the house. I don't know how much time, but that he had spent some time viewing the house from the outside, from the exterior. I couldn't tell you how long.

QUESTION: Was he following Elizabeth to school perhaps, or was he keeping an eye on her specifically?

DINSE: No, we don't have any knowledge that he was following her at this point.

QUESTION: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Elizabeth that during those five hours he worked in the house? Or did he know...

DINSE: I can't answer that for sure. I don't believe he did.

QUESTION: Was Elizabeth the intended target that night, or (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? How do you know (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

DINSE: You know I believe that she was the intended target. But beyond that, I won't comment. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Is there any suggestion that he committed any crimes while he was on the run and perhaps used Elizabeth?

DINSE: Was there was any chance that he committed crimes while they were moving around and Elizabeth was with them? We are investigating that -- yes.

QUESTION: Is Mitchell a polygamist? DINSE: Is Mitchell a polygamist? I think he would like to be to be a self-proclaimed polygamist.

QUESTION: We've heard that her speech and language is now peppered with religious references that she didn't use in the past. Is there any truth to that?

DINSE: The question is about Elizabeth using religious comments that she never used before. I can't tell you that. To my knowledge, she hasn't done that. She may have to other people -- yes.

QUESTION: Can you elaborate on their travel? After they came down from the canyon here in Salt Lake, were they camping, were they staying in an apartment? What were their activities?

DINSE: There were various activities. Apparently they attended some functions. There's a picture that's going around that are fairly popular, showing the three of them. We believe that one of those is Elizabeth at a party. Those kinds of things right now we don't have all of the locations or all of the specific places. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: I'm wondering if you can comment on whether or not you know for sure that Brian Mitchell, Emmanuel, made a purchase at a Wal- Mart in Sandy of approximately $100 of camping supplies two to three weeks prior to his arrest yesterday? Do you know anything about that?

DINSE: No, I don't know that. I know that we have had several people call in, particularly merchants, who say they have video of that group or that individual. We are gathering those videotapes to look at them. I can tell you if it occurred in the Salt Lake area, or certainly in and around the Salt Lake area prior to March 12th, we don't believe that that would be them. However, we're still looking at that and we'll follow up on it.

QUESTION: Do you know why they came back to Salt Lake?

DINSE: Do I know why they came back to Salt Lake? No, I do not.

QUESTION: You mentioned he'd like to be a self-proclaimed polygamist. Amplify that. Does that mean that he thought Elizabeth was another wife?

DINSE: I think that's -- I think he -- I think that was part of his religious belief.

QUESTION: What do you know about him being arrested in San Diego for a time, or being in custody there?

DINSE: Yes. Maybe Chip can deal with that.

BURRUS: Yes. At this point, we've been able to match his fingerprints to an individual that was arrested down in San Diego. He gave a different name. And my understanding is he was arrested for some type of a burglary or theft of some type down there. But I don't have the exact charges.

But just not an hour ago I got word from San Diego that the prints do match. So we do -- he was arrested down in San Diego.

QUESTION: You had a name on him about February 10th, as the chief indicated. He wasn't picked up in San Diego until February 12th. Why wasn't a bulletin put out when you had an ID on someone who Mary Katherine had said she believed had been in that bedroom?

BURRUS: I think the chief went on to explain a lot about what we had on Emmanuel at that particular point. Again, to reiterate, he didn't have a violent background. He didn't have any type of sexual abuse background. And I think the chief's adequately covered that. We eventually did on March 3rd put out an (UNINTELLIGIBLE) after we began to gather more and more information about him.

(CROSSTALK)

BURRUS: Yes, sir -- I don't know. I don't think he did..

QUESTION: At the same time his ex-wife came to police, came to the Smart family and told them that he did have a record, that he did have sexual abuse. He went to the Smart family. The Smart family came to you, then she went and came to the police all at the same time. So to say he did not have a sexual history or know someone that complained about it would be false.

BURRUS: If you listened to what I said, I said he had no arrest record, no criminal background in that, no violent crime. He had worked at the Smart house approximately four hours in March of 2001. There were a lot of people that had worked at the Smart house.

He was clearly one of the people we were tracking. But at that point, because of his background, we didn't have an interest in putting out an all-points bulletin. Once we got additional information, that clearly became part of the deal. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) you believe she may have been coerced (ph)?

BURRUS: We don't know.

QUESTION: Chief Dinse said that there is no confirmation that Elizabeth had any contact with Mr. Mitchell the day in November of 2001, the day he did work. What was his interest for seven months in that home? Did he have some contact with Mary Katherine, and is there any indication Elizabeth had any contact with him during that seven- month period between the time he worked on the home and the kidnapping?

DINSE: There obviously was some contact with Mary Katherine on the day that he spent there. But after that day there was no indication by the family or anybody else that he was at that house. OK. I'll go three more questions.

QUESTION: Sir, what happened to Elizabeth's original clothing, the pajamas? Were they found?

DINSE: That's part of some of the evidence that we're looking for.

QUESTION: Chief, the suspect (UNINTELLIGIBLE) screening that happened at the jail. Have they asked for attorneys? Are they being housed away from the population, and what is the screening?

DINSE: I can't say what the housing -- when I say screening, I'm talking about filing of charges. And so that's what I mean.

QUESTION: And have they asked for an attorney and had counsel from the defender's office?

DINSE: You know I can't comment on that. They haven't asked me for an attorney, so I don't know -- yes.

QUESTION: Did I hear you right? Did you say that this man believed that Elizabeth was his wife?

DINSE: No, I didn't say that.

(UNINTELLIGIBLE)

DINSE: Yes?

QUESTION: How did Elizabeth factor into that?

DINSE: That's part of what we're investigating right now. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: Chief, in the near term, the long term -- and maybe, Chip, you can answer this as well -- how much more can you expect to get from Elizabeth? What is next? How many hours can somebody go through before she's spent and can't tell you anymore?

DINSE: Well, you know we're going to be very conscious and mindful of the fact that she's been under a tremendous stress at this point, that she's home with her family. We do not want to add stress, but we recognize that there will be stress attached. We will deal with that very evenly, and we will deal with it with the family, and we'll try to be as unimpacting as possible.

QUESTION: Will you talk with her tomorrow?

DINSE: No, I don't -- at this point, I can't tell you when we will talk to her again or even if we will talk to her again. One more.

QUESTION: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) a pretty wide misunderstanding is something you said. It was asked about whether or not he thought it was his wife -- Elizabeth was...

DINSE: Another wife.

QUESTION: Another wife. And your answer was, I think that was his religious belief.

DINSE: I didn't hear -- maybe I misinterpreted the question. I think the way I interpreted was, was he a polygamist. I think his religious belief was in polygamy. That's all I said.

QUESTION: The second question was, it sounded like -- did he think of Elizabeth as another wife? Your answer was, "I think that was part of his religious belief."

DINSE: OK. I apologize for that, then. I got it wrong. His religious belief, he did believe in polygamy. I do not want to attach his relationship with Elizabeth in that fashion at this time.

(UNINTELLIGIBLE)

DINSE: We have a manifesto of his, and we have reviewed that manifesto. And we're obtaining a copy of it.

That's it. Thank you very much.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com






Aired March 13, 2003 - 19:08   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK DINSE, SALT LAKE CITY POLICE: I apologize for having to keep referring down to my notes. You never leave me enough room to put my notes on the podium. And contrary to relief my shoulder harness yesterday was not due to a rabid reporter attacking me. I had some shoulder surgery, so I'm a little tender with it right now. So forgive me if I wince every now and then.
With me today is special agent in charge, Chip Burros, of the Salt Lake City regional FBI office, and we're going to talk today a little bit about what we've accomplished or what we know.

I can tell you right now, and you're used to these briefings from many months ago, not a lot. We're not going to be able to give why you a lot of information. We're going to try to give you some.

We coordinated this press conference today late in the afternoon so that we could get some information and hopefully be able to fill in some gaps and provide some idea of what happened with Elizabeth over the last nine months. And that was the reason we didn't coordinate our press conference today with the family.

I just recently met with the family. In fact, just before coming out here, talked to them about what we are going to discuss so that they also can be aware of this.

The second thing I want to talk about aside from the timeline regarding Elizabeth is I know there's a lot of interest in Emmanuel, what the police department knew, when they knew it and what they did about it. And I'll try to add some clarity there.

First let me read a brief statement on the timeline and admittedly, there will be some gaps and then I'm going to turn over to Chip and let him speak briefly on some other things that have developed today during the investigation.

As you all know, on June 5 in the early morning hours, Elizabeth Smart was taken from her bedroom and this time, and I think it's been broadcast already, at knifepoint by Brian David Mitchell, a.k.a. Emmanuel. They traveled through the backyard up into the canyon area where Elizabeth was held against her will at a remote camp site approximately -- for approximately two months they were up there.

In August of 2002 Elizabeth was brought to Salt Lake City area and was seen by several different individuals at a number of locations. Elizabeth was forced to wear a wig and full robe and veil. In early October, Elizabeth was taken to San Diego City area by Emmanuel and Wanda. She was moved to different locations within the San Diego area until just recently. Most of those were camp sites or a camp site that they had in the San Diego area.

Emmanuel and Wanda, with Elizabeth, traveled back through California, Nevada and Utah. And they arrived in Utah on or about March the 12th, the day of their arrest, at approximately 3:00 a.m. Those hours after arriving in Utah, Elizabeth was spotted by witnesses who then notified Sandy Police Department and, of course, the rest you already know.

This is still an ongoing investigation and the law enforcement community as a whole is following up on a large number of leads and information. We will continue to urge members of the community to call with any information regarding this case. It is still very active.

Now let me turn it over to Chip.

CHIP BURRUS, FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Thank you, Rick. The sky is just a little bit brighter in Utah today, I'd say, because Elizabeth's back. She's with her family. From the very beginning of this investigation in June that was our goal.

We had two goals. The first one was to bring her back safely, and the second was to locate the people who did this. On both of those objectives we think we've accomplished that. Let me go through with you today -- thank you. Let me go through with you a little bit of what's gone on today.

With some excellence work from the Sandy Police Department and some bright, alert citizens, we were able to get Elizabeth yesterday and to apprehend the two people we think are responsible for her kidnapping.

We don't have a lot of models to work with this. As you know, most of the investigations of this type don't end in this way. So we're basically building from scratch. We've got the puzzle pieces now. We know what it looks like and we're putting them together slowly, but surely.

This afternoon with the help of Elizabeth and other information, we were able to obtain, we think we found the camp site up in the hills. Right now it's marked off and it's being processed by the FBI's evidence response team. They'll be up there turning the place over until we get a thorough crime scene conducted up there.

In San Diego this afternoon, based on the information that Elizabeth was able to provide, we think we found the camp site in San Diego and our evidence teams are down there again, turning that over with the help of the San Diego County Sheriff's Office and in an attempt to find any and all relevant evidence to this particular case.

We're conducting leads throughout the country. We've got search warrants being conducted in Montana and any other lead that we find that's relevant to this case.

Let me tell you how we've divided this up, right now. The FBI has taken out of state leads and any leads that are relatively at a far distance from Salt Lake and inside the state of Utah. Our evidence response team will send the evidence, once it's obtained from the site on the mountains to the state crime laboratory for analysis.

The Salt Lake City Police Department is conducting any and all leads within the city of Salt Lake and surrounding areas, close surrounding areas.

But let me tell you this, from the beginning of this investigation, it's an absolute 100 percent partnership. Agents, detectives working together. At this point we're having meetings two and three times a day to compare notes, compare investigative strategies and make sure we have all the pieces together so we can present the prosecutors with the most complete picture as we possibly can.

We'll continue to sift through the evidence and we continue to ask the public to come forward with any information regarding the travels, locations or any other information of these three individuals, Elizabeth, Wanda and Emmanuel.

I want to -- before I close and send it back to Rick, I think we all owe in law enforcement a debt of gratitude to the family for their not only their patience with us, but with their willingness to share not only their extremely bright intellect but their ideas, and their notions as to where this should go.

We thank them for that and we thank the citizens of the state of Utah for all of their help in this investigation. And last, but not least, the media also. We'll continue to put the pieces together.

At this point, Rick will come back and tell you a little bit more about Emmanuel.

DINSE: All right. I'd like to now take a little bit about some of the questions concerning Emmanuel and our investigation into him.

You know we first learned of Emmanuel and the comments of Mary Katherine on October 13, 2002 from the Smart family. The fact that she thought that Emmanuel may have been the person in the room that night that Elizabeth was taken.

On about October the 15th we had a -- Mary Katherine interviewed by the Children's Justice Center again here in Salt Lake City. And at that time all we had was a name and a description by some of the Smart family of this Emmanuel.

Between October 15 and February 10 of 2003, half of our investigators were committed to follow up on all outstanding leads we had and that included Emmanuel and half were devoted to Richard Ricci, who was clearly a focus of our attention. And I don't think I need to go into all of the specifics regarding Mr. Ricci that led to that focus. I believe those speak for themselves. In regards to trying to identify and locate Emmanuel between October 21 and November 18, investigators did canvass many of the areas homeless are known to congregate and frequent and even check video with the LDS Church as we heard that he was found in and around the Crossroads Mall believing their video may or other video there may have picked that up.

We did identify a person who the church security identified him as Emmanuel. But with photographs, those photographs did not turn out to be the person that the family knew as Emmanuel.

Also during this time there were three composite drawings made, or sketches completed utilizing the Smart family members. And unfortunately the three composites were different. However, the third one, the family did believe there was a close resemblance and wanted to go public with that.

The task force was not supportive of going public for a couple of reasons. One, we did not believe that we had a clear consensus which sketch was the right sketch although the family was fairly confident that this was a -- third one who was the better of all three.

By going out, if we went out with a bad sketch we ran the risk of generating hundreds of leads that could lead eat up valuable time and may not take us to anybody, including this Emmanuel, if it was the wrong person that we were looking for.

And, of course, at that point we had very limited information other than Mary Katherine had recognized -- or had stated that he may have been the suspect and that's basically all we knew about him at that time. He had spent a short amount of time at the residence, although he was there one day. And he was somebody we definitely wanted to talk to and were attempting to locate.

At about the same time, we had also done a 48-hour episode with one of our chief investigators, again surrounding Richard Ricci and we were expecting that that may turn up some information, that even today we cannot account for Mr. Ricci's time or things that occurred and why they occurred.

On February 10, the family wanted to go public with that. We did not oppose that. They went on "America's Most Wanted" and shortly thereafter, in fact, the same day, we did get a lead right away that led us to Mr. Mitchell and we have continued to work towards locating and finding him in various ways since.

Let me tell you that in hindsight is 20/20 vision. If we had to go back over it again, that decision by the investigators, I think every and each one of them would say I wish we had gone public with that photograph sooner.

The result is a happy result. We're glad she is free. We're glad she is home. We believe that we were close to maybe being able to make that occur before her discovery on the 12th, but we are ecstatic that she was home and there isn't an investigator in this investigation that isn't happy and pleased that she's home and feels tremendous about that.

Now, if you will conduct yourselves appropriately, we'll take some questions.

Oh, excuse me, can -- forgive me. We'll take your questions, but Tom Smart wanted to say something.

TOM SMART, ELIZABETH SMART'S UNCLE: Just on behalf of the family we want to stress that hindsight is 20/20 and we in no way want to impugn anybody. I mean, I think I probably made a mistake or two in the last nine months, you know? We are so grateful to everybody in law enforcement who's worked on this and we want the -- whether it's the Utah Highway Patrol or the Salt Lake Police or the FBI or the, you know, the hundreds and thousands of people. This is a joint effort with the media, the family, law enforcement and the community and we thank God for that.

We don't go, What if we would have done that. We go, God bless that she's here today. Thank you very much.

QUESTION: I have a question about the charges. Mitchell and Barzee -- are they both going to face aggravated kidnapping on the same level and what kind of penalties does that hold? And also, does Mitchell have other charges, because maybe -- in other states?

DINSE: Well, let me just deal with it.

First of all, they are -- have been booked in aggravate kidnapping charges right now and are being held. They have not been screened for charges to be filed yet. We anticipate that to occur in the near future, maybe tomorrow. I can't tell you that.

I can't tell you what -- just for aggravated kidnapping what the penalties are, but I know they're very severe and we certainly are going to be going to the severe.

BURRUS: Let me address that.

DINSE: Sure.

BURRUS: Just real quick, because of the interstate aspect that we're attempting to put together now, United States Attorney Paul Warner has taken a very strong aggressive stance in that manner and we intend to fully provide him with a case that will hopefully allow him to move forward in a prosecution. But those are decisions that are being undertaken right now and I can't give you the federal penalties either, I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Can you clarify the Montana connection? That did not fit in with the chief's description of where they actually went.

And are you looking into other places, other states that they might have been and could you tell us which ones?

BURRUS: I can't tell you anything about the Montana because it's ongoing. But we don't think that had to do with her travels. We think that had to do with additional evidence that we'd like to gather and the additional states where we're executing both leads and potentially warrants we won't discuss right now.

QUESTION: Maybe the chief will be able to answer this. Is it the position of law enforcement that Wanda was involved with the kidnapping from the very start, when the act took place in the bedroom?

BURRUS: At this point I think that's -- those are still facts that we're attempting to gather and straighten out. But right now I think the only person that we think was physically in the bedroom was Emmanuel, Mr. Mitchell.

QUESTION: And do you believe that she was aware of the kidnapping? She assumed part of this group when Elizabeth was taken out of the bedroom into the mountains? Was she immediately became part of the threesome immediately?

BURRUS: I'm just not going to be able to answer that. Those are facts that you'll find out in pleading.

QUESTION: Why did Mitchell kidnap her?

DINSE: You know, I think it would be premature what the motive was.

You know, a lot of our hesitancy to talk, as during the previous interviews that we've had with you, has been to harm any possible investigation. In this case, it's a prosecution. So as far as the motive, I think I'd like to stay away from that at this point if it's OK.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: I believe you said last night that one reason she didn't escape was there were two people with her at all times. It turns out Emmanuel was in jail in San Diego County for six days. Therefore, only Wanda was with her. Could she not have escaped then?

DINSE: You know, there is clearly a psychological impact that occurred during this abduction at some point and, you know, we're not going to go into that. Again, those are things that have to be looked at in the investigation. But there's no question that she was psychologically affected by the connections with this group.

Yes?

QUESTION: Are you ready to clear the memory of Richard Ricci once and for all? Not for the crimes that he committed, but once and for all because there is another family in this city, Angela Ricci's family, who sits there and has had to live for the last eight months with the knowledge up until two days ago, until your police department decided it wasn't Richard Ricci -- are you ready to clear him with any involvement in the disappearance of Elizabeth Smart?

DINSE: Well, in answer to your editorial, yes. I am here to say that we do not believe that Richard Ricci was involved in this kidnap at this point. The evidence...

Yes?

Go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. At what point would legal triggers allow you to return the property, including the jeep to the widow and at what point will he be delisted as a person of interest?

DINSE: Well, he can be delisted now. I mean, that's something that's just part of an investigation.

As far as getting the property back, that will be done and we are going to start that process.

Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: Have you spoken to the suspects?

DINSE: I have not personally spoken to them, but yes, we have interviewed the suspects.

QUESTION: Were they cooperative?

DINSE: Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: Have you decided as far as the Mitchells, is there anyone else in custody involved in this case?

DINSE: There is not at this time.

QUESTION: Do you expect some one will be?

QUESTION: Is it frustrating to know that for so many weeks (OFF MIKE)

DINSE: If you follow the helicopter, you may find the camp site.

The reality is -- the question was -- how close was the camp site? I can't tell you. I think -- I do not know where it is. It was some distance from the home, but it was up in the hills behind the home. As far as the frustration knowing that she had been there for that period of time and we hadn't located her -- Yes, very frustrating.

Let me say this about that, though -- about the searches. I have not seen a search for an individual, a lost person or an abducted individual more thorough, more better coordinated and better staffed than that search that went around here and all over the state of Utah. I -- and I don't take any credit for that because that was done by the private foundation that came in here and worked with the Smart family and they did a tremendous job.

It's one of those things. It's a big area. It's a huge area. And while they came close, they didn't come close enough.

Yes?

QUESTION: Do you believed Mitchell was actually with Elizabeth at Immigration Canyon that the giant search went on until about 3 or 4 in the morning?

DINSE: Our information is yes.

QUESTION: Where did Mitchell get the money, the funds to travel around the country?

DINSE: From God. Yes?

QUESTION: Do you expect additional arrests?

DINSE: The question, do we expect an earlier arrest. No, we don't. Back there.

QUESTION: In "The Seattle Times," today there was a report that Emmanuel told one of your officers that he took Elizabeth because God told him to and to take her as a five wife. Can you talk about that please?

DINSE: No, I can't talk about that. I can't confirm or deny that. That will come out eventually.

It's right behind you.

QUESTION: I don't know about anybody else, but I am really getting sick of hearing him called Emmanuel. I wish the press would quit doing that because he calls himself that. He isn't that, you know? I mean not on you, I'm just it really irritates me.

DINSE: OK. Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) -- why she didn't just run. Any indication why Elizabeth just didn't take off?

DINSE: I think the best that I can answer you right now is that she was psychologically impacted by this abduction and I can't comment further on why.

QUESTION: Follow-up?

DINSE: OK, one follow-up.

QUESTION: Any physical or sexual problems with Elizabeth as far as -- did he harm her in any way?

DINSE: You know, and that's some thing else we're not going to talk about is what physically happened to her. That, again, will come out in the pleadings.

Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: Are detectives pursuing the idea that maybe some people in this Bohemian-type community knew exactly who she was and what was going on and in fact protected themselves from the situation?

DINSE: We don't have evidence of that at this point, but we're still pretty early in this part, or this phase of the investigation. So we don't know.

QUESTION: Does Mr. Mitchell have a record of pedophilia?

QUESTION: You said that you -- as I understand, you don't want to deal with issues of whether or not she was physically abused. Can I ask you a very carefully worded question? Do you feel confident that you know whether or not she was physically abused?

DINSE: We believe we know that, yes. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: You said group (ph) a moment ago. Are you talking about more than the three people that we know about, or was it just Wanda?

DINSE: Well I apologize if I led you to believe there was more than the people that we talked about. The three of them are the ones that we're talking about -- yes, sir.

QUESTION: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Mitchell seemed to employ a name given to Elizabeth.. Can you tell us what it was?

DINSE: You know I can't. There were names given to Elizabeth. They all had their own names that were different from their own, as has been pointed out here. But I can't tell you what that name is, not because I wouldn't. It's just I don't know it right now. you.

QUESTION: Can you tell us whether the two in custody are cooperating in any way with investigators?

DINSE: I can't really discuss that at this point.

QUESTION: Has anyone from Mitchell's family past, present, whether they're stepchild, current child ever accused Mr. Mitchell of sexual incest or pedophilia? And was that ever brought to your attention? Specifically by the ex-wife of Mr. Mitchell last month?

DINSE: You know Mr. Mitchell has more than one ex-wife as I understand it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.

DINSE: And we did have some information. He has never been arrested for any -- nor does he have a criminal background for any sexual abuse. His criminal background really is very minor criminal background. We did have some information that there may have been some sexual abuse in the family.

We have contacted one of the ex-wives and a daughter. We did not learn that from that part of the family; however, we understand there are other people, and we left information for them. And they had not contacted us up to his arrest -- yes.

QUESTION: In fact, didn't they go to the Smart family and tell them about that?

DINSE: Yes.

QUESTION: I'm wondering if you can comment on the alias -- obviously Mitchell -- that Elizabeth Smart was said to have given to Sandy police officers yesterday afternoon? And, if so, if you know anything about that at all?

DINSE: No. I don't know about that. My understanding is she has used other names when she has come in contact with other people. Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: Can you clarify when that campsite was discovered? It was only today or was it discovered a couple of weeks ago?

DINSE: Well we had information that there may have been a campsite up in the back of the area before they were captured.

QUESTION: When did you have that information?

DINSE: Probably a couple of weeks ago, and we had...

QUESTION: Did you give out that information?

DINSE: To the family, yes.

QUESTION: Did they give it to you?

DINSE: It could have come from the family, but we certainly did get that information and we did look up in the area and located some areas that seemed to fit the description that we had. However, we now had a very direct location and we now have identified that location based on some specific information. Way in the back.

QUESTION: Yes, what's the protocol for interviewing Elizabeth now? I understand her interview yesterday was very productive and it gave you a lot of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) leads. Where do you go from now in trying to (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

DINSE: The question has to do with where we are going now with the questioning of Elizabeth Smart. We did have a productive day yesterday. She's a very bright, very smart young lady who answered our questions very articulately. She was very specific. She was very helpful in our decisions with her.

Whether we have to interview her again or not, that will be subject of what the information is that we develop. We certainly are going to have to prepare her for a prosecution and certainly she will be a big part of the of that. So we have to play that. We are considerate of the family, considerate of her. But we also and they also know that there's a prosecution to be had and we need to go forward. Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: You said that they were up there for about two months at the campsite. Can you tell whether it was pre-planned? How did they get supplies up there? DINSE: You know that's all part of what -- some of the questions we will answer, and we may have some of the those answers. I couldn't tell you at this point. I'm happy to let Chip take this.

BURRUS: Thank you.

QUESTION: I have a question for you. Did the FBI ever submit this case to profiling?

BURRUS: Absolutely.

QUESTION: And does Brian Mitchell fit that profile?

BURRUS: There's a number of profiles. As you know, profilers have opinions, just like each and every one of you have opinions. And the profile -- a lot of the different profiles, a lot of the different things that we were looking for that helped us out I can say contributed to this. But, you know, did he say he was going to be wearing robes with a weird hat and have a long beard? No, that's not specific to that.

QUESTION: No, did he say his motivation might be spiritual or religious rather than, say, ransom or sexual.

BURRUS: Well, Elizabeth's victim profile from the very start has been low key. So part of the profile has been to focus on someone coming in from the outside into her world. She had school, she had church, she had music, and she had home, generally. We didn't find she was aggressive on the Internet or hanging out at malls or anything like that.

And as a result, the profilers used all that information to try to determine. I don't remember religious motivation entering into it, but it's been a long time since I've reviewed those profiles.

QUESTION: Well what were some of the profiles? Can you tell us?

BURRUS: No.

QUESTION: Sir, is it possible for Mitchell now to get a fair trial?

BURRUS: That will be a question for the prosecutors and the judge, not me.

QUESTION: Where in relation to the city of San Diego was the San Diego area campsite?

BURRUS: My understanding is that it's towards the city of Lakeside? Does that make sense? I don't know the geography. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: Chief, there was also another Smart family home robbery. Is Mitchell the suspect in that other Smart family home robbery that happened after Elizabeth's disappearance? DINSE: Well, you're absolutely right. We are looking at him as a suspect in that case, and that is a case that's currently being investigated by Salt Lake County.

QUESTION: So he would have struck the Smarts possibly twice in the last year?

DINSE: That's possible, yes -- yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Ed Smart said today that he was kind of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) about the screen being cut from the outside. Do you agree that the screen was cut from the outside, that he climbed on the chair, that at one point police said was placed there as sort of a decoy? Do you now think that's exactly how he got in the house?

DINSE: We believe now based on the statements we have that he got in the house through that screen. And the review of that screen after the forensic people had done it, there was an appearance of a cut from the outside and cuts from the inside as though somebody had reached around inside and cut from the inside, too. So it could have been both ways on that situation.

QUESTION: Can I ask you, are you pretty confident on this timeline issue as far as you're pretty certain that she only went from here to San Diego then back? I know you're not done with the investigation, but there have been some reports of Florida and other states.

DINSE: No. We know of some of the reports in the southern states. And at least the ones that have come to our attention, we've checked those out. And none of those have proven to be accurate. However, we're open to any information that comes to us and we'll follow up. And if they did turn up at this point, we do not believe they were in any other state other than California, Nevada and Utah.

(CROSSTALK)

DINSE: Religious.

QUESTION: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or how were they traveling?

DINSE: You know they actually left here from Salt Lake to the San Diego area by bus. And he got the money from god. Yes? Was Elizabeth drugged? I don't have any indication of that as yet.

QUESTION: Are you investigating if there are other victims out there?

DINSE: Go ahead -- you. Sorry.

QUESTION: Do you have any indication of whether or not he was (UNINTELLIGIBLE) following what she was doing before the kidnapping and made some kind of reference to that?

DINSE: You know we do have some indication that he had familiarized himself with the exterior of the house other than just the time he'd been there -- yes?

QUESTION: I'm sorry about that. Are you investigating if there is a possibility of other victims out there?

DINSE: You know that's always a possibility at this point. Right now, we don't have an indication of other victims, but that is a possibility, yes. Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: Is it true that Mr. Mitchell has admitted to breaking into the Wright's (ph) home? That's the cousin of the Smart family. I can't comment on that at this point.

QUESTION: Chief, I don't need specifics, but I'm wondering if you can tell us from the interviews with Elizabeth, has she indicated that for the most part or always she was in fear, or has she indicated any compassion for these two suspects?

DINSE: Well, there's no question that at the time of the abduction she was in fear and was fearful for a period of time. The other part of the question is whether she had compassion for them. Again, she was psychologically affected by this abduction and by this imprisonment. And to say that she could walk around in a free area where she could have walked away is to say that she was affected by them psychologically. So you can draw your own conclusion there.

QUESTION: Did Mitchell utilize hypnosis?

DINSE: Did Mitchell utilize hypnosis? I do not know. I do not think so.

QUESTION: Chief, did he use weapons beyond the knife that he got her out of her room with? Did he have any other guns or anything at the time when you found him?

DINSE: To our knowledge only a knife.

QUESTION: Were there any drugs found in his possession when he was arrested? There is some talk that he had sort of -- some interest in LSD and heroin.

DINSE: Were there was any drugs, that that he had an interest in LSD and heroin? I don't have that information. To my knowledge, there was no drugs at the time we arrested him. Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Were Elizabeth's fingerprints found in the house in Salt Lake City in the last couple of weeks?

DINSE: The question is, was Elizabeth's found in a house in Salt Lake City within the last couple of weeks. And I think you're talking about a gentleman who said that Elizabeth, the three of them, in fact, had stayed in a house back in October, had lived with him for about a week. And we did do a fingerprint of that house, but we did it, I believe, it was Monday or Tuesday.

I may be off. This Monday or Tuesday. We had learned about that information prior to her arrest and we did the prints there. And to my knowledge, we have not identified prints to her at that time.

QUESTION: Chief, now that you ruled out those southern states, why was the interest there to begin with?

DINSE: The interest was because of leads that come to with us some substantial aspect to it that we can follow up on. And we follow up on all of the leads -- yes.

QUESTION: Chief, when did you determine that a knife was used rather than a gun? Did that come out before yesterday?

DINSE: That came up from Elizabeth.

QUESTION: Chief, is there any reason why he went to San Diego? Did he know you were looking for him? Was he on the run or was he just thinking, oh, finally I can walk wherever I want?

DINSE: We don't know at this point why they went there?

QUESTION: Why did he come back?

QUESTION: A follow-up to an earlier question about the stalking. Just how long before the kidnapping was Emmanuel, Brian Mitchell stalking her, and what was that about? Was he around the house lurking, did anybody see him in the neighborhood?

DINSE: We understand that he had spent some time looking at the house. I don't know how much time, but that he had spent some time viewing the house from the outside, from the exterior. I couldn't tell you how long.

QUESTION: Was he following Elizabeth to school perhaps, or was he keeping an eye on her specifically?

DINSE: No, we don't have any knowledge that he was following her at this point.

QUESTION: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Elizabeth that during those five hours he worked in the house? Or did he know...

DINSE: I can't answer that for sure. I don't believe he did.

QUESTION: Was Elizabeth the intended target that night, or (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? How do you know (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

DINSE: You know I believe that she was the intended target. But beyond that, I won't comment. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Is there any suggestion that he committed any crimes while he was on the run and perhaps used Elizabeth?

DINSE: Was there was any chance that he committed crimes while they were moving around and Elizabeth was with them? We are investigating that -- yes.

QUESTION: Is Mitchell a polygamist? DINSE: Is Mitchell a polygamist? I think he would like to be to be a self-proclaimed polygamist.

QUESTION: We've heard that her speech and language is now peppered with religious references that she didn't use in the past. Is there any truth to that?

DINSE: The question is about Elizabeth using religious comments that she never used before. I can't tell you that. To my knowledge, she hasn't done that. She may have to other people -- yes.

QUESTION: Can you elaborate on their travel? After they came down from the canyon here in Salt Lake, were they camping, were they staying in an apartment? What were their activities?

DINSE: There were various activities. Apparently they attended some functions. There's a picture that's going around that are fairly popular, showing the three of them. We believe that one of those is Elizabeth at a party. Those kinds of things right now we don't have all of the locations or all of the specific places. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: I'm wondering if you can comment on whether or not you know for sure that Brian Mitchell, Emmanuel, made a purchase at a Wal- Mart in Sandy of approximately $100 of camping supplies two to three weeks prior to his arrest yesterday? Do you know anything about that?

DINSE: No, I don't know that. I know that we have had several people call in, particularly merchants, who say they have video of that group or that individual. We are gathering those videotapes to look at them. I can tell you if it occurred in the Salt Lake area, or certainly in and around the Salt Lake area prior to March 12th, we don't believe that that would be them. However, we're still looking at that and we'll follow up on it.

QUESTION: Do you know why they came back to Salt Lake?

DINSE: Do I know why they came back to Salt Lake? No, I do not.

QUESTION: You mentioned he'd like to be a self-proclaimed polygamist. Amplify that. Does that mean that he thought Elizabeth was another wife?

DINSE: I think that's -- I think he -- I think that was part of his religious belief.

QUESTION: What do you know about him being arrested in San Diego for a time, or being in custody there?

DINSE: Yes. Maybe Chip can deal with that.

BURRUS: Yes. At this point, we've been able to match his fingerprints to an individual that was arrested down in San Diego. He gave a different name. And my understanding is he was arrested for some type of a burglary or theft of some type down there. But I don't have the exact charges.

But just not an hour ago I got word from San Diego that the prints do match. So we do -- he was arrested down in San Diego.

QUESTION: You had a name on him about February 10th, as the chief indicated. He wasn't picked up in San Diego until February 12th. Why wasn't a bulletin put out when you had an ID on someone who Mary Katherine had said she believed had been in that bedroom?

BURRUS: I think the chief went on to explain a lot about what we had on Emmanuel at that particular point. Again, to reiterate, he didn't have a violent background. He didn't have any type of sexual abuse background. And I think the chief's adequately covered that. We eventually did on March 3rd put out an (UNINTELLIGIBLE) after we began to gather more and more information about him.

(CROSSTALK)

BURRUS: Yes, sir -- I don't know. I don't think he did..

QUESTION: At the same time his ex-wife came to police, came to the Smart family and told them that he did have a record, that he did have sexual abuse. He went to the Smart family. The Smart family came to you, then she went and came to the police all at the same time. So to say he did not have a sexual history or know someone that complained about it would be false.

BURRUS: If you listened to what I said, I said he had no arrest record, no criminal background in that, no violent crime. He had worked at the Smart house approximately four hours in March of 2001. There were a lot of people that had worked at the Smart house.

He was clearly one of the people we were tracking. But at that point, because of his background, we didn't have an interest in putting out an all-points bulletin. Once we got additional information, that clearly became part of the deal. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) you believe she may have been coerced (ph)?

BURRUS: We don't know.

QUESTION: Chief Dinse said that there is no confirmation that Elizabeth had any contact with Mr. Mitchell the day in November of 2001, the day he did work. What was his interest for seven months in that home? Did he have some contact with Mary Katherine, and is there any indication Elizabeth had any contact with him during that seven- month period between the time he worked on the home and the kidnapping?

DINSE: There obviously was some contact with Mary Katherine on the day that he spent there. But after that day there was no indication by the family or anybody else that he was at that house. OK. I'll go three more questions.

QUESTION: Sir, what happened to Elizabeth's original clothing, the pajamas? Were they found?

DINSE: That's part of some of the evidence that we're looking for.

QUESTION: Chief, the suspect (UNINTELLIGIBLE) screening that happened at the jail. Have they asked for attorneys? Are they being housed away from the population, and what is the screening?

DINSE: I can't say what the housing -- when I say screening, I'm talking about filing of charges. And so that's what I mean.

QUESTION: And have they asked for an attorney and had counsel from the defender's office?

DINSE: You know I can't comment on that. They haven't asked me for an attorney, so I don't know -- yes.

QUESTION: Did I hear you right? Did you say that this man believed that Elizabeth was his wife?

DINSE: No, I didn't say that.

(UNINTELLIGIBLE)

DINSE: Yes?

QUESTION: How did Elizabeth factor into that?

DINSE: That's part of what we're investigating right now. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: Chief, in the near term, the long term -- and maybe, Chip, you can answer this as well -- how much more can you expect to get from Elizabeth? What is next? How many hours can somebody go through before she's spent and can't tell you anymore?

DINSE: Well, you know we're going to be very conscious and mindful of the fact that she's been under a tremendous stress at this point, that she's home with her family. We do not want to add stress, but we recognize that there will be stress attached. We will deal with that very evenly, and we will deal with it with the family, and we'll try to be as unimpacting as possible.

QUESTION: Will you talk with her tomorrow?

DINSE: No, I don't -- at this point, I can't tell you when we will talk to her again or even if we will talk to her again. One more.

QUESTION: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) a pretty wide misunderstanding is something you said. It was asked about whether or not he thought it was his wife -- Elizabeth was...

DINSE: Another wife.

QUESTION: Another wife. And your answer was, I think that was his religious belief.

DINSE: I didn't hear -- maybe I misinterpreted the question. I think the way I interpreted was, was he a polygamist. I think his religious belief was in polygamy. That's all I said.

QUESTION: The second question was, it sounded like -- did he think of Elizabeth as another wife? Your answer was, "I think that was part of his religious belief."

DINSE: OK. I apologize for that, then. I got it wrong. His religious belief, he did believe in polygamy. I do not want to attach his relationship with Elizabeth in that fashion at this time.

(UNINTELLIGIBLE)

DINSE: We have a manifesto of his, and we have reviewed that manifesto. And we're obtaining a copy of it.

That's it. Thank you very much.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com