Is this the reason for the renewed investigation?

Maybe I'm behind but could this be the reason for the renewed investigation?

Tracy Marie Neef, 7, was found dead near Barker Reservoir in Nederland in March 1984.

Scott Kimball eyed in 1984 murder of Tracy Neef, 7, found in Nederland
By John Aguilar Camera Staff Writer
Posted: 10/15/2010 05:57:44 PM MDT
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_16350451

New book ties Scott Kimball to brutal '04 slaying
Convicted serial killer allegedly admitted strangling, using acid on woman
By John Aguilar Camera Staff Writer
Posted: 09/29/2010 10:41:13 PM MDT


Read more: New book ties Scott Kimball to brutal '04 slaying - Boulder Daily Camera http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_16211918#ixzz12XGzxMKg
DailyCamera.com

That little girl does resemble JonBenet

 

It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I'm still hoping that the Boulder police are still building their case for what they know happened that night. This may be a preemptive strike to eliminate this guy.

 

Me too Little, I agree with you.

 

Interesting thought, Little.

But surely they've run his DNA against the magic Ramsey case DNA?

 

On the Redd Herring site I found one thing, that happened during the Grand Jury activities:

*********
Day 32
Thursday February 18, 1999

• Instead of hearing the the JonBenét Ramsey case, grand jurors met with lawyers from the Colorado Attorney General's Office to hear another case. It is not known what case was heard.

**********
source: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer2/primer8_gjtl.html

Could this have been the Neef-case?

 

Good find Nickii.

bold mine

You are right about the DNA KK. That is what will probably keep this case forever legally cold. It's a loophole on military-grade steroids. IMO Alex Hunter knew better but knuckled under to outside pressure and blocked the Boulder Police from presenting a solid case. Mary Lacy tied it up with a bow by single-handedly declaring the Ramsey's innocent.

If this had happened anywhere except Boulder........

I was just speculating why those two stories hit the news around the same time.

 

Nicki, I spent a lot of time at the Red Herring Site way back. To me it was one of the best web sites on the net relating to the JonBenét Ramsey case. Seems so long ago.

 

This is how many cases are solved, Little, with people who spot this-n-that which can lead to more investigations in other cases. I can see where you're coming from. Keep going girl!

Who knows, investigating this case may well be a buffer for investigating the JonBenét Ramsey case again and not just singling it out and drawing the rats out of the woodwork (?).

 

Anyone else having trouble getting into FFJ? I managed to get in through Google just now. I couldn't get in through my desktop icon(?).

 

Sorry for asking a (maybe stupid) question because we have a much different legal system here in Austria. Here Grand Jurys do not exist.

Is it normal/allowed in America to present a different case during Grand Jury Hearings or do this case have to have anything to do with the case for which the Grand Jury Hearing is originally designated? Anybody understand me?

@elle
I do not have problems to access FFJ.

 

Grand juries hear lots of cases during their time on the grand jury. They hear evidence and conclude their hearing of each case with the following:

1. vote for a true bill of indictment against one or more parties

2. vote against an indictment of one or more parties

3. don't vote at all--the D.A. can lead the grand jury on this conclusion, and according to Dr. Lee's statements in his book, that he advised Hunter NOT to indict [anyone] after the grand jury was finished, I think this was Hunter's instruction to the jury, but just my opinion

4. write a "report/summary"--this can also be influenced by the D.A.

While grand jury proceedings here are supposed to be "secret" on some level, that level varies from state to state. Colorado is supposed to have strict grand jury secrecy laws, but a grand juror not only talked on camera to Schiller in his 2006 documentary about some of the things that went on in the grand jury in this case, but she appeared and was named. Lacy/Hunter did nothing. (Lacy was the D.A. by then.)

Lou Smit essentially blackmailed Hunter into letting Smit appear before the grand jury. Smit presented the PowerPoint that so mesmerizes those who have no extensive knowledge of this case. Hunter had first refused to allow Smit to testify, and Smit had resigned from Hunter's Office by then, as well. But Smit had some dirt on Hunter and when Hunter filed a complaint in a Colorado court to retrieve the PowerPoint Smit had created with copies of case evidence and crime scene photos while working under contract for Hunter--work product belonging to the people of Colorado under the oath of attorney/client privilege, Smit came back with a clear threat in no uncertain terms he'd reveal Hunter's tabloid leaks and other unsavory dealings in this case Smit had witnessed. Hunter promptly gave Smit all rights to the PowerPoint and permission to appear before the grand jury, signed in a legal document wherein Smit agreed not to disclose the DA's little secrets. (All this is documented in court papers and a few news articles published when this became public, long after the grand jury. You can find those documents and reports in the JBR Case Library here--look at the top of the JBR Public Forum thread page.) Few news org's. ever reported on this, BTW.

And that, as they say, told the tale. Hunter had resisted calling a grand jury for two years--a huge mistake, as anyone in LE who wants a difficult case solved knows. When Thomas resigned with that very public letter, critical of Hunter's obstruction of the investigation, pressure was put on the governor and he organized a group of Colorado lawyers and DAs (Hunter's professional peers and bar members) to review Hunter's handling of the case. The upshot was Hunter either called a grand jury or had the case taken away from him.

The grand jury, often called as an investigative tool to compel witnesses to testify under oath who refuse to otherwise talk to LE, as well as to request evidence, etc., they required in their deliberations, ended in complete failure to further the case. The Ramseys, who by their own account had been terrified of being indicted, celebrated. (Guess it never occurred to them that old intruder also didn't get indicted.)

Team Ramsey likes to imply they know the grand jury voted NOT to indict the Ramseys, but no official report of that has ever been available, for obvious reasons. Just Team Ramsey innuendo, which has...sigh...been repeated by the press now as fact. From what Dr. Lee wrote in his book, he was a close advisor to Hunter during the grand jury and why would he tell Hunter NOT to indict if the grand jury voted NOT to indict?

Of course, the fact is the DA can indict without a grand jury, or in spite of a grand jury's findings. A DA can also REFUSE to indict when a grand jury votes to indict.

So again, as ever and always and for eternity, probably, in this case, nothing is clear, nothing is true--just more speculation.

What we do know is the end of the grand jury was the end of any serious investigation into this case without prejudice by any LE investigative agency. Hunter retired, the Ramseys published a book and went on their propaganda tour solidly aimed at making the world believe they were innocent, Lacy was elected in the infinite wisdom of The Republic of Boulder voters, and we all know how foolishly that ended.

Result: cold case with no possibility of prosecution without a confession accompanied by proof through evidence not previously revealed to the public. What are the odds of that?

 

Thanks for this recap relating to Detective Lou Smit, KK, and for the Grand Jury information. All very interesting! Do you know if his Powerpoint is now in the hands of the Boulder Police ?

 

Thank you very much for your explanation, koldkase. This is all so unbelievable sad, that there is no justice for a 6 year old girl

Is there a chance that these Grand Jury records will ever be shown to the public?

 

No. Never.

But it's a 50/50 bet the Ramseys have them.

 

mBm

Is this fact or just likelihood? IOW, can a judge release the records if he should choose? (Not that one would.)

 

Hey, mBm. Welcome aboard. Didn't realize you were even here.

I have no information that the Ramseys have seen the Grand Jury transcripts, other than John and Patsy telling the National Enquirer reporters they didn't know Burke was awake that morning until he testified for the grand jury.

I mean, howzat? Burke's lawyer, like all witness lawyers, shouldn't have been allowed inside the grand jury hearing during questioning. Even if he were allowed in the room, he shouldn't have been allowed to say anything at all, not to Burke or anyone. He would also have been sworn to secrecy, so how did Patsy and John suddenly "find out" that Burke was awake?

The grand jury LAW in Colorado is that the proceedings are sealed. While the law also required that anyone testifying before the grand jury in 1999 be given a copy of all previous statements related to the crime being investigated by the grand jury, like Burke getting a copy of the 911 tape (not the enhanced tape, however) because LE believes he's on it talking, as far as I know it didn't require they also get a copy AFTER the grand jury hearings. I've never heard of that, at any rate.

Colorado also changed that "previous statements" law after this grand jury, as well, in the Colorado legislature. I read that was a direct result of this grand jury hearing; Hunter's excuse for not calling the Ramseys was said to be because the Ramseys would have to have been given copies of their previous interviews and statements, including any statements OTHER WITNESSES had attributed to them. Like White, for example, might have said John said this or Patsy said that. That would have not only given the Ramseys more opportunity to prepare for future interrogations or even a trial, but it would have compromised those who testified under oath, being forced to tell the truth but then being subjected to possible personal stress because of repercussions from any unfavorable statements about others. That's why there is a witness protection program, after all.

Then there is the fact that Hunter was giving copies of evidence reports to the Ramseys as soon as he got them; the Ramseys also bargained for and got copies of their '98 interview tapes, if memory serves. They demanded and got the opportunity for their own handwriting analysts to see the original ransom note, before chemical testing of the ink and paper destroyed it.

So that's why I said there's a 50/50 chance they got copies of grand jury testimony. Team Ramsey certainly has claimed numerous times since then the grand jury voted not to indict the Ramseys, which got picked up so often by the press it's usually repeated now in most articles mentioning it. Problem: how do they know that?

Then again, maybe they don't. Maybe they're just making it up. Super Dave at WS reminded me today that Michael Tracey wrote in his lengthy last article (aborted book) on this case that Hunter did not ask the grand jury to vote at all.

Dr. Lee certainly implied in his book that Hunter was considering indicting someone, because Dr. Lee stated he advised Hunter not to do so at that time.

Now we have Dan Caplis stating on his radio show last week that he (a Colorado lawyer from the cozy circle of lawyers in the Denver/Boulder area) heard from a good source that the grand jury voted to indict at least one person.

So do I know something? No. Am I being a cynic when I say there's a 50/50 chance the Ramseys got transcripts from the grand jury hearing? Oh, yeah, big time.

Is it possible for a judge or judges to overturn or ignore the grand jury secrecy law and to release the transcripts to anyone? Anything's possible in this case, but I doubt that would happen. Could it be leaked? Remember that grand juror who appeared, on camera, named, in Schiller's documentary aired the night Patsy was buried, talking about what happened in the grand jury proceedings? That's not supposed to happen, either.

Anything could happen in this case.