MN - Jacob Wetterling, 11, St. Joseph, 22 Oct 1989 - #8

[cGorg]

So whose license plate is that!

regarding my post to 'think'...human + Jbrown I wasn't meaning to be rude...just borrowing the lyric 'think' from the Ballad of John + Yoko...sorry if it appeared rude. Seems I have to 'think' a lot on Mossad's posts.

regarding the number on the license plate 238867...that is DH's OID number.

http://mugshots.com/search.html?q= Delbert Huber

OOPS! I see 'Ifollowthis' already found the link. I've been gone for awhile and haven't caught up on all of the posts

 

[ELOCsoul]

Ah yes, but what is the back story? Has one of his alibis "convinced" him to fess up to the role they thought he had? What would you do? Let your alibi pull the rug out, or tell on your own terms and contain the full scope of your involvement? Rules of the street are harsh, imo.

~ svh

Okay, but that raises another question. If Kevin came forward motivated by peer pressure, why would there be no fallout from him being misleading in his story? Why would law enforcement make up the story about him meeting a former US marshall at a party, and that the marshall convinced him to come forward?

 

[Ifollowthis]

Okay, but that raises another question. If Kevin came forward motivated by peer pressure, why would there be no fallout from him being misleading in his story? Why would law enforcement make up the story about him meeting a former US marshall at a party, and that the marshall convinced him to come forward?

I have always wondered if the Former US Marshall was FBI agent Al Garber, he was the lead on the case at the beginning, and still keeps in contact with the Wetterlings. he was appointed as a US Marshal for this area by president Bush. Was the party where they met in Maple Grove??

 

[Sasquatch321]

I just thought of something today. As you approach the farm from the old tom thumb you going up a slow inclining hill. In fact, when you are at the mailboxes and end of the farm driveway (abduction site) you have just come up and over that hill. There is no way a stranger would have put himself in this situation- a dead end to the left and no field of vision to the right. It was also dark out, only DR saw them going to the store and knew the area well enough to surprise the boys as they came over the hill.

 

[Sigrun]

Okay, but that raises another question. If Kevin came forward motivated by peer pressure, why would there be no fallout from him being misleading in his story? Why would law enforcement make up the story about him meeting a former US marshall at a party, and that the marshall convinced him to come forward?

I'm not sure I'm following your question here, sorry. I'll break it down as I see it, at least as one of any number of possible reasons. He and gf are the perps (hypothetical). So, they tell their relatives they are guilty of a lesser crime. So they agree to give him and her an alibi. Years later one of them gets religion and says he and she have to come clean about driving down the driveway. The relatives know about that, but they don't know the full extent of the his and her crime. So, he and she can leave that illusion in place and come forward by admitting he and she were in fact there. Otherwise, his religious relative is going to spoil his entire alibi and all attention will be on him and her for the crimes they actually committed.

As for the Marshals Service, that's nothing more dramatic than the mechanism by which he revealed that he drove down the driveway ... that's all. He did what his relatives asked. It was just how he felt most comfortable doing it. LE didn't have to do anything wrong here at all. And if I were in his or her shoes, this is exactly how I would do it (hypothetically). This is one way a certain personality type can get alibis, imo.

Whatever his criminal record might be, it doesn't really have any bearing if you just take a sec to look at some well-known serial killers, for example. They are not always known offenders. If he is in LE himself, all the more likely he was never caught, imo.

~ svh

To be clear about your first question; you realize, he is lying to everyone right? He's lying to his relatives and the police.

I'll provide a concrete example. K+K tell their relatives they sold a pound (?) of crack cocaine to DR 15 minutes after the abduction, and no one realized yet anything else had happened. His family agrees to give him an alibi for the time of the abduction, even though he wasn't with his relatives then. They do this to protect him from scrutiny over the abduction. And the family doesn't talk because they believe they have a good reason to; the two will likely be inculpated in a much more serious crime if they don't. Relatives never make good alibis and this is just one way they can be made to order. I'm not saying this particular example happened, I'm illustrating how it can happen, and how easy it is.

 

[Caoutchouc]

I just thought of something today. As you approach the farm from the old tom thumb you going up a slow inclining hill. In fact, when you are at the mailboxes and end of the farm driveway (abduction site) you have just come up and over that hill. There is no way a stranger would have put himself in this situation- a dead end to the left and no field of vision to the right. It was also dark out, only DR saw them going to the store and knew the area well enough to surprise the boys as they came over the hill.

1. DR did not state that he saw the boys going to the store, and there's no evidence that he saw the boys going to the store. That might be your theory, but please state it as theory, not fact
2. A perp staking out the area could've thought it was the perfect place to literally, "lie low"

 

[Sigrun]

No, I did not see why you said he wanted his stuff back. So can you give a quick answer?

As far as a car, think about your car and when you are stopped. Not only does stuff fall off of the car , but think of what the car does when you start it up again and move.

Part one, the summary of my answer to you earlier was that I don't know why he wanted his stuff back. And I don't think we can know that.

Part two, I'm not following what you're asking. If a car starts and stops normally without locking or spinning tires, no, I do not see how it would create a visually discernible discontinuity in the track on dry ground, which we would also be able to see in the images we have. Since I've already said that we can agree to disagree, but I don't see it.

~ svh

 

[Tammy N]

I'm not sure I'm following your question here, sorry. I'll break it down as I see it, at least as one of any number of possible reasons. He and gf are the perps (hypothetical). So, they tell their relatives they are guilty of a lesser crime. So they agree to give him and her an alibi. Years later one of them gets religion and says he and she have to come clean about driving down the driveway. The relatives know about that, but they don't know the full extent of the his and her crime. So, he and she can leave that illusion in place and come forward by admitting he and she were in fact there. Otherwise, his religious relative is going to spoil his entire alibi and all attention will be on him and her for the crimes they actually committed.

As for the Marshals Service, that's nothing more dramatic than the mechanism by which he revealed that he drove down the driveway ... that's all. He did what his relatives asked. It was just how he felt most comfortable doing it. LE didn't have to do anything wrong here at all. And if I were in his or her shoes, this is exactly how I would do it (hypothetically). This is one way a certain personality type can get alibis, imo.

Whatever his criminal record might be, it doesn't really have any bearing if you just take a sec to look at some well-known serial killers, for example. They are not always known offenders. If he is in LE himself, all the more likely he was never caught, imo.

~ svh

No matter how the the K ( or "K & K" ) hypothetical is plotted, tossed, or spun, I can't wrap my head around it in any way at all that K (and or "K & K") are perps or in any way involved in this outside they heard it on the scanner and went to see what was going down. I just don't buy that even as a possible theory. My reason for this is precisely as ECOL's latest post regarding same.

Throwing out conjecture that K (and/or "K&K") told family, then said family pretty much pushed them to come forward (when it was actually the US Marshall he ran into at a party who convinced him to come forward) is just throwing another rabbit into the pot and adding some salt, as far as I can tell. Like I said I really just can't wrap my head around and "like" him (or them) for any of this.

To be clear about your first question; you realize, he is lying to everyone right? He's lying to his relatives and the police.

Can I please see documentation where it is proven/shown that he was lying? I think this is confusing as this is the first I have seen a mention of this?

1. DR did not state that he saw the boys going to the store, and there's no evidence that he saw the boys going to the store. That might be your theory, but please state it as theory, not fact
2. A perp staking out the area could've thought it was the perfect place to literally, "lie low"

as to #2 - I seriously highly doubt anyone would choose that particular very infrequently traveled area at that time of night on the off-chance some kids in the age range of 11-12 or so might be out and about. It's not like someone could have previously seen the boys (or any other boys) out biking that road at night. It was NOT usual - in fact, per Patty Wetterling - it was the first and ONLY time she gave in and allowed them to bike to Tom Thumb that late at night. I do not buy a perp lying in wait scenario in any way, shape, or form. Only exception I can see to this 'perp lying in wait' scenario would be the boys were seen riding the bikes towards Tom Thumb by someone living there (DR) and recognized the kids, knew they'd be coming back that way, and THEN waited for their return. It was pure chance at that moment, specifically, that those boys were out and about and back in that day that road was NOT frequently traveled at all except by the few people that lived back there.


NOTE: I have zero idea how to multi-quote, so have no idea how this will come out once I hit this handy dandy send button :::crossing fingers:::

 

[Sigrun]

No matter how the the K ( or "K & K" ) hypothetical is plotted, tossed, or spun, I can't wrap my head around it in any way at all that K (and or "K & K") are perps or in any way involved in this outside they heard it on the scanner and went to see what was going down. I just don't buy that even as a possible theory. My reason for this is precisely as ECOL's latest post regarding same.

Throwing out conjecture that K (and/or "K&K") told family, then said family pretty much pushed them to come forward (when it was actually the US Marshall he ran into at a party who convinced him to come forward) is just throwing another rabbit into the pot and adding some salt, as far as I can tell. Like I said I really just can't wrap my head around and "like" him (or them) for any of this.

Right, but I'm not saying this particular example happened, my point was that relatives don't make good alibis. This was an example of how and why. As for being pushed before a Marshal, it only matters that he would have to reveal it to someone initially. And that is his choice, which can be influenced by a back story we don't know about.

Can I please see documentation where it is proven/shown that he was lying? I think this is confusing as this is the first I have seen a mention of this?

It was an example of how and why a relative doesn't make a good alibi. They are not neutral parties. Therefore, imo, it would be naive to "clear" someone based on the alibi of a relative.

~ svh

 

[Caoutchouc]

Right, and given the track evidence:

What are you thinking re the "medical cop" statement? Is "Kevin" prevaricating because he knows no real cop was there? Wasn't sure what you're getting at. It is an odd job title though and I have no idea what he meant by it.

btw, why was the car moving toward the house on the get-away? I think this is an oddity worth thinking about. Perhaps JEW was picked up from the passenger side, but then what of that dog scent that kept going? Might not have meant anything, I dunno. Maybe the passenger moved over and drove. Or maybe two adults were waiting in the car?

~ svh

I don't have an exact theory about this "medical cop", except that he doesn't exist as described.

2 possibilities:
1. Kevin made him up to divert suspicion away from him
2. The "medical cop" existed, but was:
a. The perp
b. A co-conspirator
c. Another random actor giving a bogus job description

In terms of why the car potentially moved towards the house on the get-away, 3 possibilities:
1. It didn't. The car was situated on DR's property such that it didn't need to turn around in order to exit, and the car DR saw turn around was only K+K after JEW was already gone
2. The perp didn't realize DR's driveway was a driveway and believed it was a thru street (Joy shows how this might be a possibility on her blog)
3. The perp knew it was DR's driveway and knew of the turnaround and deliberately chose to drive down it in order to
a. Potentially confuse/disorient JEW (w/the initial intent of letting him go after assault)
b. Throw investigators off his track

 

[Tammy N]

Right, but I'm not saying this particular example happened, my point was that relatives don't make good alibis. This was an example of how and why. As for being pushed before a Marshal, it only matters that he would have to reveal it to someone initially. And that is his choice, which can be influenced by a back story we don't know about.

Ah! No, they surely don't, so I would agree with you on the relative alibi stance. I haven't seen anywhere that he was 'pushed' before a Marshal. The reports say he had been at a party whereat he met a Marshal. Conversation, apparently, got around to the Wetterling abduction and Kevin mentioned that night and his hearing the scanner/sirens and driving over and the Marshal encouraged him to go in with regarding it. We don't know any back story other than the back story reported, by Kevin and LE.

Absolutely anything is possible, I have seen proof of that in my line of work, but from everything I know about this case, and I have followed it since the very evening it happened, no matter what comes along or is uncovered, everything eventually leads me, personally, back to DR being directly and singularly involved in this.

It was an example of how and why a relative doesn't make a good alibi. They are not neutral parties. Therefore, imo, it would be naive to "clear" someone based on the alibi of a relative.

~ svh

Again, Ah! (laughing) I was reading it as "this is what happened" when I should have been reading it as "this has nothing at all to do with what actually happened".. now I'm good! thank you for clarifying!

 

[Sigrun]

I don't have an exact theory about this "medical cop", except that he doesn't exist as described.

2 possibilities:
1. Kevin made him up to divert suspicion away from him
2. The "medical cop" existed, but was:
a. The perp
b. A co-conspirator
c. Another random actor giving a bogus job description

Indeed, and the term is so odd I'm wondering what personality said it, but we don't know anything at this point. I like "c" for now. Least assumptions based on very little info.

In terms of why the car potentially moved towards the house on the get-away, 3 possibilities:
1. It didn't. The car was situated on DR's property such that it didn't need to turn around in order to exit, and the car DR saw turn around was only K+K after JEW was already gone
2. The perp didn't realize DR's driveway was a driveway and believed it was a thru street (Joy shows how this might be a possibility on her blog)
3. The perp knew it was DR's driveway and knew of the turnaround and deliberately chose to drive down it in order to
a. Potentially confuse/disorient JEW (w/the initial intent of letting him go after assault)
b. Throw investigators off his track

Seems to me like 1 and 3a are the simplest explanations, with 1 being most likely (simplest).

It seems like the simplest viable conclusion to the on-script prank would be to conceal identities, then dump the boy within 3 hours somewhere he can be reliably identified and picked up but not where police would be during an abduction response (that's a clue). Harsh way of putting it, and I think the word "prank" could end up being a little inaccurate. I'll call it a felonious prank, or just a "frank" for short.

Which ones get your vote? Frankly, our lists pretty much match.

~ svh

 

[Jbrown324320]

Tammy, it could have possibly been someone visiting DR. And I am leaning towards it being a spontaneous act, but it seems like my suspect list and mo changes and gets larger daily.

and caout, we have deducted a while back that the "medical cop" was most likely Matt Feeney. He drove a former police car with a CB radio and has a record of child molestation against boys. Please see here:

MN MN - Jacob Wetterling, 11, St. Joseph, 22 Oct 1989 - #4 - Page 36 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
http://www.joybaker.com/2013/04/01/a-few-answers-many-more-questions/

 

[Sigrun]

Ah! No, they surely don't, so I would agree with you on the relative alibi stance. I haven't seen anywhere that he was 'pushed' before a Marshal. The reports say he had been at a party whereat he met a Marshal. Conversation, apparently, got around to the Wetterling abduction and Kevin mentioned that night and his hearing the scanner/sirens and driving over and the Marshal encouraged him to go in with regarding it. We don't know any back story other than the back story reported, by Kevin and LE.

Absolutely anything is possible, I have seen proof of that in my line of work, but from everything I know about this case, and I have followed it since the very evening it happened, no matter what comes along or is uncovered, everything eventually leads me, personally, back to DR being directly and singularly involved in this.




Again, Ah! (laughing) I was reading it as "this is what happened" when I should have been reading it as "this has nothing at all to do with what actually happened".. now I'm good! thank you for clarifying!

Well, I disagree with these points you make now but my original point was that it is not a good idea to "clear" someone on the basis of alibis from relatives. If that is what the two are "cleared" with, I don't think its wise.

~ svh

 

[Jbrown324320]

this was most likely a child sex group operating in the area who shared pictures and methods. possibly someone saw the boys alone and alerted someone by cb radio.

I highly suggest going over all the threads to see what was uncovered so far and what wasn't. This new thread is going so fast. Are we going in the right direction? I hope so. It does seem like we covered almost all angles and didn't get anywhere. New ideas are always welcomed, but it is easier to go forward when you have the background.

 

[Sigrun]

Tammy, it could have possibly been someone visiting DR. And I am leaning towards it being a spontaneous act, but it seems like my suspect list and mo changes and gets larger daily.

and caout, we have deducted a while back that the "medical cop" was most likely Matt Feeney. He drove a former police car with a CB radio and has a record of child molestation against boys. Please see here:

MN MN - Jacob Wetterling, 11, St. Joseph, 22 Oct 1989 - #4 - Page 36 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
http://www.joybaker.com/2013/04/01/a-few-answers-many-more-questions/

Wow! Just in time. Maybe choice "c" is not such a random actor.

~ svh

 

[Jbrown324320]

I don't know why they cleared Kevin, but I don't trust LE. Especially if they didn't give a reason publically why they were cleared. I wouldn't rule him out.

 

[Sigrun]

I don't know why they cleared Kevin, but I don't trust LE. Especially if they didn't give a reason publically why they were cleared. I wouldn't rule him out.

Right, if he and the girl had alibis at Tom Thumbs or some public place with named persons that would be golden.

~ svh

 

[Jbrown324320]

we may have to look at the innermost circle first- the people we know who were at or near the scene and then go outside the circle. This means looking at DR and Kevin first, then after we can rule them out, then move forward. We could never rule them out though so we just went outside the circle.

the circle is now very large because there are/were so many child sexual predators in the area. I don't want to lose focus.

 

[Tammy N]

Well, I disagree with these points you make now but my original point was that it is not a good idea to "clear" someone on the basis of alibis from relatives. If that is what the two are "cleared" with, I don't think its wise.

~ svh

Could I get some clarification as to what 'points' you disagree with? I really didn't think I was trying to make any point at all. Merely pointed out the reported reason that Kevin eventually came forward.