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

[nmogren]

I was referring to her blog and efforts that made the news and papers 2 week ago. She did get the case back in the media by talking about the paynesville incidents. Clearly if this case gets media attention more leads will come up for LE. Who cares about her glasses.

Have you never heard the phrase "rose colored glasses?". Sometimes I think I must be the only one on here that's over 20. Sigh.

 

[Jbrown324320]

Caoutchouc, no one on this thread to my knowledge has requested anything from the FOIA.

 

[Trackergd]

Asking again because I'm going to try and submit a request by the end of the week- namely for crime scene photos and a few records.

Anyone?

I was stonewalled by the Sheriff's department.

I gather it is a 25 year old "active investigation".

I wish you better luck.

 

[Jbrown324320]

tim, here is the link. Human said the hubers items are on the bottom part of the page.
http://www.agweek.com/event/auctionsDetail/id/3997/property_id/1/

Clipped from above link:

VanDerBrink Auctions will be selling the following personal property at auction. As the Huber Farm as been sold and to close this chapter-all items must be sold at auction to the highest bidders. This auction has an assortment of Belarus Tractors, IH Combine,

Various Farm Equipment, along with some Shop Tools, Misc. Hand Tools, and a lot of SCRAP at Auction

VEHICLES

Various Vehicles for Scrap-Parts

 

[Sigrun]

Asking again because I'm going to try and submit a request by the end of the week- namely for crime scene photos and a few records.

Anyone?

Can you request info on whether or not those tracks were tied to a Grand Prix? Also, the identity of K+K? Just a suggestion.

~ svh

 

[Sigrun]

It still can't be ignored that 4 people would have had to fully lie about what they were up to that evening. Dinner & cards seems way more plausible than 4 people corroborating together to kidnap a kid.

Well, not exactly. The bad alibis don't have to know K+K actually abducted JEW, only that they were up to no good. Any good sociopathic lie can cover that angle. Only two people needed to know what was really going on, the two people in the Grand Prix.

~ svh

 

[Caoutchouc]

It is not free. You have to pay for time and copies.

That's actually a big misconception. It's free up to 2 hours and 100 pages, among many other exceptions...

 

[FindTim]

Thanks Jbrown. Below is the address to the Huber property. Canvasing the property from above it doesn't appear that there is any remnants of a blue 4 door. Though, it's highly plausible that the car may have been sold or crushed long ago.
19251 293rd Ave, Paynesville, Minnesota 56362

It sure would be nice to have aerials of the property circa the mid 90's.

 

[Sigrun]

Leaving the driveway, many of you undoubtedly know a lot more than I do right now, so hopefully I can learn something and get some answers. I’ll pick up with the runner narrative ignoring for the sake of analysis the fact that if DR was the runner then there is no need, in the simplest narrative, for a get-away car. Ergo, it is more likely he lied about the get-away car (the light blue sedan). It’s possible a random car came up his driveway by mistake just at the moment one of the most infamous kidnappings in history occurred, but I doubt it. And because we see a car pulled over, it was probably K+K, suggesting DR colluded with them, also obviating the need for him to be a runner. But like I said, I’ll disconnect this for now. Let us assume that the Tom-Foolery in the driveway is a side show and DR picked up JEW and ran with him to his house. This fits the following “known” facts:

1. The last impression of JEW showed he was likely lifted to DR’s back, not front. This would be preferred if he was running and he would likely pull the boy’s wrists over his shoulder. This in turn might force articles of clothing off the child, such as shoes and socks. Running with someone by holding only their wrists would make for a violent ride. But the abductor needs to do this to control the victim. A shoe can be quickly found, but it takes longer to find a sock. It has been said that the sock found was not related to JEW. Can we validate this? Can we validate it’s more or less exact position when found? If related, it needs to at least be along the supposed path, north of the driveway, then between the log pile and tree line, thence to the basement.

2. JEW’s reflective vest was not recovered on or near the roadway, ergo, it was likely taken with DR and is therefore consistent with a flight phase in which DR did not take the time to remove it.

3. This suggests the distance covered was precisely the distance to DR’s own basement, the closest shelter available (cover and concealment consistent with flight). This is a sprint over open terrain, not a jog.
I went back and reviewed the issue of where the last JEW impression was found. There did seem to be some confusion about where this was. I was initially under the impression that it was near the bend in the driveway. But apparently not so. JEW’s last print was made about 40 yards from the roadway, so this suggests a location near what is now the first telephone pole (second in 1989). The first pole was originally at the junction of the driveway and roadway. On google maps I found one pole about 40 yards into the driveway. This makes DR’s run a little longer than I initially thought. Is this position correct?

Running this narrative “backward” it seems possible, if we are dealing with a Histrionic type, this person might have run his own car up the driveway to lay tracks and as Sasquatch (I think) said, could have effectively made JEW’s last print a ruse to give the appearance of the involvement of a car. This would also make me keep narcissism in the back of my mind as well. But there’s not enough there by itself to say that, but it could be part of a salient pattern. I’ve already posted on the presence of personality disorders from the abduction point itself. So, a pattern is beginning to develop.

Next, it seems as though the dog scent continuing up the road is the most likely scenario. Is there any information suggesting it went lateral to the driveway, or off angle?

Inconsistencies of DR statements regarding that night:

1. He reported sleeping and lack of interest in what was going on outside when a gas turbine helicopter landed on his head (exaggerating) at 10:30 p.m. These machines are very loud, with searchlights (we have a searchlight picture taken from one that very night) and tend to vibrate the ground and light structures, such as a house. He has not stated nor is there any indication he was using alcohol or drugs that night. This narrative is not plausible and indicates deception. The helicopters were, at minimum, rotating service until 3 a.m. If he had called 911 one would think it would be for noise violations by police rather than log thieves (this log pile is “important” to DR, which I’ll explain later. It could be that JEW reacted to what was going on as they passed through the wood pile – see the part about the sock). He did have to work the next day, so this would be an issue for most people. This and the ghost car are the first two solid indicators that DR was employing deception. I’ll need to figure out why (beyond what the obvious guilt narrative would tell us).

2. DR’s story over the years about what he was doing that night indicate deception. He stated that he had spoken briefly with police, called 911 and gone to bed. Later he would claim that he had in fact gone outside and searched buildings (it was a functioning agricultural property). Why did he prevaricate on these details? The 911 tape is missing but would have verified the presence of a nearby helicopter as it was placed at 11:23 p.m.

Summary of what I'm researching/asking:

Is that pole position correct?
Is there any information suggesting scent went lateral to the driveway, or off angle?
It has been said that the sock found was not related to JEW. Can we validate this? Can we validate it’s more or less exact position when found?
Why did DR prevaricate on these details?
What other inconsistencies am I missing about that night?

~ svh

 

[FindTim]

It can cover the angle for about 10 minutes. After that they would have known that a boy was abducted. Your stating than that they are so naive as to not put two and two together? Sorry, you're out there on this one.

Well, not exactly. The bad alibis don't have to know K+K actually abducted JEW, only that they were up to no good. Any good sociopathic lie can cover that angle. Only two people needed to know what was really going on, the two people in the Grand Prix.

~ svh

 

[FindTim]

Nothing of which you just stated is a "known" fact and is all pure speculation on your part. You've completely ignored the true facts of the case.

Leaving the driveway, many of you undoubtedly know a lot more than I do right now, so hopefully I can learn something and get some answers. I’ll pick up with the runner narrative ignoring for the sake of analysis the fact that if DR was the runner then there is no need, in the simplest narrative, for a get-away car. Ergo, it is more likely he lied about the get-away car (the light blue sedan). It’s possible a random car came up his driveway by mistake just at the moment one of the most infamous kidnappings in history occurred, but I doubt it. And because we see a car pulled over, it was probably K+K, suggesting DR colluded with them, also obviating the need for him to be a runner. But like I said, I’ll disconnect this for now. Let us assume that the Tom-Foolery in the driveway is a side show and DR picked up JEW and ran with him to his house. This fits the following “known” facts:

1. The last impression of JEW showed he was likely lifted to DR’s back, not front. This would be preferred if he was running and he would likely pull the boy’s wrists over his shoulder. This in turn might force articles of clothing off the child, such as shoes and socks. Running with someone by holding only their wrists would make for a violent ride. But the abductor needs to do this to control the victim. A shoe can be quickly found, but it takes longer to find a sock. It has been said that the sock found was not related to JEW. Can we validate this? Can we validate it’s more or less exact position when found? If related, it needs to at least be along the supposed path, north of the driveway, then between the log pile and tree line, thence to the basement.

2. JEW’s reflective vest was not recovered on or near the roadway, ergo, it was likely taken with DR and is therefore consistent with a flight phase in which DR did not take the time to remove it.

3. This suggests the distance covered was precisely the distance to DR’s own basement, the closest shelter available (cover and concealment consistent with flight). This is a sprint over open terrain, not a jog.
I went back and reviewed the issue of where the last JEW impression was found. There did seem to be some confusion about where this was. I was initially under the impression that it was near the bend in the driveway. But apparently not so. JEW’s last print was made about 40 yards from the roadway, so this suggests a location near what is now the first telephone pole (second in 1989). The first pole was originally at the junction of the driveway and roadway. On google maps I found one pole about 40 yards into the driveway. This makes DR’s run a little longer than I initially thought. Is this position correct?

Running this narrative “backward” it seems possible, if we are dealing with a Histrionic type, this person might have run his own car up the driveway to lay tracks and as Sasquatch (I think) said, could have effectively made JEW’s last print a ruse to give the appearance of the involvement of a car. This would also make me keep narcissism in the back of my mind as well. But there’s not enough there by itself to say that, but it could be part of a salient pattern. I’ve already posted on the presence of personality disorders from the abduction point itself. So, a pattern is beginning to develop.

Next, it seems as though the dog scent continuing up the road is the most likely scenario. Is there any information suggesting it went lateral to the driveway, or off angle?

Inconsistencies of DR statements regarding that night:

1. He reported sleeping and lack of interest in what was going on outside when a gas turbine helicopter landed on his head (exaggerating) at 10:30 p.m. These machines are very loud, with searchlights (we have a searchlight picture taken from one that very night) and tend to vibrate the ground and light structures, such as a house. He has not stated nor is there any indication he was using alcohol or drugs that night. This narrative is not plausible and indicates deception. The helicopters were, at minimum, rotating service until 3 a.m. If he had called 911 one would think it would be for noise violations by police rather than log thieves (this log pile is “important” to DR, which I’ll explain later. It could be that JEW reacted to what was going on as they passed through the wood pile – see the part about the sock). He did have to work the next day, so this would be an issue for most people. This and the ghost car are the first two solid indicators that DR was employing deception. I’ll need to figure out why (beyond what the obvious guilt narrative would tell us).

2. DR’s story over the years about what he was doing that night indicate deception. He stated that he had spoken briefly with police, called 911 and gone to bed. Later he would claim that he had in fact gone outside and searched buildings (it was a functioning agricultural property). Why did he prevaricate on these details? The 911 tape is missing but would have verified the presence of a nearby helicopter as it was placed at 11:23 p.m.

Summary of what I'm researching/asking:

Is that position correct?
Is there any information suggesting scent went lateral to the driveway, or off angle?
It has been said that the sock found was not related to JEW. Can we validate this? Can we validate it’s more or less exact position when found?
Why did DR prevaricate on these details?
What other inconsistencies am I missing about that night?

~ svh

 

[Caoutchouc]

I was stonewalled by the Sheriff's department.

I gather it is a 25 year old "active investigation".

I wish you better luck.

Trackergd, may I ask how you made your request? And what you exactly asked for?

Keep in mind FOIA requests are usually on a federal level - namely FBI files. While sometimes these files are shared "property" of local law enforcement, often things change on a federal level.

In my experience wording of the request is key. For example, it'd prob be a waste of time to ask for files pertaining to what was uncovered in K+K or DR's questioning. However, requesting crime scene photos might go through

 

[Jbrown324320]

findtim, we and law enforcement do not have any hard evidence to eliminate anyone right now. that is why the case has been going on for 25 years. nothing is crazy, obvious or impossible. everything should still be on the table unless it is definitively ruled out.

 

[Jbrown324320]

I agree though. SVG, you said what you posted were "known" facts. I don't believe any of what you said were known for sure. The reflective vest was likely taken by DR? We don't know that.

oops, just saw the sentence, "lets assume DR took Jacob" buried in a whole bunch of words.

 

[Sigrun]

It can cover the angle for about 10 minutes. After that they would have known that a boy was abducted. Your stating than that they are so naive as to not put two and two together? Sorry, you're out there on this one.

Probably more than that but not that crucial. The relatives are close to them. If the personality making up the lie is Axis II Anti-Social, absolutely, they would be that naive. And that is largely because most people who are not are indeed that naive when lied to by a natural born sociopath.

~ svh

 

[nmogren]

Nmogren, give me a link to show that Joy has "cleared" or excluded DR and Kev as suspects. She says she believes what they say, but that is different than excluding them as suspects. I don't think she has.

I will find you a link when I have more time, however, she will not allow any comments to be posted on her blog that are non DR positive or any that question her apparently strong beliet that he is completely innocent. That tells me enough.

 

[Jbrown324320]

personally, I think DR is covering up for someone. A friend or a brother. I think he knows more than what he is saying and is enjoying the attention from the case. Like a cat and mouse game. Googling his own name, checking case articles online and posting in the comment section.

 

[Sigrun]

Nothing of which you just stated is a "known" fact and is all pure speculation on your part. You've completely ignored the true facts of the case.

Well, specifically, which facts I claimed as such in that post are in fact speculation? I thought we had agreed on these basic facts for several pages now? Without a specific reference to a specific fact or speculation, it is a naked assertion, imo.

If you're referring to the part in the first paragraph about K+K, that is just a summary of that analysis I made; my conclusions, not initial facts of the case. If there are facts that are wrong I'd like to know what they are.

~ svh

 

[Sigrun]

I agree though. SVG, you said what you posted were "known" facts. I don't believe any of what you said were known for sure. The reflective vest was likely taken by DR? We don't know that.

oops, just saw the sentence, "lets assume DR took Jacob" buried in a whole bunch of words.

Right, those aren't facts of the case, those are objections to logic. Saying something is "likely" is not asserting fact beyond probability itself. It's a conclusion of logic, not an evidentiary fact. And yes, I am entertaining the scenario where DR took JEW, specifically.

~ svh

 

[Ifollowthis]

personally, I think DR is covering up for someone. A friend or a brother. I think he knows more than what he is saying and is enjoying the attention from the case. Like a cat and mouse game. Googling his own name, checking case articles online and posting in the comment section.

I think if DR is involved it is indirectly with a family member or friend. I have not ruled anybody out in this case, and when sheriff Sanner said since this has been in the news again, "We can't look back". My gut feeling is they are taking another look at people other than DR and widening their scope. I can't believe how many people have placed themselves at the crime scene at or very near to the time that this happened.