I read on this site and heard elsewhere that when a white van was given as a possible vehicle; the police searched everywhere to see who owned a van liked that and found nothing.

What is more interest to me is that on a number of occasions people were stalked in that vicinity:
a woman jogger was followed by a small not well-maintained vehicle (vicinity of Key Apts.)
a male jogger was followed by a black pick-up truck with tinted windows (several blocks from Key Apts.)
Jodi was followed by a black pick-up truck with tinted windows ( don't know where she was running though)

Did the police every search databases to see within a certain radius who owned such a vehicle? I'm sure black pick-up trucks are common, but ones with tinted windows are not. Remember we're talking a small population in northern Iowa.
Besides, even if a database search would show up several hundred, it could be narrowed down to 1)location/description given by woman jogger of a man outside her apartment 2)Jodi's friends 3) does the owner also own a small "not well-maintained vehicle" similar to a rabbit.

I would be very curious to see such a list.

Regarding my last post: I'm willing to bet quite a bit of money that the small not well maintained vehicle the woman jogger had following her is the SAME as the small car the woman jogger saw the morning Jodi disappeared. I'm referring to the "stand-off" between a vehicle and a jogger at approx. 4:35 AM that morning.

If that car can be traced back to the same owner ( or an acquaintence) of the black pick-up truck with tinted windows, I think we have our abductor.
That Amy Kuns talked about presents and calls...sounds like a stalker to me and not a "stranger" stalker. Someone Jodi had had contact with and knew his name.

[b]Gary wrote:[/b]
...and I too feel re-interviewing some of these people is a good idea. As time passes, people forget names, events...and maybe even start believing a lot of things that are false just because they've been repeated so many times.

I think Jodi's case is like that. It's hard to protect the authenticity of facts and events that took place because a) there's very little to work with and b) SO MUCH speculation is out there that people are believing events that maybe never transpired. I guess that's the problem with a lot of cold cases.

I think the more historical information we have on paper and on video, the better. I was just watching out-takes of an interview with Lt. Ron Vandeweerd yesterday (and several others) and it's amazing how much information there was discussed (albeit not much from him as he keeps a tight lid on case information) and a lot that was left out of The Huisentruit File.

That is why I'm hoping this site will provide facts and protect them (in the archive, and in parts of the forum)...so we don't sway past what is true...and we preserve what we in fact DO know in the case. Thanks to all for keeping the dialogue ongoing.

The quote is from Gary's post (3rd in this thread).

With no respect to the police interviewer but was she really the right person to be doing these interviews?
If you are that close to the victim and her group can you really maintain your focus?
I hope other officers questioned these people too.

Questions:

Has a cold case squad ever reviewed this case?

Is it up to the MCPD to 'invite' a cold case squad?

Is it possible to excert any pressure to get a cold case squad involved?