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

[human]

DR said in an interview that there was blood on a trunk that belonged to an aunt or something. He said that he did not know where the trunk came from. I have no idea where it is, but for 100% sure, not even 99%, there is a bloody trunk. I do not know where the documentation is, but it is somewhere

 

[human]

The links for,the full story on many articles are not accessible.

 

[shergal]

I've followed the case for years. Not even in the recent searches was there a description of a BLOODY trunk.

It's very true that if J's blood had been found anywhere, DR would be sitting in jail. Get over it. Nothing to incriminate DR has been found.

Dan himself has stated in this interview that there was a trunk or cedar chest with blood and or bloody residue on it. That portion starts at 5:47.

Sept. 30, 2010
http://greaterminnesota.kstp.com/ne...ve-interview-jacob-wetterling-person-interest

 

[KeepHopeAlive]

Describing it as "bloody" is a bit misleading. In my opinion, that implies that there was a significant amount of blood found on the trunk, which isn't necessarily the case. I think it's important that we don't exaggerate the facts if we only have limited information on it.

 

[Marzipan]

There would have to be another vehicle involved if there was a visitor. All tire tracks are accounted for...totally agree with you.

Not if DR picked him up and gave him a ride there, and perhaps home or he walked home or elsewhere afterward.

 

[human]

Describing it as "bloody" is a bit misleading. In my opinion, that implies that there was a significant amount of blood found on the trunk, which isn't necessarily the case. I think it's important that we don't exaggerate the facts if we only have limited information on it.

What difference does the amount of blood make? None, I feel.

What matters is if it is cadaver blood. Even a drop of cadaver blood.

 

[nmogren]

To date the only one to mention blood on the chest is DR. I have not heard or seen this anywhere else, except from his mouth. He also mentions that LE had a list of things they were looking for in the search warrant. I wonder if the bloody chest was on the list. DR said the chest used to be in the house. How big was the chest? Could a child fit in it? Is that what the dogs hit on in2010?

 

[ELOCsoul]

I think all the recent media attention has been excellent. One of the things I like to do is read all the comments people chime in and make below the headlines like this one. See below: I'm not sure if this chief of police from Watkins they are bringing up has been talked about or not on here? Either way anything can end up being a good lead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Captain906 • 13 hours ago
I grew up in Watkins, just 5 miles south of cold spring and 15 east of paynesville. The chief of police in Watkins was found guilty of pedofile in 1989. How is that not connected?!?!

I believe the chief you are referring to is Ray Rippentrop. He was 55 years old in 1989, and pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct with a mentally retarded 15 year old boy. He had sexual contact with the boy, and showed him pornographic movies.

Rippentrop had befriended the boy, often allowing him to go around with him on patrol. The boy mowed Rippentrop's yard occasionally.

Source - January 30, 1989 St. Cloud Times, no link available.

 

[KeepHopeAlive]

As far as I'm aware, it has not even been determined to be blood. If it has, LE has not made it public knowledge.

 

[nmogren]

LE won't make anything public in an open case. DR said it was blood. Why would he say it was blood if it isn't?

 

[Trino]

Can we stop calling this a BLOODY trunk? Even DR did not call it this. BLOODY implies there was a lot of blood. Dogs could have hit on a years and years old tiny spot, enough to have the trunk further investigated.

The base of an umbrella table? Very strange.

 

[KeepHopeAlive]

DR doesn't know for sure if that's what it is. His words, in the video:

"They apparently saw some sort of remnants of blood or something...it showed some sort of blood residue or whatever."

 

[human]

DR doesn't know for sure if that's what it is. His words, in the video:

"They apparently saw some sort of remnants of blood or something...it showed some sort of blood reside or whatever."

DR says there is blood in it.

The discussion was that there was nothing anyone could find that talked about the bloody trunk.

It is bloody according to him.

Please explain what the difference is in the amount of blood.

It would not be out of the realms of possibility that there is blood on a trunk. A child could fall against it and have blood on it. Someone could have gotten broken glass,and dripped on it.,Any number of explanations that are benign.

First of all, blood that has been on something does not look like blood. It could be paint or oil or ?

Cadaver dogs would not hit on it if it was any old bleeding incident. They only would hit on it if it was cadaver blood. That is my question. Did the dogs hit on cadaver blood. We do not know.

 

[Sasquatch321]

After watching the video Shergal posted of DR I would here share a thought about it-

DR is 100 percent convinced that you will find your kidnappers in a tan Monte Carlo, but in this interview he seems quite confident the case will never be solved. And he says that 3 times "well that means this case would be solved".

He goes about addressing if its blood on the trunk in a very slow and odd way. I can't tell if he knew it was blood for sure or not.

 

[human]

I am assuming that LE took and kept the trunk?

Why? There would be tons of things on that farm that would be like a trunk. Yet LE took it and DR says,because there might be blood or something on it.

So why does LE have this trunk? Did the cadaver dogs hit on it?

 

[Sasquatch321]

I am assuming that LE took and kept the trunk?

Why? There would be tons of things on that farm that would be like a trunk. Yet LE took it and DR says,because there might be blood or something on it.

So why does LE have this trunk? Did the cadaver dogs hit on it?

Another good question is why didn't they take the trunk in their first search six days after the abduction? where was it then?

 

[nmogren]

I have never seen or heard any report on the findings of the k9 unit after the search in 2010. I don't think LE commented on anything to do with the dogs. I wish we knew.

 

[nmogren]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1102/28/ng.01.html


Interesting tidbit toward the end of this. Sherriff Sanner said they did hypnotize Trevor and Aaron and neither saw or heard a car at all at the abduction site.

 

[human]

I have never seen or heard any report on the findings of the k9 unit after the search in 2010. I don't think LE commented on anything to do with the dogs. I wish we knew.

The question to me is why they named an upstanding citizen a POI.

 

[Marzipan]

Yeah, but in the same way he isn't sure if the trunk was his aunt's or not, which I find to be fake uncertainty and thus indicating deceptive communication. Perhaps I am wrong, in which case it would be awesome if DR could clear this up. I'm open to him being innocent.

I have assumed cadaver digs hit on it. I hope nobody took my message about that from much earlier as a fact. Just my opinion after putting together DR's words from that interview with other vague reports. It could have also been a blood luminol test, if indeed there is blood, but I believe/think/feel that a cadaver dog had hit on it first. And why a cadaver dog? Because what other kind of dog would you bring from across the country to search for human remains decades after a person is abducted?

All JMO.