W
So what is the verdict? In or out?
So what is the verdict? In or out?
I'm not sure he did mention them all right away. He talked about seeing a small dark car with headlights close together (with a child or woman in the passenger seat) the next day at the school evidently - but not to the 911 operator or officers that night. I don't think he brought up the other car racing like mad up his driveway in the afternoon until Kevin came forward in 2003-04 and said those tracks in the driveway had been his. And even then, he may have only told LE at that time, and not announced it publicly. Because for years he was saying he "saw things" that day, but wouldn't say what they were because it might tip off the abductor. In an article in the newsleader (I believe it was) he did say something about the things he saw being "cars and people he witnessed."
This is an interesting way to break down a series of suspects. Have you done the workup on all named suspects?PROSPECT THEORY
V(x,p) = v(x)w(p)
Prospect theorys central formula lays out how we go with our gut when determining the value (V) of a possible outcome (x) with a given probability (p).
Using Prospect theory and the probability of ZERO that Hart abducted Jacob (because he was a Sandusky-type pedophile, not a sadist, who bribed kids and never abducted them), the outcome of Hart being arrested for being Jacobs abductor is ZERO.
This is an interesting way to break down a series of suspects. Have you done the workup on all named suspects?
Since some have been unequivocally ruled out, it might help to see if the formula accurately predicted their non-involvement.
I would help do some if you were interested in analyzing those named in the "Case Facts" thread.
Welcome to Websleuths, Diaktoros. Do you have a link for the quote?Very good discussion points...did DAH only bribe or manipulate his victims? Was he a sadist, or not? Do we know for sure if Jacob's perpetrator was a sadist?
Hart challenges the merits of his commitment as a sexual psychopathic personality. The state must prove the need for commitment with clear and convincing evidence. Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subd. 1 (1994). Factual findings will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. In re Kunshier, 521 N.W.2d 880, 884 (Minn. App. 1994). Whether the record supports the district court's conclusion that a person requires commitment is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. In re Linehan, 518 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Minn. 1994).
The sexual psychopathic personality commitment statute, as interpreted by the supreme court, requires
(a) a "habitual course of misconduct in sexual matters" and (b) "an utter lack of power to control * * * sexual impulses" so that (c) it is likely the person will "attack or otherwise inflict injury, loss, pain or other evil on the objects of their uncontrolled and uncontrollable desire."
Id. 613 (quoting Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court of Ramsey County, 309 U.S. 270, 274, 60 S. Ct. 523, 526, 84 L. Ed. 744 (1940)). We conclude that sufficient evidence supported all three elements.
First, a habitual course of sexual misconduct is evident in Hart's convictions for six counts of criminal sexual conduct and the numerous other incidents of sexual misconduct. See id., 518 N.W.2d at 613 (finding that appellant's criminal history demonstrates habitual course of misconduct).
Second, the district court determined that Hart exhibited an utter lack of control. A trial court must consider several factors to determine whether an individual utterly lacks the power to control his sexual impulses: the nature and frequency of the assaults, the degree of violence, the relationship between the offender and the victims, the offender's attitude, the offender's medical and family history, and the offender's medical evaluation. Blodgett, 510 N.W.2d at 915.
His alibi.
"When trying to solve a complex puzzle, it is helpful to group similar pieces together before attempting to combine them into a larger pattern."
http://www.yellodyno.com/pdf/OJJDP_Child_Molesters_Who_Abduct%20Children.pdf
http://www.deadzoom.com/member/samip...1990PPress.jpg
http://mn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19960220_0003.mn.htm/qx
What further research can we uncover on this man to qualify, or disqualify?
Below is the Websleuths memo about posting names of sex offenders. It would appear if we found names of sex offenders living at the half-way house near where J disappeared, we could, indeed, post the info.
It is illegal to use the sex offender registry information to harass anyone. We would never condone that at Websleuths. However, it is okay if, when a child goes missing or is harmed, we look at the sex offenders in the area and post their information, along with maps to show how close they live to the victim. Never even hint at harassing anyone on the sex offenders list. Any posting here about a sex offender should always be within the law.