My own theory of the crime is that someone; either an experienced child abductor or someone who had given it a lot of thought, drove around St Joseph looking for likely abduction sites. These sites would probably be places where a vehicle could be concealed and there would be minimal traffic or pedestrians and little likelihood of witnesses. Hiding the vehicle would be critical because a description of the vehicle would pose the greatest risk for an abductor who wasn't from the area. In scouting out the area, it would be reasonable that the abductor would want to know where a dirt road leads.
I think the general plan was to wait for an appropriate child (probably a pre-adolescent boy) to be walking. When a possible target was sighted, the abductor would determine if the child was likely to pass any pre-determined abduction sites. If there was one, the abductor would go to that site, conceal his car, and wait. If the child did not pass the sight, the mission would be aborted.
The fact that the footprints and the dog scent ended 40 yards up the road support this (but do not absolutely prove) this scenario.
It is certainly possible that DR, in a moment of impulsive madness, would snatch a child right in front of his home in front of two witnesses and take that child back to his home. Any reasonable person would expect the witnesses to go to the first house, minutes away and notify the police who would be knocking on doors and asking for a "look around" within 10 minutes. Such an action would suggest insanity and total disregard for the possibility of getting caught. While I cannot prove this didn't happen, it is apparent that nothing in DR's past is suggestive of any impulse to do such a thing.
While there is no compelling evidence that either theory of the crime is accurate, I think the first is far more likely than the second.
Posters have stated that DR is the "prime suspect" but is he? We know that after Kevin came forward, a new theory of the crime emerged and the police acted on it. One standard Law Enforcement tactic is to approach anyone who is a possible suspect with the "we know you did it, you might as well confess" ploy. It sometimes works. It doesn't mean that person is really guilty or that the police really "know they did it". It is just a tactic that occasionally works. If DR were to start offering an explanation as to why human remains might be in the burned out building, it would have meant a lot. But he didn't.
We all want this case solved and when the name of a new person of interest emerges, we are all hopeful. Sometimes; actually a lot of the time, it goes nowhere.
My own theory of the crime is that someone; either an experienced child abductor or someone who had given it a lot of thought, drove around St Joseph looking for likely abduction sites. These sites would probably be places where a vehicle could be concealed and there would be minimal traffic or pedestrians and little likelihood of witnesses. Hiding the vehicle would be critical because a description of the vehicle would pose the greatest risk for an abductor who wasn't from the area. In scouting out the area, it would be reasonable that the abductor would want to know where a dirt road leads.
I think the general plan was to wait for an appropriate child (probably a pre-adolescent boy) to be walking. When a possible target was sighted, the abductor would determine if the child was likely to pass any pre-determined abduction sites. If there was one, the abductor would go to that site, conceal his car, and wait. If the child did not pass the sight, the mission would be aborted.
The fact that the footprints and the dog scent ended 40 yards up the road support this (but do not absolutely prove) this scenario.
It is certainly possible that DR, in a moment of impulsive madness, would snatch a child right in front of his home in front of two witnesses and take that child back to his home. Any reasonable person would expect the witnesses to go to the first house, minutes away and notify the police who would be knocking on doors and asking for a "look around" within 10 minutes. Such an action would suggest insanity and total disregard for the possibility of getting caught. While I cannot prove this didn't happen, it is apparent that nothing in DR's past is suggestive of any impulse to do such a thing.
While there is no compelling evidence that either theory of the crime is accurate, I think the first is far more likely than the second.
Posters have stated that DR is the "prime suspect" but is he? We know that after Kevin came forward, a new theory of the crime emerged and the police acted on it. One standard Law Enforcement tactic is to approach anyone who is a possible suspect with the "we know you did it, you might as well confess" ploy. It sometimes works. It doesn't mean that person is really guilty or that the police really "know they did it". It is just a tactic that occasionally works. If DR were to start offering an explanation as to why human remains might be in the burned out building, it would have meant a lot. But he didn't.
We all want this case solved and when the name of a new person of interest emerges, we are all hopeful. Sometimes; actually a lot of the time, it goes nowhere.
Tracker, would you mind looking at the pics of Jacob's tracks and telling us what you think?
They may have enough evidence to arrest DR, but not enough to convict him.
Bold-- the guy that took Jaycee Dugard .
Bold- the neighbor who took Alanna and put her on the street.
Bold- the guy that took Amber Hagerman.
Lots of bold .
.
What post number are they or is there a link? I have not been able to read the entire thread yet.
Trackergd
Here are some links to some good photos of the abduction scene, as well as information about the case from DR and others:
http://www.joybaker.com/category/jacob/page/12/
(snipped for space)
The above link sketch looks more like DR's father to me! Has it been verified they were in fact in Europe? just thinking out loud here, nothing more.
Trackergd
Here are some links to some good photos of the abduction scene, as well as information about the case from DR and others:
http://www.joybaker.com/category/jacob/page/12/
(snipped for space)
The above link sketch looks more like DR's father to me! Has it been verified they were in fact in Europe? just thinking out loud here, nothing more.
I've thought that before too on the older guy sketch. But yes, LE did confirm they were still in Europe. DR did have uncles (dad's brothers) who lived locally though and look alike. One of them (Lou) just died recently and his obit pic is online.
Lou? The mysterious Lou of the Bahner tapes??????????
Everytime I watch this video below of Dan and any others for that matter I just can't help but think he's responsible.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/...est-goes-through-day-of-wetterling-abduction/
When he says he's absolutely convinced 100 percent that the person that drove the tan colored car in the afternoon is the kidnapper.....where is the logic in that? There isn't any!! Why on earth would he think someone driving a car in the afternoon be responsible for an abduction later that night and at that same location no less which was a last minute plan thought up by the boys that night. None of this or anything with DR from the beginning adds up. The only car he saw was Kevin's which probably startled him while he was in the process of doing something with Jacob. In fact seeing Kevin's car just might have been what gave him the idea of placing a vehicle on scene to begin with. Then by saying he would go check some of his outbuildings that night for Jacob is very telling in my opinion because most people wouldn't do that alone or with only a flash light in hand since there would be a chance they could be in one of the buildings which would be a dangerous situation in confronting anyone. Just too many common sense things stacked up against DR which is exactly why an agent asked him to confess....LE knows he's responsible. I wish he would just confess and get it over with! Then he can start enjoying his free meals and cable tv.