http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100020825&docId=l:851671570&start=4

MYSTERY OF TARA CALICO;
What Happened To Woman Missing 20 Years? Sheriff Says He Knows
Leslie Linthicum

A girl rides a bike on a lonely stretch of road. Then, poof,

she's gone.

The mystery of Tara Calico's disappearance began to unfurl a little after noon on Sept. 20, 1988, when Tara's mother drove south on N.M. 47 from Rio Communities, expecting to find her daughter with a flat tire. Instead, all she found in the dirt on the side of the road was a tire track from the bike Tara was riding.

Tara never came home, and so began a family's chain of sorrow. And a puzzle that fed the television crime shows. And a police case that has now stretched out to fill two banker's boxes and 20 years.

Gone without a trace.

At least that has been the storyline.

But to Valencia County Sheriff Rene Rivera, the case isn't much of a whodunit.

He says he knows what happened, and has for years.

Twenty years into the Tara Calico mystery, Rivera would like to let everyone in on what happened to 19-year-old Tara out on N.M. 47 on that September day:

"The individuals who did the harm to Tara, knew who she was," Rivera told me. "They knew who she was, and they're all local individuals. And I believe that the parents (of the attackers) were some of the people that helped the individuals with hiding the truth or hiding the body or trying to escape prosecution."

Tara was 19 and starting her second year in college. Her attackers were boys she had gone to high school with, although they were behind her in school and younger, Rivera says.

"She was a real pretty girl. She was very athletic and a lot of guys wanted to talk to her, they wanted to meet her, they wanted to go out with her. And while she was riding the bike, they went up to try to talk to her, try to grab her, whatever, while she was on the bike."

The truck they were driving accidentally hit Tara, Rivera says, and bad turned worse.

Rivera has been working on the case since he started as a deputy in 1989, since he was promoted to detective in 1996 and since he was elected sheriff in 2006. For all of those years, the walls of Valencia County have been talking, naming names of the boys who were in the truck, names of the boys who helped bury Tara's body after they killed her, names of the parents and other relatives who helped clean up and cover up the mess.

Rivera says he has had enough information to get arrest warrants for the two boys - now men - whom he has identified as the killers. Two others have been identified as accomplices.

Then why, 20 years later, are we marking another milestone anniversary of a missing person's case?

Because Tara Calico is still missing.

"It's kind of hard to make a case," Rivera says, "without a body."

Rivera and Detective James Purdy are still talking to people about Tara Calico, and they're hoping that time will wear away some of the resistance to answering that one lingering question: What did they do with her?

"You know it's very frustrating, being that there's a lot of people that know what happened," Rivera said. "They know the whereabouts of the body or the remains.

"A lot of the information that we are getting is because people are starting to open up a little more. When this first happened, people were scared. People were threatened not to speak out because what happened to Tara could happen to them."

One of the most riveting aspects of the Calico case was a Polaroid photo found outside a convenience store in Florida a little less than a year after Calico went missing. It showed a bound young woman who looked strikingly similar to Tara, in the back of a van, staring at the camera. A boy, also bound, was lying next to her.

Tara's parents had the photo analyzed by Scotland Yard and said it was determined to be Tara. An investigator for the Valencia County District Attorney had a Los Alamos National Laboratory analysis that determined it wasn't.

Maybe the photo was of Tara, Rivera says. But all of his informants tell him Tara never left home.

"I believe the body's nearby," he says. And he believes her bike will be with it.

Tara's father died in 2002. Her mother died in 2006. Living family members, kids when Tara was a kid, are grown. Tara would be 39 later this month.

"I want to be able to give them closure, to be able to say, you know, I got the individuals who did whatever they did to her. I was able to recover the remains and give them to them to give her a proper burial."

Tara Calico's disappearance is one of New Mexico's oldest, most lingering cold cases.

"Actually, it's a mystery that's getting hotter every day," Rivera told me. "Some people have this information, and they've had it for so long that they've gotten sick by hiding the information they have, and now they're coming forward to try to relieve themselves.

"Some of these people that were witnesses to the crime have been scared to come forward. They think that, being that they were there, that they're going to get prosecuted for the death. At this point, what I want to let people to know is that, if there were witnesses there, I'm willing to work with them. I need to have their information. I need to be able to recover this body."

You can reach Leslie at 823-3914 or llinthicum@abqjournal.com Read all of her columns at www.abqjournal. com/upfront. Online

Listen to Leslie interview with Sheriff Rene Rivera at ABQjournal. com. To contact the sheriff with information, call 505-866-2400.

Sounds like he has nothing & is just trying to shake the pot up to get people to come forward. If he has enough to arrest two people then why hasn't he?

If he knows who is involved in such detail, then he would know where the body is surely? Not sure how you knock somebody off their bike by accident, at an impact that means you kill them, or injure them bad enough that you then have to murder them.

These alleged individuals were after her because she was attractive and desirable? Does anyone else find that totally ridiculous? If the "boys---now men" being implicated did in fact murder Tara, then how is the Polaroid to be explained, particularly the boy? (Assuming that is Tara, and I think we have a general consensus here that it is.) I don't know if I completely buy all that myself.

Sounds like he has nothing & is just trying to shake the pot up to get people to come forward.

:yeahthat

You hit the nail right on the head with that one.

I hate saying this EVERY time I post.... but.... here I go again: (;))

From the perspective of a criminal defense attorney, I can understand WHY the sheriff hasn't made an arrest yet. In order to arrest someone, you need have probable cause, which is very VERY different from the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that is required for a criminal conviction.

The sheriff COULD make an arrest if he wanted to. However, then the prosecutors would have the burden of proving a murder/conspiracy case without a body... very few criminal prosecutions have been successful when there has been no body. I can only think of Thomas Capano, who was convicted of murdering his one-time lover Anne Marie Fahey. I'm sure there are other convictions that have been made without bodies, but they are incredibly hard to obtain because juries WANT to see that evidence.

As we all know, there is no statute of limitations on murder. My guess is that the sheriff/prosecutors are sitting on their suspects because they're waiting to get the smoking gun. However, after all this time, the question becomes whether or not they will ever get that piece of evidence.

Vincent Doan was convicted without a body.

I hate saying this EVERY time I post.... but.... here I go again: (;))

From the perspective of a criminal defense attorney, I can understand WHY the sheriff hasn't made an arrest yet. In order to arrest someone, you need have probable cause, which is very VERY different from the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that is required for a criminal conviction.

The sheriff COULD make an arrest if he wanted to. However, then the prosecutors would have the burden of proving a murder/conspiracy case without a body... very few criminal prosecutions have been successful when there has been no body. I can only think of Thomas Capano, who was convicted of murdering his one-time lover Anne Marie Fahey. I'm sure there are other convictions that have been made without bodies, but they are incredibly hard to obtain because juries WANT to see that evidence.

As we all know, there is no statute of limitations on murder. My guess is that the sheriff/prosecutors are sitting on their suspects because they're waiting to get the smoking gun. However, after all this time, the question becomes whether or not they will ever get that piece of evidence.

I agree. It doesn't make any sense to arrest them if the prosecuter doesn't feel he can get a verdict.

Since your a defense attorney, I have a question. If the sheriff did arrest them and they did go to trial, but the case was thrown out for lack of evidence, what happens if they then find the body two years into the future and find damaging evidence against the guys they tried and lost years earlier. Can they put them on trial again for the same crime?




Vman

Possibly they have information similar to Jeremy Bright's disappearance---plenty of off the record information about specific individuals being involved, but no remains, a paucity of physical evidence and none of the informants is willing to testify. I'm curious if any local individuals were ever linked to the vehicle that was seen following her on her route; she adhered to a pretty regular schedule, so it wouldn't have been difficult for someone to stalk her.

As far as the photo, I've always on the fence as far as it being a cruel prank or not.

Couldn't they offer a person with information immunity for testifying, if the person wasn't too terrified by threats?

Even if some people have talked, I cannot see how anybody could be arrested just on hearsay. There would have to be some solid evidence in the custody of the police, such as a handwritten diary entry from one of those responsible placing themselves & others at the scene, or something she had with her that day that one of them kept as a trophy, or something with her DNA on in their posession.

It just sounds like a fishing expedition, he is probably trying to rattle some cages in the hope one of those he suspects panics at the thought of the net closing & turns the others in for a deal, or one of them does something stupid like disposing of evidence or even going to the site to dig up the body.

My thoughts have always veered more towards a lone sexual predator older than she was, physically stronger, who knew her routine & pounced at the most opportune time.

I am not sure if the girl in the photo is her & she was kept alive for a year or so in some sick game, or if the photo was either a prank, or a serial killer operating in Florida, or even a transient serial killer moving around murdering all over America who was never captured, or was captured & sent to jail for another crime.


I hate saying this EVERY time I post.... but.... here I go again: (;))

From the perspective of a criminal defense attorney, I can understand WHY the sheriff hasn't made an arrest yet. In order to arrest someone, you need have probable cause, which is very VERY different from the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that is required for a criminal conviction.

The sheriff COULD make an arrest if he wanted to. However, then the prosecutors would have the burden of proving a murder/conspiracy case without a body... very few criminal prosecutions have been successful when there has been no body. I can only think of Thomas Capano, who was convicted of murdering his one-time lover Anne Marie Fahey. I'm sure there are other convictions that have been made without bodies, but they are incredibly hard to obtain because juries WANT to see that evidence.

As we all know, there is no statute of limitations on murder. My guess is that the sheriff/prosecutors are sitting on their suspects because they're waiting to get the smoking gun. However, after all this time, the question becomes whether or not they will ever get that piece of evidence.

So maybe he is blowing smoke, but the way I look at it, who cares?

At least the case is getting some press and coverage and hasn't been forgotten.

And you never know if someone who has actual information may see this and come forward. It could happen. And if it's solved, then where's the harm?

I think he's trying to light a fire under someone's butt to push them enough to come forward with info. Hopefully it will work.

I live in this dust bowl (New Mexico). If I ever here anything on the news, I'll post about it on here.

Since your a defense attorney, I have a question. If the sheriff did arrest them and they did go to trial, but the case was thrown out for lack of evidence, what happens if they then find the body two years into the future and find damaging evidence against the guys they tried and lost years earlier. Can they put them on trial again for the same crime?


Vman

You cannot be tried twice for the same crime. You have a constitutional protection against what is known as double jeopardy.

Good movie, too... you gotta love that Ashley Judd. :)

so glad theres new life to this case! thanks for the updated!

Our courts did away with the rule a few years back, so if new evidence comes to light you can be tried again.

Our courts did away with the rule a few years back, so if new evidence comes to light you can be tried again.

You absolutely cannot be tried for the same crime more than once in the United States.

Our courts did away with the rule a few years back, so if new evidence comes to light you can be tried again.

Wow I didn't realize you could be tried for the same crime twice in England now.

Yes it is fairly recent legislation. Let's hope America & the rest of Europe will do the same one day.


Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the MacPherson Report suggested that double jeopardy should be abrogated where "fresh and viable" new evidence came to light, and the Law Commission recommended in 2001 that it should be possible to subject an acquitted murder suspect to a second trial. The Parliament of the United Kingdom implemented these recommendations by passing the Criminal Justice Act 2003[9], introduced by then Home Secretary David Blunkett. Under the 2003 Act, retrials are now allowed if there is "new" and "compelling" evidence for crimes, including murder, but also manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes. All cases must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court Of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal.[10]

The double jeopardy provisions of the 2003 Act came into force in April 2005.[11] On 11 September 2006, William Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder after previously being acquitted. Twice he was tried for the murder of Julie Hogg in Billingham in 1989, but two juries failed to reach a verdict and he was formally acquitted in 1991. Some years later, he confessed to the crime, and was convicted of perjury. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into effect, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal in November 2005 for permission for a new trial.[12][13][14]

You absolutely cannot be tried for the same crime more than once in the United States.

Not to be a stickler, but you actually can be tried more than once in the US.

You can be tried for one crime via local/state courts and tried again for the exact same crime by the federal govt courts.

The FBI and D.C police department have used this trick several times to convict drug dealers and gang members.

They try them once in city courts and if they can't convict them, they build a new case and convict them in the federal court.

The trick is you have to show that the case is a violation of federal law.

Ii don;t know that you could show that Tara Calicos murder is a violation of federal law and i don;t know if you could find a federal prosecutor willing to take the case.

Tara Calico is not a federal employee, her murder is not terrorist related, not organized crime related or a murder for hire.

Yes, Mastermind, cases CAN go federal. But it's REALLY rare, and as you said, Tara Calico doesn't really have any ties that would make her case a federal case... unless her body happend to be found in another state or something... then you could add the charge of kidnapping across state lines, which would bring the Federal Courts into play. :)

In my limited experience, the cases that usually go Federal are those that involve drugs: Smuggling, trafficking, etc.

Vincent Doan was convicted without a body.

You still need "corpus delicti", or that a crime was actually commited, in this case murder.

In Calico's case there is no evidence that she has been murdered, only that she is an endangered missing and presumed kidnapped.

Yes it is fairly recent legislation. Let's hope America & the rest of Europe will do the same one day.
No, thank you. At least not here in the US. Also, it could not be done in the United States without a constitutional amendment since it is a constitutional protection, not a law. Simple legislation would not suffice. There were very good reasons for our founding fathers instituting double jeopardy protections, and those reasons still remain today.

There has been one example of someone in the US who was tried in the same forum (not once in federal and once in state) after having been acquitted. Harry Aleman was first tried in front of a judge and acquitted. Years later, it was learned that he had bribed the judge in the case to acquit him. The courts ruled that it didn't violate double jeopardy to try him again because, since he had bribed the judge, he was never really in jeopardy in the first trial. He was convicted in the second trial.

Back on topic, I'm not sure what to make of the sheriff's proclamations in that article about knowing who did it. I suspect that there have been a lot of rumors but that he's never had anyone who has a firsthand account provide information. So, he thinks he knows what happened, but he has no hard evidence. He obviously believes a number of people were involved, with varying levels of culpability. I think he is hoping that one or more of those people will, fearing that the sheriff is close to arresting them, come forward and spill the beans.

I've never come to a firm conclusion as to whether that is Tara in the picture.

As far as the photo, I've always on the fence as far as it being a cruel prank or not.

That photo was one of the top UM memories from when I first saw the segment back in middle school.

The girl doesn't look much like Tara Calico to me, however, although the only pictures of her I've seen are more formal (high school yearbook or the like)

Moreover, whilst certainly not determanative, there would seem to be little motive in leaving the photo thousands of miles from the abduction site, especially pre-internet - if your objective is to either mentally torture the parents or provide proof of life, why leave it so far away from anyone who is likely to recognize the abductees.

Like many UM mysteries... lack of knowledge and selective presentation can make many a non-mystery mysterious.

That photo was one of the top UM memories from when I first saw the segment back in middle school.

The girl doesn't look much like Tara Calico to me, however, although the only pictures of her I've seen are more formal (high school yearbook or the like)

Moreover, whilst certainly not determanative, there would seem to be little motive in leaving the photo thousands of miles from the abduction site, especially pre-internet - if your objective is to either mentally torture the parents or provide proof of life, why leave it so far away from anyone who is likely to recognize the abductees.

Like many UM mysteries... lack of knowledge and selective presentation can make many a non-mystery mysterious.

I do believe the photo is her but I never thought that it was left intentionally. I believe it may have fallen out of the van without the driver (probably a guilty party) knowing.

In response to the guy that said he hopes all of Europe and the United States adopts a law that would allow a person to be tried twice for a crime, I will give ahearty "NO THANK YOU". The less we try to be anything like Europe, the better off the United States will be. The double jeopardy protection was put in the Constitution for a reason and if we did away with it, the courts would be even more full of trials and hearings run amok (think frivilous law suits in the criminal nature... a prosecutor could repeatedly bring the same charge against somebody and until they finally get a conviction. This would cost tax payers millions.). Even with its few flaws (mostly lenient punishment being a big one), we have the best criminal justice system in the world.

In many regards you do have the best criminal justice system in the world, I for one am very envious of the sentences the most heinous criminals are given there- life usually means they die in jail, while over here life usually means with good behaviour that they get out in 10-12 years.

Of course it would have to have safeguards so that such nonsense suits could not be allowed, but say where there was insufficient evidence to get the conviction at the time, but a couple of years later something came to light- like a confession on tape or written, perhaps even sold to make money off their crime, items found belonging to the victim in the hands of the individual, or perhaps an advance in DNA not available at the time that catches them out, that is the kind of case I am talking about.

We have pretty much gone the same way as America & become very much a litigous place, with greedy lawyers & ambulance chasers looking to line their pockets, however since the rule came into being here it has not been abused-it is only used for that hardcore of cases where there is new evidence to put the person back on trial & where there is a danger to society that this person is walking around free.


I do believe the photo is her but I never thought that it was left intentionally. I believe it may have fallen out of the van without the driver (probably a guilty party) knowing.

In response to the guy that said he hopes all of Europe and the United States adopts a law that would allow a person to be tried twice for a crime, I will give ahearty "NO THANK YOU". The less we try to be anything like Europe, the better off the United States will be. The double jeopardy protection was put in the Constitution for a reason and if we did away with it, the courts would be even more full of trials and hearings run amok (think frivilous law suits in the criminal nature... a prosecutor could repeatedly bring the same charge against somebody and until they finally get a conviction. This would cost tax payers millions.). Even with its few flaws (mostly lenient punishment being a big one), we have the best criminal justice system in the world.

Ohh, James T... we're not ALL ambulance-chasers. :)

Hmm, I agree, things are just fine the way they are here in terms of double jeopardy here. Trust me, the rare time that it would be justified to re-try someone that 'got away' with murder it just would not be worth it to change the rule. Prosecutors are bad enough as it is, I cannot imagine if they were able to re-try people continuously until they got the verdict they want. They usually get the verdict they want anyway, evidence or not, so the laws can stay the way they are. I just do not trust prosecutors with unlimited power like that. Trust me, EVERY time a person would get acquitted, prosecutors would just keep re-trying the person until they got a conviction if they could re-try the case.