MN - Jacob Wetterling, 11, St. Joseph, 22 Oct 1989 - #5
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
Aaron has said the abductor sounded like he had a cold. DR may have had a cold that October. I don't think the voice really rules him out. I do agree if he is not guilty, I would not want him confessing. But I don't think there's any danger of that.
thenotebook
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 542
- Reaction score
- 97
Agreed. I think at this point DR has put up a fight for long enough that he's not going to suddenly give in and confess to something he didn't do.
One thing that I was thinking about for the car vs no car theories....if the guy did NOT have a vehicle, why would he pick that exact spot at the end of the driveway? If he really was on foot, he could have chosen any spot along that rode and come up and out of any area of the ditch.
But he didn't - he came right up out of the ditch in front of the driveway. That also makes me believe he had a vehicle stashed up there waiting for him.
One thing that I was thinking about for the car vs no car theories....if the guy did NOT have a vehicle, why would he pick that exact spot at the end of the driveway? If he really was on foot, he could have chosen any spot along that rode and come up and out of any area of the ditch.
But he didn't - he came right up out of the ditch in front of the driveway. That also makes me believe he had a vehicle stashed up there waiting for him.
thenotebook
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 542
- Reaction score
- 97
I also wanted to make a comment about Kevin, the guy who came forward 14 years later and said he'd driven his car into the driveway. I do not know Kevin, nor have I been in a situation like that so I can't say for sure what I would have done.
But it just infuriates me that he waited SO long to come forward. He also said (I think in the interview on Joy's blog) that he actually thought about picking up the bikes and scooters and loading them into his car and bringing them to the police station because the scene was not yet roped off. What kind of semi-intelligent person thinks disturbing a fresh crime scene would be a good idea? And then lets the police and the world waste 14 years looking for a certain tire track that belonged to HIS car?? Uggh.
But it just infuriates me that he waited SO long to come forward. He also said (I think in the interview on Joy's blog) that he actually thought about picking up the bikes and scooters and loading them into his car and bringing them to the police station because the scene was not yet roped off. What kind of semi-intelligent person thinks disturbing a fresh crime scene would be a good idea? And then lets the police and the world waste 14 years looking for a certain tire track that belonged to HIS car?? Uggh.
LE spent who knows how much money on digging up that farm and sifting through the dirt.
Since you live in CA, you may not know this. Michelle Bachmann ,who may well be the most conservative member of Congress ,represents that area.
In one race, she won against Patty Wetterling.
The Sheriff is elected.
There is no way that people in that district would tolerate wasting money.
LE is not fishing around with the taxpayers money.
(BBM)
Over the years DR has always been referred to as "the person of interest" - this is not something that changed after 2004 when Kevin came forward. See links below:
"Sheriff John Sanner told the Times that Daniel Rassier is a "person of interest" in Jacob's disappearance."
7/03/2010
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=856548
"CASAREZ: And you`re talking about the person of interest in this case, Daniel Rassier.
DIVINE: Correct."
2/28/2011
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1102/28/ng.01.html
"For 21 years Dan Rassier has lived under a cloud of suspicion. He has been called, by police, a person of interest in the Jacob Wetterling case."
There is a two-part interview by the local t.v. station that interviews the main person of interest, Dan Rassier. "
Part 1: http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=875911
Part 2: http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=875817
________
Also, DR DID offer explanations of why Jacob might be found on his property..
In this article, where DR is still called a "person of interest", he tells Patty Wetterling that "someone could have taken Jacob's body and hidden it in our gravel pit."
For 1st Time, Person Of Interest Goes Through Day Of Wetterling Abduction
5/14/2013
"In 2009, Rassier agreed to meet with Patty Wetterling where he said he repeatedly denied any involvement.
Rassier also told Wetterling where he thought a body could be hidden on his property.
The person in the area who probably did this could have taken Jacobs body and hidden it in our gravel pit, Rassier told Patty Wetterling."
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/...est-goes-through-day-of-wetterling-abduction/
Alyssa2013
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2013
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 6
I agree with the above comments of the people who suspect Dan Rassier, but I also grapple with the possibility that he couldn't have done it simply because the crime itself is so bold and he lived so close. It just seems a little far-fetched to me but I definitely don't count him out as a suspect. It's really unfortunate that most of what we have to go on is mostly speculation. Many people thought that this man stalked Jacob before the actual crime, which is definitely possible, but then why ask the boys their ages if he only wanted Jacob in the first place? Doesn't make sense to me. Even if it wasn't the first time he saw the boys, I think there's a reason why he asked them that question. Perhaps because he was deciding which one to choose? I don't know exactly why he asked their ages but for whatever reason it just seems to me that he wouldn't have asked them anything at all if he just wanted Jacob to begin with. Just MHO. I know I've already mentioned it but I always wondered why he asked their ages. Should that even matter? And can we be sure that was the question he really asked?
Alyssa2013
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2013
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 6
Also, I think there was a reason behind the pantyhose or the mask that the perpetrator was wearing. Why else would he want to cover his face? Sure, so the boys wouldn't recognize him, but could it be also that somebody else would recognize him? Maybe he was a local after all. If he came from out of state I don't think that it would be as necessary to hide his face. Maybe the boys even knew him. I'm also wondering about the boys' accuracy in the description of the masked man. It's 9:00 at night, pretty dark, and this man had a mask on and told them to lie face down; that doesn't give them much time to see his face, not to mention the fact that these boys are probably terrified to death just trying to follow instructions. And when they did get up the man made them run without looking back. At most the boys probably got in one, two, three glances but I don't know if that's enough to actually get a good description. Jacob's brother said that he saw resistance from Jacob before he left. I agree with others when they say that the perpetrator most likely had a car waiting. I'm not doubting the boys' vision, I'm just saying that in a situation like that there's still reason for doubt.
Alyssa2013
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2013
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 6
Good points, human. And I definitely think it's possible. Thanks for reminding me of all of those. Now, about all of these links that Jacob has to pedophiles/sex offenders... are they all legitimate? It seems so many have come out now saying that they abducted Jacob, were interested in Jacob, but I don't know if they all can be believed, if they just want attention, or if they really are telling the truth. I think a really strong tip needs to come in from someone who has details of the crime that only the perpetrator would know. That's my hope.
Trackergd
Verified SAR Manager and Tracker - Retired
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2013
- Messages
- 4,371
- Reaction score
- 27,031
What post number are they or is there a link? I have not been able to read the entire thread yet.
I think BOLD can go both ways. In the case of Amber Hagerman, she made the decision to bike down a ramp one more time while her brother rode his bike back home as his Grandma had told them to do. The perp saw she was alone and immediately grabbed the girl and threw her into a pickup truck and sped away. In Jacob's case, it seems the same thing is possible except the perp has the advantage of darkness and a very desolate road.
ELOCsoul
Verified Author - "Finding Jacob Wetterling"
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,386
- Reaction score
- 286
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/10/
http://www.joybaker.com/category/jacob/page/12/
http://www.joybaker.com/category/jacob/page/14/
http://www.joybaker.com/category/jacob/page/15/
http://www.joybaker.com/category/jacob/page/20/
B4igo2it
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 7,069
- Reaction score
- 1,906
I think that was already discussed in earlier threads. Apparently, Lou Rassier is not the 'Lou' of the Bahner tapes. Not saying it couldn't be true, just that some poster earlier made reference to it and another discounted the connection. May have to search for that dialogue. It would open up a whole 'nother' world though if there was a connection.
Wisdom, just wondering.....did you read all of the comments posted at the end of the article?(I say 'article' as the interview is also transcribed) And if so, what do you think? Some strange comments IMHO.
- Status