Certainly DR had the opportunity. What constantly nags at me though, is if he is in fact the abductor. Where would he hide Jacob, given the time constraints.
MN - Jacob Wetterling, 11, St. Joseph, 22 Oct 1989 - #4
- Thread starter Cubby
- Start date
New Posts
-
TX TX - Elizabeth Barraza, 29, murdered setting up garage sale, Harris Co, Jan 2019 #7
- Latest: AppleTreeGreen
- Status
Certainly DR had the opportunity. What constantly nags at me though, is if he is in fact the abductor. Where would he hide Jacob, given the time constraints.
In his house. In his many out buildings.
They did not search his house for six days.
If you followed the Jodi Arias case, you will see how a disturbed individual acts with the greatest of confidence and lies the most improbable of lies with total innocence.
It is mind blowing to see it in action.
They did not search his house for six days.
If you followed the Jodi Arias case, you will see how a disturbed individual acts with the greatest of confidence and lies the most improbable of lies with total innocence.
It is mind blowing to see it in action.
Pensfan
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,472
- Reaction score
- 75
The news attempted to cause an uproar stating that vital evidence was lost/the 911 call tape had been lost. That's not quite true. A nice Websleuther transcribed it:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - MN MN - Jacob Wetterling, 11, St. Joseph, 22 Oct 1989 - #4
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - MN MN - Jacob Wetterling, 11, St. Joseph, 22 Oct 1989 - #4
Pensfan
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,472
- Reaction score
- 75
It's very suspicious that those TWO outbuildings burned.
Pensfan
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,472
- Reaction score
- 75
The officers took Dan's word that Jacob was not in any of his outbuildings.
"Rassier says after he searched the buildings on the farm property and returned to the farmhouse, law enforcement was everywhere."
Like human posted, the officers didn't search the inside of Dan's home for days.
Pensfan
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,472
- Reaction score
- 75
About your "research".....
Dan fits some characteristics of a situational child molester (regressed and inadequate) and many characteristics of a preferential child molester. Only a few child molesters will have all of the symptoms in one category. This is precisely the same for other mental and physical health disorders. Few patients have every single known symptom of their disorder. In other words, just because you can't smell the decaying flesh (one symptom of tissue necrosis) doesn't mean that your black toe isn't gangrene.
It would be ridiculous to download a chapter of Essentials of General Surgery and try to remove your appendix. What you didn't learn in four years of medical school/patient rounds/guest lectures/summer internships/studying thousands of hours would kill you. In the same way, it is ridiculous to "research" one page of an abnormal psychology lecture and determine that because Dan's behavior doesn't precisely fit one category (of many categories) that he couldn't be Jacob's abductor. In addition to ridiculous, it's dangerous, IMO.
Pensfan
verified psychiatric mental health nurse
Where are all of DR's friends? No one is standing up for his innocence?
He has lived in that area all of his life.
I would like to hear from them.
Maybe I am different, but if my friend had been accused of a crime that s/he did not commit, I would be screaming about it from the rooftops,
I do not think Joy is in that category.
He has lived in that area all of his life.
I would like to hear from them.
Maybe I am different, but if my friend had been accused of a crime that s/he did not commit, I would be screaming about it from the rooftops,
I do not think Joy is in that category.
Pensfan
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,472
- Reaction score
- 75
From the link that Shergal posted:
"It could have been over." Wow. That's a very bizarre statement.
Where is Dan's denial in this interview? (There are other interviews where he doesn't deny abducting Jacob, too.) There isn't a denial in that interview. There isn't even a weak denial that he abducted Jacob. "I didn't have anything to do with it" isn't a denial that he abducted Jacob. "It" is a word used to avoid naming a specific person, place, or thing.
"It could have been over." Wow. That's a very bizarre statement.
Where is Dan's denial in this interview? (There are other interviews where he doesn't deny abducting Jacob, too.) There isn't a denial in that interview. There isn't even a weak denial that he abducted Jacob. "I didn't have anything to do with it" isn't a denial that he abducted Jacob. "It" is a word used to avoid naming a specific person, place, or thing.
When I learned that there was a "break" in the Jacob Wetterling case, I figured that either the case would be solved or some poor guy with some tangential link to the case was going to find himself under heavy relentless suspicion. Apparently the later is the case.
If nothing else, this whole situation is a pretty compelling argument for anyone who finds himself in any kind of legal crosshairs over any criminal charge to lawyer-up and do exactly what your lawyer tells you to do; which will include not discussing the case with anyone, avoiding the public eye and letting the lawyer craft your formal, absolute denial of any involvement.
The problem is that anything you say can and will be used against you; if not in a court of law, then in the court of public opinion. No matter how clearly you deny everything; how honestly and accurately you explain whatever is being flaunted as evidence against you, someone will interpret what you say, your body language, your facial expressions whatever, as evidence of guilt. He will either be accused of not denying it strongly enough, denying "excessively" or both.
A case in point is when DR said:" “They didn’t come in the house that night. It could have been over with.” In the context that he said it, it sounded to me that he meant “had the SJPD come into his house and had a look around on the night Jacob was abducted, he would have been cleared and "it" meaning the suspicion that hangs over his head, would have been over.
I am not certain DR is innocent; it is just that there is no evidence of his guilt. It is always possible that a man who has had a good reputation and a clean record before and after can have some sort of breakdown and commit a horrible crime right in front of his home in front of two witnesses. In spite of the obvious brashness of the crime and lack of any serious attempt to avoid detection, said criminal could benefit from police ineptitude and actually get away with it. Still, Occam's razor would suggest that this is improbable. More likely, an experienced criminal had thought out a plan to abduct a child and leave the scene without being seem; most likely the same abductor who molested Jared in Cold Springs in a similar manner a few months earlier.
If nothing else, this whole situation is a pretty compelling argument for anyone who finds himself in any kind of legal crosshairs over any criminal charge to lawyer-up and do exactly what your lawyer tells you to do; which will include not discussing the case with anyone, avoiding the public eye and letting the lawyer craft your formal, absolute denial of any involvement.
The problem is that anything you say can and will be used against you; if not in a court of law, then in the court of public opinion. No matter how clearly you deny everything; how honestly and accurately you explain whatever is being flaunted as evidence against you, someone will interpret what you say, your body language, your facial expressions whatever, as evidence of guilt. He will either be accused of not denying it strongly enough, denying "excessively" or both.
A case in point is when DR said:" “They didn’t come in the house that night. It could have been over with.” In the context that he said it, it sounded to me that he meant “had the SJPD come into his house and had a look around on the night Jacob was abducted, he would have been cleared and "it" meaning the suspicion that hangs over his head, would have been over.
I am not certain DR is innocent; it is just that there is no evidence of his guilt. It is always possible that a man who has had a good reputation and a clean record before and after can have some sort of breakdown and commit a horrible crime right in front of his home in front of two witnesses. In spite of the obvious brashness of the crime and lack of any serious attempt to avoid detection, said criminal could benefit from police ineptitude and actually get away with it. Still, Occam's razor would suggest that this is improbable. More likely, an experienced criminal had thought out a plan to abduct a child and leave the scene without being seem; most likely the same abductor who molested Jared in Cold Springs in a similar manner a few months earlier.
Funny how we interpret Occam's razor.
I go with he was outside, parents gone, heard the kids, and went into action.
I interpret the being all over that night as he would have been busted,
He has enough money to hire an attorney, Why didn't he?
Why did he not get good advice? Why does he think he is more than competent to handle anything that comes his way? Just like Jodi Arias IMHO
I go with he was outside, parents gone, heard the kids, and went into action.
I interpret the being all over that night as he would have been busted,
He has enough money to hire an attorney, Why didn't he?
Why did he not get good advice? Why does he think he is more than competent to handle anything that comes his way? Just like Jodi Arias IMHO
A starters pistol looks like a real gun.
Here is the info from the 911 call that is transcribed above.
" OK. Hello? Trevor, did you see the gun the individual had? Um, we couldn’t really see it, but we just, we sort of fell. OK, did he threaten you..? (Cut off)"
Does not seem like the kids saw a gun.
" OK. Hello? Trevor, did you see the gun the individual had? Um, we couldn’t really see it, but we just, we sort of fell. OK, did he threaten you..? (Cut off)"
Does not seem like the kids saw a gun.
KeepHopeAlive
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 301
- Reaction score
- 0
Aaron seems to think there was a gun.
"Aaron remembers seeing the metal flash of a handgun and hearing a voice break the darkness."
http://www.sctimes.com/article/20091018/NEWS01/110180043/Friend-Larson-still-hopes-happy-ending
"Aaron remembers seeing the metal flash of a handgun and hearing a voice break the darkness."
http://www.sctimes.com/article/20091018/NEWS01/110180043/Friend-Larson-still-hopes-happy-ending
ELOCsoul
Verified Author - "Finding Jacob Wetterling"
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,385
- Reaction score
- 274
This was the call from the Wetterling home. You can find audio clips of the call online and on Youtube - very chilling call to listen to.
The 911 call evidence that is missing or deleted was DR's call to police later that night. The loss of this call is significant because it would answer the debate about why DR called 911 that night. He says he called 911 to report people on his property by the woodpile. According to several WS posters, the media reported that DR called because of a car turning around in his driveway.
This is VERY significant because DR's call was more than 2 hours after he last saw a car in his driveway. If he called about the people by the woodpile and mentioned the car turning around in his driveway - that's one thing. But, if he called BECAUSE of the car turning around in his driveway that would be very damaging info for DR.
I really do not see the big deal about either call.
He told LE about the cars, so that "evidence" exists.
LE has PROBABLE CAUSE to get a sealed warrant to do massive searches at his home. That is really telling to me.
He told LE about the cars, so that "evidence" exists.
LE has PROBABLE CAUSE to get a sealed warrant to do massive searches at his home. That is really telling to me.
1, can sirens be heard on the 911 call because the squad arrives
2. That would make three mysterious cars that day. One driving crazy in the afternoon; Kevin's car; and the kidnapper's or someone's car that went up to the house and turned around at he time of the kidnapping? Do I have that right?
2. That would make three mysterious cars that day. One driving crazy in the afternoon; Kevin's car; and the kidnapper's or someone's car that went up to the house and turned around at he time of the kidnapping? Do I have that right?
ELOCsoul
Verified Author - "Finding Jacob Wetterling"
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,385
- Reaction score
- 274
That's a good question about the sirens. When I have more time I will try to find the audio again. Below is posted what I could find of the written transcript. Note that one officer arrived during the 911 call and indicated other officers were on their way.
Yes, 3 cars in one day would be the total - the 2 that DR says he saw, and then Kevin. The only thing would be the order of the cars - Kevin had to be last, or third, because he came by after the kidnapping. That's the car that DR says he did not see.
Overall, the toughest thing for me to swallow about DR's story is the 3 cars in one day, turning around in the same spot.
911 call transcript:
They're the words that launched the search for Jacob Wetterling and some of them come from
his 10-year-old brother Trevor. A year after the abduction, he talked about how a man
asked them their ages and told them to run into the woods or else he would shoot them. The
FOX 9 Investigators have obtained the seven-page 911 transcript of that first call made on
October 22, 1989. The call comes from a neighbor.
Merlin Jerzak says, "I'm right now next door, my neighbors, at my neighbors, the Jerry
Wetterling family. Some of the boys went down to Tom Thumb to pick up a movie and on their
way back someone stopped them and ah, we believe that they have one of the boys because
the, one of the boys did not come back with them."
Dispatcher: "Okay, were you, were they picked up in a vehicle?"
Jerzak: "Just a second I'll ask the boys was there a vehicle, ah, this person appeared ah,
on the road when they were bicycling back home."
Dispatcher: "Okay, did they see the individual at all?"
Jerzak (talking to the boys): "Did they see the individual at all? He had a mask on."
The dispatcher then gets a rough second-hand description of the suspect. A description of
the red hockey jacket Jacob was wearing with Police Department inscribed on the back. The
call is confusing. The dispatcher is simultaneously dispatching squad cars, trying to
figure out where the abduction occurred on the rural stretch of road and asking questions.
Dispatcher: "Give me some information on this guy with the mask, I want color, anything
those kids can remember?"
That's when Jacob's brother, Trevor, has calmed down enough to get on the phone.
Dispatcher: "I want you to give me anything you, you can recall about this male party that
approached you guys, okay?"
Trevor: "Well he was, he was like sorta, he was like a man, sort of big. He had like a, it
looked sort of like nylon things as a mask."
The dispatcher asks about the location of Jacob's bike. Trevor doesn't know what happened
to it.
Trevor: "'Cuz we have to just like run, run off into the woods."
Dispatcher: Did the guy have a deep voice? Anything like that you can remember?"
Trevor: "Yes, did he have like a deep voice or whatever? Seemed like he had a cold sort
of."
Dispatcher: "Trevor, did you see the gun the individual had?"
Trevor: "Um, we couldn't really see it, but we just, we sort of saw it."
Dispatcher: "Okay, did he threaten you?"
Trevor: "Mm, what?"
Before Trevor can answer, the officers have arrived at the Wetterling home. The dispatcher
ends the call telling them they'll be sending more officers and dogs to begin the search.
Unknown to anyone at the time, the heartbreaking search for Jacob Wetterling is just the
beginning.
- Status