MN - Jacob Wetterling, 11, St. Joseph, 22 Oct 1989 - #17

[human]

DR should have been brought in for questioning that night.

But, I think we all know why they dug it up and it wasn't for animal bones. Body clearly wasn't there.

Not sure about that,

DR stated clothes and animals were burned there. So it is possible LE has fragments of things that cannot be identified at this time. They are waiting for advances in technology

 

[chaplain1]

Is it fair to say bones weren't found when items are still under analysis today?

Yes, I could be very wrong; but someone told me they are trying to sequence a blood pattern that was damaged by a bleach cleaning agent.

I think it was DR but he had 21 years to clean with some help.

 

[Caoutchouc]

YES, it is hard to read through so many threads!

From a newbie's perspective, there needs to be some balance between having to post a link for everything said versus never posting a link at all. Not that this applies to Human in particular, but there is I think a habit in cases which have dragged on for years to form a kind of dogma of accepted wisdom that just becomes kind of like folklore - and then no one seems to ever be able to find out if there was ever a source for certain 'facts' or not. One of the reasons I was repelled from ever posting here is because the threads are gigantically long and there is a vernacular complete with acronyms associated with this case that really discourages participation by outsiders. I'm sure there's a lot of fresh opinions out there, some of them stupid, some of the good, but jumping in the middle of all this isn't appealing to everyone. Not that this is anyone's fault, it's just hard to organize a web forum that caters to every level of engagement in the cases.



I drove by the abduction site; I have to go to MSP occasionally for work and one day I rented a car and drove around St Joe. So I'm no local expert, but I have an idea about the place. I think now it would probably be described as an exurb, meaning it's not a suburb attached to a large city but it's also not really a stand-alone small town out in the middle of nowhere. So, as you say, it's not the full blown rural kind of place like maybe....Chisolm/Hibbing MN or Marfa in Texas. Anyway, lets not argue about it. I think its worth noting that Kevin is in to scanners and chasing cops, most of whom he knows personally, but Human thinks that's no big deal, which is fine.


1. Am I allowed to say that these are 11/10 y.o. boys and maybe not only this tidbit but other details aren't necessarily the word of God about what exactly happened that night? I believe they're being honest of course. But what honestly happened according to an 11 y.o. may not be in entire agreement with what actually happened. Personally, I don't put much probative value on the noise he hears on the way to rent the video that I think he at some point he says 'shouldn't have been there'. My central belief is that the boys were seen or heard on the way to Tom Thumb by the abductor, so the noise either supports this point or supports the point that there were squirrels, raccoons, rabbits, cats, birds or other harmless creatures mucking around that night.

2. If Kevin's story is entirely true? Then we need to be worried because who exactly is running the 'medical cop' program? Kevin? I think one of the main conclusions to make if Kevin's story is 100% accurate is that things don't look good for DR.



I hear you. It feels wrong to argue with Patty. I'd like to explore this further, but here are two questions (for anyone):

1. Has Patty every publicly disagreed with the police? If yes, about what?

2. Ok, let's keep active one train of thought that if Patty says Kevin's not the criminal, he's not the criminal. Does this mean we automatically have to also accept the fantastic story of the scanner and Kevin's explanation for Kevin's movements this night? Even if we're going to accept Patty's word on guilt/nonguilt of the crime, does that mean we have to accept Kevin's public explanations for all this, provided so enthusiastically 14 - 22 years after the fact? I mean he was only the first person on the crime scene, it's perfectly reasonable that he doesn't come forward sooner, right? Sooner, as in, the first day or two after he's hanging around DR's driveway.



I think these are very important questions.

Are we sure it isn't a case of Patty says he's cleared because the police say he's cleared? And yeah, getting to the bottom of this whole girl friend experience Kevin's having this night would be relevant. Maybe the gf told the police, "yeah, what he said is true," and that was the end of it so he is once and for all time innocent, and no one can ever look into this guy ever again.

For the moment, I'm probably not ready to fully embrace the possibility ELOC mentions which is that Kevin might be a complete ruse....a ruse created to discount the abduction-with-a-car theory in favor of the abduction-on-foot theory, which in turn allows them to focus on DR. However, I am ready to embrace the possibility that Kevin's official story as given to the public is not true in every detail, but is being floated in the public with police support (which in turn attracts Patti's support). Why might the police want to detract attention away from Kevin? Why is it in their interest to have it known that Kevin is on 91st, at DR's house front, in the driveway, at TT, etc.?



Are you local? It seems to me it would be possible to get a little organized and demand that the cops handover their info. If not to the general public, then to a trusted 3rd party.



To me, the main result of Kevin and his magical tour through every relevant place in Minnesota's most famous crime is the focus of the investigation on DR. DR's validity as a POI is very much a function of how much credit you give to Kevin's story.



777

In the interest of keeping actual conversation flowing...

I disagree w/your point on DR's validity as POI being a function of the level of credibility of Kevin's story. I think that's too narrow and leads into motive which you seem to want to steer away from (btw, that's an interesting approach and I'm interested to see where it leads you)

Also, I don't think it is at all wrong to respectfully disagree with anyone. It doesn't mean that they're not intelligent, they're not a good parent, they're not desperate to find their child (ect). It means you see something they might not or you see something they see very differently.

Think about that is-it-blue-or-is-it-gold dress that captured opinions across the Internet. We all saw the same dress.

 

[777]

Even Patty and the family has not been told yet why they dug up DR's farm or what was found. Why he is a POI. We're in it all together, clear or convict DR. There's nothing else of much importance at this time. We"re just playing with evidence that LE has released to the media and twisting and turning it to our hearts desire. LE is in control, 5 plus years witb a POI and noone can handle this.

I agree with your point that there is a pretty thin body of evidence for people on WS, the general public, to work with. People are influenced by their own desires, prejudices, fears, experiences etc. to pick a favorite theory or pick a favorite suspect, but most of it is speculation. However, if the police ever take seriously what is offered by the general public than it might conceivably help to think and rethink what we do know and discuss it.

She has had over 25 years to examine things. She has her intelligent family to also help out.

And most of all, she knows things that we do do not know. Both from LE and people contacting her.

How often on WS have we been surprised with the things LE knew?

I'm more often surprised by things like the police clearing Gary Ridgway in the early 1980s because he passed a polygraph test and despite the fact that they had his DNA...this abductor/murderer wasn't arrested until 2001. It's almost always true the police have good information unknown to the public, it's just more often that they either have too much information and don't focus on the basics, or get tunnel vision, IMO. They sometimes get dominated by a one-track-scenario they can't let go OR imagine the case is so complicated that the simple, more obvious answer is overlooked because it's too simple. It seems to me.

As for accepting without question whatever Patty says, I respect that. But I think it is ok for some of us to choose to be open to all ideas and evidence regardless of what others in any capacity have already decided. After 25 years, clearly not a few people in knowledgeable positions have in fact been wrong.

DR should have been brought in for questioning that night.

But, I think we all know why they dug it up and it wasn't for animal bones. Body clearly wasn't there.

I don't think we have any reason to know why they decided to dig and when they decided to dig. It's only speculation. Perhaps some child molester in prison "admitted" he buried something there. Perhaps overhead photography indicated something unusual on DR's property through technology only recently invented. Perhaps Kevin said he saw a shovel and a hole over by the gravel pit. Perhaps the police wanted to be seen to do something, something noteworthy, and thought a dig would really convince people they are real cops with competent investigative ability. Who knows?

Is it fair to say human bones weren't found when items are still under analysis today?

Maybe it's not entirely fair to say that, you're right. But I think it is fair to suggest that if human bones were found then a lot more activity would have probably taken place by now, such as a complete inch-by-inch shredding of DR's house and property.

In the interest of keeping actual conversation flowing...

I disagree w/your point on DR's validity as POI being a function of the level of credibility of Kevin's story. I think that's too narrow and leads into motive which you seem to want to steer away from (btw, that's an interesting approach and I'm interested to see where it leads you)

Also, I don't think it is at all wrong to respectfully disagree with anyone. It doesn't mean that they're not intelligent, they're not a good parent, they're not desperate to find their child (ect). It means you see something they might not or you see something they see very differently.

Think about that is-it-blue-or-is-it-gold dress that captured opinions across the Internet. We all saw the same dress.

Well, DR became the prime target in part because of Kevin. Kevin clued them in on whose tire tracks they found which in turn caused them to drift towards an abduction-on-foot scenario. If you don't believe Kevin is telling the truth, to me then Kevin becomes the prime suspect -not DR- because he alone places himself at DR's driveway parked in a car facing the street, he places himself at TT, and he places himself driving both directions up and down 91st street. Conveniently, he offers an explanation of why his movements seem to duplicate the movement of the abductor in it's most feasible scenario. If you forget about motive for a moment, Kevin alone satisfies the time and place requirement of the abduction. Or, he satisfies the time component if we subtract 10-20 minutes from his version of events.

But, if you believe Kevin, then DR is definitely next in line of satisfying the time and place requirements of the abduction - of all publicly known suspects that is. Do you not agree? Anyway, it is just my opinion that DR's viability as a suspect is intertwined with how much credit you give to Kevin's story...please do continue to evaluate them separately.

Thanks as well, you sticking up for open-mindedness is important in a case so dominated by received dogma.



777

 

[chaplain1]

DR even cleared Kevin.

 

[human]

BTW, at the beginning of the thread there are tons of case facts with links. That should help with questions .

The W family is educated as well as having friends with lots of different kinds of education. And they have access to all kinds of minds that work in these issues.

I am sure they have thought and examined all kinds of info. and brainstormed with friends and professionals.

 

[human]

Burned animal and burned human bones are not that easy to tell apart

http://www.academia.edu/2402535/Is_...to_distinguish_between_animal_and_human_bones

 

[livstabler]

DR even cleared Kevin.

That is funny to me. How would DR know Kevin didn't do it unless he knows who did?

 

[Caoutchouc]

I agree with your point that there is a pretty thin body of evidence for people on WS, the general public, to work with. People are influenced by their own desires, prejudices, fears, experiences etc. to pick a favorite theory or pick a favorite suspect, but most of it is speculation. However, if the police ever take seriously what is offered by the general public than it might conceivably help to think and rethink what we do know and discuss it.


I'm more often surprised by things like the police clearing Gary Ridgway in the early 1980s because he passed a polygraph test and despite the fact that they had his DNA...this abductor/murderer wasn't arrested until 2001. It's almost always true the police have good information unknown to the public, it's just more often that they either have too much information and don't focus on the basics, or get tunnel vision, IMO. They sometimes get dominated by a one-track-scenario they can't let go OR imagine the case is so complicated that the simple, more obvious answer is overlooked because it's too simple. It seems to me.

As for accepting without question whatever Patty says, I respect that. But I think it is ok for some of us to choose to be open to all ideas and evidence regardless of what others in any capacity have already decided. After 25 years, clearly not a few people in knowledgeable positions have in fact been wrong.



I don't think we have any reason to know why they decided to dig and when they decided to dig. It's only speculation. Perhaps some child molester in prison "admitted" he buried something there. Perhaps overhead photography indicated something unusual on DR's property through technology only recently invented. Perhaps Kevin said he saw a shovel and a hole over by the gravel pit. Perhaps the police wanted to be seen to do something, something noteworthy, and thought a dig would really convince people they are real cops with competent investigative ability. Who knows?


Maybe it's not entirely fair to say that, you're right. But I think it is fair to suggest that if human bones were found then a lot more activity would have probably taken place by now, such as a complete inch-by-inch shredding of DR's house and property.



Well, DR became the prime target in part because of Kevin. Kevin clued them in on whose tire tracks they found which in turn caused them to drift towards an abduction-on-foot scenario. If you don't believe Kevin is telling the truth, to me then Kevin becomes the prime suspect -not DR- because he alone places himself at DR's driveway parked in a car facing the street, he places himself at TT, and he places himself driving both directions up and down 91st street. Conveniently, he offers an explanation of why his movements seem to duplicate the movement of the abductor in it's most feasible scenario. If you forget about motive for a moment, Kevin alone satisfies the time and place requirement of the abduction. Or, he satisfies the time component if we subtract 10-20 minutes from his version of events.

But, if you believe Kevin, then DR is definitely next in line of satisfying the time and place requirements of the abduction - of all publicly known suspects that is. Do you not agree? Anyway, it is just my opinion that DR's viability as a suspect is intertwined with how much credit you give to Kevin's story...please do continue to evaluate them separately.

Thanks as well, you sticking up for open-mindedness is important in a case so dominated by received dogma.



777

To me, DR and Kevin could both be lying, telling the truth, or a hybrid thereof. Indeed they both fit the time/place criteria, but I just can't believe DR was so lucky that night to have Kevin accidentally stop by and erase tracks all the way back to his house. Furthermore, DR and the dig of 2010 should have occurred in 2004 if they are so importantly intertwined, imo...

And I will do my best to keep constructive conversation going...but as you can see it is a very difficult task as it becomes buried in certain agendas...

 

[Sasquatch321]

To me, DR and Kevin could both be lying, telling the truth, or a hybrid thereof. Indeed they both fit the time/place criteria, but I just can't believe DR was so lucky that night to have Kevin accidentally stop by and erase tracks all the way back to his house. Furthermore, DR and the dig of 2010 should have occurred in 2004 if they are so importantly intertwined, imo...

And I will do my best to keep constructive conversation going...but as you can see it is a very difficult task as it becomes buried in certain agendas...

The second search was in 2004 of which they seized his hard drive? Was it prompted by Kevin coming forward? Did it take a few years to decrypt that hard drive and find some crucial information? Which eventually prompted the third search and calculated dig?

 

[StinkSprings]

You're going to have to do better than just speculate. Post your sources as what you're saying is very damaging to the POI. If not, mods delete the users post.

Yes, I could be very wrong; but someone told me they are trying to sequence a blood pattern that was damaged by a bleach cleaning agent.

I think it was DR but he had 21 years to clean with some help.

 

[Sasquatch321]

You're going to have to do better than just speculate. Post your sources as what you're saying is very damaging to the POI. If not, mods delete the users post.

I agree, it's only speculation that DR tried to clean the blood. DR admits blood residue or something to that effect was found on the chest, but thats all we know about it.

 

[777]

To me, DR and Kevin could both be lying, telling the truth, or a hybrid thereof. Indeed they both fit the time/place criteria, but I just can't believe DR was so lucky that night to have Kevin accidentally stop by and erase tracks all the way back to his house. Furthermore, DR and the dig of 2010 should have occurred in 2004 if they are so importantly intertwined, imo...

And I will do my best to keep constructive conversation going...but as you can see it is a very difficult task as it becomes buried in certain agendas...

In defense of those with agendas, maybe they're right. If I had to give odds, I wouldn't, but the POI and the half dozen or so frequently mentioned known criminals have to be kept in consideration. It is hard to strike a balance between the passion for getting justice for Jacob on the one hand and the courtesy and tolerance required if a web forum is going to be productive on the other.

From my perspective, repeating the same conclusion over and over again risks making progress by ignoring viable alternatives. At some point, well-intentioned dedication to helping Jacob devolves into an emotionally-fueled marriage to a single solution. It becomes more about discouraging challenges to one's carefully considered conclusions than about seeking the truth. In my view.

"I've already thought about that so you shut up" is the message in a lot of of the posts in these Jacob threads.
.
.
.
Now, getting back to the clues....

Of course I agree with you Kevin and DR could both by lying, telling the truth, or some mix of the two. I will say that there is nothing in DR's story which seems unlikely to me, but a dozen things in Kevin's story that seem far-fetched to me. What in DR's narrative of the evening seems unlikely?

Having a child abduction on one's property automatically should make you a suspect in the absence of a good alibi. So by all means I want to keep DR in the picture. For me, DR works because he is in the right time and place. This is important, but Kevin is also in the right time and place. There may be a couple others in the right time and place, like what about that house across the street from DR's (I forgot their name at the moment), or what about the guy who was dropping off someone in the neighborhood?

---As for factors weighing in favor of Kevin's innocence, obviously the police vouching for him is a big one. But I don't like this approach that relies on outsourcing your thinking to others, I prefer to look at the evidence without a middleman. So that basically means the main thing saving Kevin is the presumed testimony of his family and gf that he is nothing more than a bored cop-chaser.

---As for factors weighing in defense of DR's innocence, I just saw a 2014 video of Aaron Larson where he reiterates the 'gruff voice, like a heavy smoker' memory that sticks with him. Never requiring a search warrant, not hiring a lawyer, voluntarily doing hypnosis, giving DNA and in general fully cooperating with the investigation says something to me, it may not to you, but in any event it does not establish guilt or innocence.

A lot is made of DR's job and living with his parents. DR's occupation and marital status fit in with Ken Lanning's FBI behavioral analysis of child molesters - but only the PREFERENTIAL type who is well educated, who grooms their victims over the long term for repeated use, and who methodically plans, rehearses and scripts everything and more often targets specific persons. The other type, the SITUATIONAL type, is more of a fit here - they are opportunistic, they rely on force and violence versus grooming, and are focused on general characteristics like age and gender versus a focus on a specific person.

In short, scout masters, priests, coaches and band directors don't do snatch abductions with a gun, they manipulate their victims through trust.

So I keep DR in mind, but since he already is the POI and unconvicted/unarrested, then perhaps looking at other candidates is an under-utilized approach.



777

 

[chaplain1]

You're going to have to do better than just speculate. Post your sources as what you're saying is very damaging to the POI. If not, mods delete the users post.

Dan says that it's blood residue. I agree that it would be a big problem if it was Jacob's blood.

 

[StinkSprings]

"Some of these were taken from a group of boys. That is really rare," Patty Wetterling said. "The threat of a gun, the age of the victms, they were close to Jacob's age. I do think there is a strong possibility they are connected to Jacob's case".

This exact quote from Patty leans very hard to the fact that she believes ALL assaults and abductions in Paynesville and Jared's case are related to Jacob's abduction. If you are of the belief that DR abducted or had something to do with Jacob's abduction than you are categorically against Patty's beliefs. Why? Because DR was Jared's band teacher (and mine) and he is unequivocally cleared in that case. Hence, Patty thinks they're all connected and if that's the case than DR is completely innocent from having something to do with all the cases.

Patty is the mother of her missing child. What we feel or think has less than zero importance. If she says it is correct that Kevin is cleared, why in the world would people like those on WS have the need to question what the mother of the beloved child says.

With every cell in her being, she wants her child found. Why would she derail an investigation with false info? She is not "simple". She and her whole famiy are intelligent people.

 

[chaplain1]

Stinker brought up a good point earlier about the proximity to 94.

Based on the facts, did the crime HAVE to be committed by a local?

 

[bucshunter]

Welcome 777! Keep up the conversation. Nice to see a fresh perspective.

 

[bucshunter]

She should know right? She has been searching for 25 years

 

[KeepHopeAlive]

Stinker brought up a good point earlier about the proximity to 94.

Based on the facts, did the crime HAVE to be committed by a local?

No. I think the differing opinions regarding the abductor being local or not are partly due to the discrepancy of whether or not a vehicle was involved.

 

[human]

"Some of these were taken from a group of boys. That is really rare," Patty Wetterling said. "The threat of a gun, the age of the victms, they were close to Jacob's age. I do think there is a strong possibility they are connected to Jacob's case".

This exact quote from Patty leans very hard to the fact that she believes ALL assaults and abductions in Paynesville and Jared's case are related to Jacob's abduction. If you are of the belief that DR abducted or had something to do with Jacob's abduction than you are categorically against Patty's beliefs. Why? Because DR was Jared's band teacher (and mine) and he is unequivocally cleared in that case. Hence, Patty thinks they're all connected and if that's the case than DR is completely innocent from having something to do with all the cases.

Hm. I guess I don't see her saying it is 100%. I did read that she asked DR if he did it and it was a joke.