Sasquatch321
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,919
- Reaction score
- 548
How can you convict someone if they do not have enough evidence? They have not arrested him.
Then lose to win.
How can you convict someone if they do not have enough evidence? They have not arrested him.
He should have published names and ask them for their input. Do the Lawrence brother still say they were involved?ELOCs book simply reports what was looked at and investigated in the early days regarding the pseudonyms that you mentioned. He doesn't accuse them of anything that wasn't investigated previously.
Mossad, it surprises me that you don't like the book.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
?????
I think they have all the evidence they could shake out of DR at this time. If it can't convict nor clear him, then lose to win and release the entire story to the public.
Can you clarify this? It says one brother unplugged, yet didn't know they were being recorded - what did he think he was plugged in to? Am I missing something?
The younger brother says that he was with his mother making a newspaper drop in the Wetterling neighborhood at 8:30 PM on the night of October 22nd. Was there a paper delivered at that hour on a Sunday night back in 1989? I wonder what that would be.
In one tape a brother says the car used in the kidnapping was burned, in another tape, it was crushed. These are the kinds of inconsistencies that are very difficult to reconcile.
The thread is open again for posting.
Now that many have read the book, I'll throw this out there...
In May of 1990, the reward for Jacob's safe return and information leading to his abductor was suddenly increased to $200,000. The increase was established to draw out a woman who had called in November about about a man who changed the tires on his car right after the kidnapping.
I've always thought it was interesting that this lead caught fire six months later. Was it overlooked when it first came in?
Also, after Kevin came forward in 2003 we learned that LE had been focusing on tire tracks found near the scene. Kevin's tires were new, less than a week old.
Is anyone else having trouble reconciling all these bits? It doesn't add up quite right for me. How could they be looking at prints from new tires, and at the same time be interested in a car whose tires were changed right after the kidnapping? I would think they could have traced new tires pretty easily if bought locally as Kevin's were.
Employees at tire shops make note of customers who buy new tires when the ones they have are perfectly good. Less high profile cases have been solved through information from tire shop employees. There couldn't have been that many tire shops in the St Cloud area and the FBI certainly had the resources to extend the search to the Twin Cities. Did they check that angle?
What is the most compelling piece of evidence for everyone?