MN - Jacob Wetterling, 11, St. Joseph, 22 Oct 1989 - #4

[kemo]

I checked on this a while back and came to the conclusion that the change in the law eliminating the statute of limitations on kidnapping was not retroactive. If I interpreted it correctly (and I am not a lawyer), the old statute of 10 years would apply in the Jared case. This would mean that nobody, including DR could be charged. It would also mean that the case file would be subject to the Freedom of Information act since there is no chance of prosecution.

 

[odyssey1492]

I checked on this a while back and came to the conclusion that the change in the law eliminating the statute of limitations on kidnapping was not retroactive. If I interpreted it correctly (and I am not a lawyer), the old statute of 10 years would apply in the Jared case. This would mean that nobody, including DR could be charged. It would also mean that the case file would be subject to the Freedom of Information act since there is no chance of prosecution.

Changes to criminal laws cannot be applied retroactively. A law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of an action is known as an ex post facto law. And ex post facto laws are unconstitutional; in fact, they are expressly prohibited by the Constitution. So, for example, a law that changes the statute of limitations on a crime can be applied to future crimes, but it cannot be applied to a crime in the past since it would then be considered an ex post facto law and unconstitutional.

I think earlier discussions on this board stated that the sexual assault law in MN was amended to eliminate the statute of limitations when a DNA match was later discovered. If that law was not in place in 1989, it would not apply to the sexual assault of Jared. But I believe in the same discussion on this board it was said that the kidnapping laws in MN did not have a statute of limitations. If so, that crime can still be prosecuted.

 

[odyssey1492]

Originally posted by human
But, LE thinks he is a POI. They dug up the farm at huge expense. Why? They have not eliminated him. Why?

Maybe LE hasn't eliminated DR because they are under great pressure to solve this case, and DR is a convenient target. He lives near the abduction site, has no alibi since he was home alone, is middle-aged and unmarried, and has not "lawyered up." These things do not mean he is guilty.

Good point. And we won't know the answer unless the warrant and supporting affidavits are unsealed, which is unlikely to happen. It is a shame LE is not more forthcoming, especially if they are going to publicly name a POI.

If LE is going to put someone's name out as a POI, I think they should have to back that up with information. Sure makes it hard for someone to clear his own name if the police hide their rationale. To me, that is a scary thing to allow to happen. Just my opinion, sorry for the unnecessary digression.

 

[human]

Originally posted by human
But, LE thinks he is a POI. They dug up the farm at huge expense. Why? They have not eliminated him. Why?

Maybe LE hasn't eliminated DR because they are under great pressure to solve this case, and DR is a convenient target. He lives near the abduction site, has no alibi since he was home alone, is middle-aged and unmarried, and has not "lawyered up." These things do not mean he is guilty.

I do not believe that.

A judge signed off on a search warrant that cost the public thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars that was at a time when Minnesota was in financial crisis.

I do not believe something like that would be done easily.

There are plenty of suspects that would be available. Minnesota has tons of sex offenders, some living right at St. John's College. No shortage of possibilities.

The DR family is a big deal in the area. There are people with way less status out there to pick on.

 

[human]

I checked on this a while back and came to the conclusion that the change in the law eliminating the statute of limitations on kidnapping was not retroactive. If I interpreted it correctly (and I am not a lawyer), the old statute of 10 years would apply in the Jared case. This would mean that nobody, including DR could be charged. It would also mean that the case file would be subject to the Freedom of Information act since there is no chance of prosecution.

Thanks.

You are totally correct. Laws cannot be applied retroactively.

 

[human]

Good point. And we won't know the answer unless the warrant and supporting affidavits are unsealed, which is unlikely to happen. It is a shame LE is not more forthcoming, especially if they are going to publicly name a POI.

If LE is going to put someone's name out as a POI, I think they should have to back that up with information. Sure makes it hard for someone to clear his own name if the police hide their rationale. To me, that is a scary thing to allow to happen. Just my opinion, sorry for the unnecessary digression.

I think the DR family has plenty of money. Why does he not try to clear his name in a legal manner?

Maybe it is not important to him for some reason?

 

[human]

I have lived in a rural area for over 35 years. I hear sirens, but as my house is not on a main road, I hardly ever know why there are sirens.

I think when the LE are speeding, they are required to have lights and sirens? I am not sure. But it makes sense. Anyone, including walkers , could become road kill otherwise.

 

[kemo]

I think the DR family has plenty of money. Why does he not try to clear his name in a legal manner?

Maybe it is not important to him for some reason?

He has never been charged, no evidence has ever been introduced against him.
How, exactly, is he going to "clear his name?"

DR hasn't Lawyered-up. A lawyer might have helped him in dealing (or not dealing) with the press. On the other hand, getting a lawyer, who will probably tell him to not talk to anyone about the case, would only make him appear "guiltier".

 

[ELOCsoul]

I recently had the opportunity to visit the abduction site, and I hope to give thread followers a better “picture” of the area, and clear up some confusion and misconceptions regarding various issues of Jacob’s case. Some have questioned the possibility of a car being involved because Trevor and Aaron have said there was no car. Others have suggested there was no car because the boys did not see a car pass them, despite some simple and logical possibilities posted by Cappuccino, among others.
Here are my observations of the physical environment at the site of Jacob’s abduction:

1. This area is very DARK at night!! I cannot stress this enough. I was there about 10pm at night, last Thursday night. There was ¼ moon, partly cloudy skies, and occasional lightning. There is no yardlight in the DR property driveway. If there is a light near the house, you cannot see it or any indication of a light from the road that goes by the property. Heading south from DR’s property, you can only see a few yardlights in the cul de sacs at the end of the road, about ½ mile away. To the east and west, you can only see the tops of the tree line against the sky. Looking north, there is some light from the city above the tree line. However, the city has grown considerably the past 23 years, so I can only imagine the light from the city was even less visible in 1989. With my headlights off, I could see nothing clearly, only the treelines in some areas. Remember, this was with a partial moon. On the night of the abduction, there was no moon until after 2:00am or so.

2. The surrounding woods are very THICK! Maybe they were not so thick in 1989, but I suspect that they were. The trees are thick as it is, but on top of that there is significant underbrush everywhere you look (I was there in the daytime too!). Before my visit I had designs on walking through some of the woods, but they looked impassable to me in broad daylight, let alone at night.

3. The DR family residence is WELL HIDDEN from view by the trees between the house and the road, 9th / 16th St. The house is not visible from any portion of the street, nor from highway 75 coming in from St Cloud. The only building really visible from any road is a long gray colored barn that runs east and west. From 9th/ 16th, you can only see that barn when you are heading north, toward St Joseph. A driver in a car heading south and turning into the driveway would not see any buildings unless they turned into the driveway and drive almost all the way back. From aerial photos we know there are actually several buildings on the property. Also, I walked by the property twice, and could not see more than 20’ through the dense woods, and the woods are at least 100’ deep.

4. I don’t believe this has been mentioned before, but there is a fairly steep hill that begins climbing at about E. Baker St, and rises about 20’ or so as you drive south. You cannot see any hint of the DR property or trees on your left until you’re about 200’ or so from the property. The DR property is on your left after you climb the hill. Judging from the appearance of homes in the area, I would guess there was very little development south of E. Baker St in 1989. I’m not sure E. Baker St actually existed at the time (maybe a local could confirm this?). It is quite possible, even likely, that the abductor(s) were watching the streets near the Tom Thumb, and would have seen Jacob, Trevor, and Aaron come from the south. And in turn, knowing they were likely to go back they way.

5. From the DR property vantage point, there appears to be good visibility toward the cul de sacs to the south, but ONLY if a person were standing on the east, south, or west sides of the woods surrounding the DR home. There could be no visibility from the house itself to the road or cul de sacs, whether day or night. Depending on what crops were in the field directly south of the DR property, a person may be able to have relatively good view of flashlights moving northward on 9th / 16th. If the crop was corn, and the corn was not yet harvested, visibility would be limited. If the crop was other than corn, or was harvested corn, visibility from that vantage point would be relatively unobstructed. Visibility would be limited only by the strength and distance of the light.

6. There are a number of factors that make it difficult to believe the abductor could have been on foot, by anyone other than a neighbor. First, the nearest highway to the north is about 1 mile away. While the terrain appears to be passable on foot today, the abductor would have been walking toward the city of St Joseph, or highway 75, dragging an 11 year old child. Doesn’t seem like a smart thing for an abductor to do. To the east, there is the Sauk River, which cannot be crossed or navigated without a watercraft. To the south, the nearest road is about 1 ½ mile away, likely a ½ hour or longer trek through fields and woods. To the west, the nearest road is also about a mile away, again with fields and woods in the way. Also, we know that dogs tracked Jacob’s scent only a short distance up the DR driveway, and there the scent disappeared. Had the abductor been on foot, surely Jacob’s scent would have been picked up elsewhere. And lastly, if the abductor had been of foot, with the rough terrain and woods, there would have no doubt been a piece of clothing caught in brush or branches somewhere.

All of the above are based on my observations, and are my opinion only. Thanks for reading. Next, I’ll post what I heard from a few locals.

Reposting this from last fall to give thread newcomers a" feel' for the abduction area

 

[odyssey1492]

I do not believe that.

A judge signed off on a search warrant that cost the public thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars that was at a time when Minnesota was in financial crisis.

I do not believe something like that would be done easily.

There are plenty of suspects that would be available. Minnesota has tons of sex offenders, some living right at St. John's College. No shortage of possibilities.

The DR family is a big deal in the area. There are people with way less status out there to pick on.

Warrants are not granted with a rubber stamp, but probable cause is not a high standard. And judges do not consider whether a search will be expensive when granting a warrant. And they certainly would not deny a warrant or a grant a warrant based on financial crisis.

 

[odyssey1492]

I think the DR family has plenty of money. Why does he not try to clear his name in a legal manner?

Maybe it is not important to him for some reason?

In our system of law, people are innocent until proven guilty. Nobody is required to "clear" their name, the State is required to prove guilt. And as far as we know, the police have zero evidence implicating DR. If he didn't do it, and he was home alone that night, exactly what is he supposed to do to clear his name? Short of solving the crime himself, I suppose.

 

[human]

He has never been charged, no evidence has ever been introduced against him.
How, exactly, is he going to "clear his name?"

DR hasn't Lawyered-up. A lawyer might have helped him in dealing (or not dealing) with the press. On the other hand, getting a lawyer, who will probably tell him to not talk to anyone about the case, would only make him appear "guiltier".

How many people read in here? How many people know he is a POI?

The school he was at hired an assistant to be with him.

I think he could get a lawyer to say, "put up or shut up."

How many of us would be willing to live under the cloud, especially if we had money to deal with it.

 

[human]

Warrants are not granted with a rubber stamp, but probable cause is not a high standard. And judges do not consider whether a search will be expensive when granting a warrant. And they certainly would not deny a warrant or a grant a warrant based on financial crisis.

It is a sealed warrant. An even higher standard, I imagine.

Considering that criminals are let out all of the time because there is no money for incarceration, I think a judge would take it under high advisement if there was little to go on. Money makes everything go round the world around.

 

[human]

In our system of law, people are innocent until proven guilty. Nobody is required to "clear" their name, the State is required to prove guilt. And as far as we know, the police have zero evidence implicating DR. If he didn't do it, and he was home alone that night, exactly what is he supposed to do to clear his name? Short of solving the crime himself, I suppose.

I am not talking about his legal rights of innocence. I am talking about the perception of the community.

I am not a lawyer, but I would ask that the evidence against me be shown so I could deal with it.

I would not want to live with people thinking I am a child kidnapper and worse.

 

[Camille Grace]

Originally Posted by human:

I am not a lawyer, but I would ask that the evidence against me be shown so I could deal with it.

I would not want to live with people thinking I am a child kidnapper and worse.

I am not talking about his legal rights of innocence. I am talking about the perception of the community.

Here is a link to a story that was in the news last Fall. Dan Rassier complains about how he has been treated in the investigation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/dan-rassier-jacob-wetterling-abduction_n_1736816.html

 

[odyssey1492]

It is a sealed warrant. An even higher standard, I imagine.

Considering that criminals are let out all of the time because there is no money for incarceration, I think a judge would take it under high advisement if there was little to go on. Money makes everything go round the world around.

Whether a search warrant is sealed or not has no bearing on the underlying need to show probable cause for a warrant. And it is not a higher standard of probable cause to get the warrant just because its sealed. Warrants can be sealed for a variety of reasons, including to protect witnesses names, to protect the names of minors, to protect informants, and also if law enforcement can show that not sealing the warrant would compromise an investigation in some way. Yes, the State has to satisfy a judge that the warrant should be sealed, but that has nothing to do with whether or not to issue the warrant.

And the simple fact is that judges do not and cannot consider the cost of executing a search when deciding whether to grant a warrant. A judge either finds probable cause and issues the warrant or not. That is how the system works.

 

[ELOCsoul]

Whether a search warrant is sealed or not has no bearing on the underlying need to show probable cause for a warrant. And it is not a higher standard of probable cause to get the warrant just because its sealed. Warrants can be sealed for a variety of reasons, including to protect witnesses names, to protect the names of minors, to protect informants, and also if law enforcement can show that not sealing the warrant would compromise an investigation in some way. Yes, the State has to satisfy a judge that the warrant should be sealed, but that has nothing to do with whether or not to issue the warrant.

And the simple fact is that judges do not and cannot consider the cost of executing a search when deciding whether to grant a warrant. A judge either finds probable cause and issues the warrant or not. That is how the system works.

All good points. I think that what Human was trying to emphasize is that LE felt strong enough about their likelihood of discovering evidence, that they poured a lot of money into the search effort. The scale of the search was significant, including multiple agencies and equipment, as well as search dogs from Oklahoma. Interestingly, the use of search dogs, if the dogs detect something, can be used as probable cause for expanded future search warrant application.

 

[human]

Originally Posted by human:

I am not a lawyer, but I would ask that the evidence against me be shown so I could deal with it.

I would not want to live with people thinking I am a child kidnapper and worse.

I am not talking about his legal rights of innocence. I am talking about the perception of the community.

Here is a link to a story that was in the news last Fall. Dan Rassier complains about how he has been treated in the investigation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/dan-rassier-jacob-wetterling-abduction_n_1736816.html

Exactly my point. When you need a surgeon, you go to one. You do not do a home operation.

When you need legal work, you go to a lawyer.

 

[human]

Whether a search warrant is sealed or not has no bearing on the underlying need to show probable cause for a warrant. And it is not a higher standard of probable cause to get the warrant just because its sealed. Warrants can be sealed for a variety of reasons, including to protect witnesses names, to protect the names of minors, to protect informants, and also if law enforcement can show that not sealing the warrant would compromise an investigation in some way. Yes, the State has to satisfy a judge that the warrant should be sealed, but that has nothing to do with whether or not to issue the warrant.

And the simple fact is that judges do not and cannot consider the cost of executing a search when deciding whether to grant a warrant. A judge either finds probable cause and issues the warrant or not. That is how the system works.

I think judges have a lot of discretion when issuing a search warrant or LE would not need to get a warrant. This was huge, and the judge had to decide if the evidence warranted such an incredible search.

Digging up a farm with huge equipment is a bit different than checking your car or looking in some cupboards.

 

[odyssey1492]

Exactly my point. When you need a surgeon, you go to one. You do not do a home operation.

When you need legal work, you go to a lawyer.

Generally, yes, a lawyer would be a good idea in a situation like this. But that approach cuts both ways. A lawyer would tell DR to stop talking and stay quiet. In the court of public opinion, I'm sure that would play against him. He would be perceived as trying to hide something. And there would be very little a lawyer could do, considering everything is sealed, except be prepared to defend DR if he were arrested.

On the other hand, if you are innocent and have nothing to hide, maybe the best approach is to speak out as DR has done in mailing those letters and telling his story. Granted, DR's approach has not been the best. In half jest, I would suggest he needs a PR person more than a lawyer.