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

[shergal]

I don't condone violence, but if I was DR I'd be incredibly upset that Kevin drove over potentially critical evidence because...he was bored and over zealous listening to a police scanner? And that he didn't come forward for over 14 years with the statement that'd he'd tampered with evidence (willingly or not)

How many resources were wasted on such stupidity?

Clearly the Wetterlings should be the most upset. But again, they are lovely people with amazing hearts (I've never met them, but going on what I know and a few who've met them)

DR could hardly be mad at Kevin for driving over evidence when he drove out the next morning, got out of his car, lifted the crime tape and walked under it onto the crime scene to ask how he was supposed to get out.

 

[kemo]

Sigrun,

I read your analysis with interest and your knowledge of Applied Psychology adds an interesting perspective to this discussion. Still, there is a serious problem.

Per John Douglas, the FBI will not do a profile once a suspect has been identified since information about that suspect can influence the profiler. Even if the profiler has no knowledge of the suspect, the collection of crime scene evidence and the determination as to what is relevant and what isn't can be significantly influenced by the identification of a suspect.

Ideally, a criminal investigation should begin with the evidence and follow it to the resolution. Often, that doesn't work; you must start eliminating "names" that come up and dig deeper on those that can't be eliminated. Once someone becomes a suspect/POI or whatever, behavioral "tells" and other subjective evidence can be very problematic.

If you look a cases where people were convicted and later exonerated, you will find that the jury was told of many examples of "evasive statements" and "inappropriate behavior". A "gut feeling " that someone is lying is significant if you expected the subject to be truthful but it is meaningless if you expect the person to lie.

 

[Just.sayin]

http://www.kare11.com/video/625387048001/0/Julie-Nelson-interviews-Dan-Rassier-Part-I

Don't forget -- when you are imagining DR abducting Jacob, Jared, and assaulting the Paynesville boys (okay assuming he did all of the above) when he speaks in his low pitch commanding voice-- add the lisp!

I don't need a degree in speech pathology or criminal psych to figure out that it's highly unlikely he disguised THAT too. Did he major in theater? No. Wrong guy.

And as far as personality disorders go... I am very familiar. Most of my coworkers have one! And they all passed extensive background tests.

This person was pure evil, unloved, unloving.

 

[Sigrun]

Knowing what I now believe I understand about the facts (holy noncommittal statement!), that DR sat down with this "Kevin" during Joy's interview without punching him says he's a forgiving man. I can't say I'd do the same, given all that's occurred.

Were you the one talking about the mother's reference to a prank?

Taking the prank narrative seriously I'll start the ball rolling. Just thinking out loud for now.

Question:
Why would you abduct an 11 year-old child from your own driveway?
Answer:
Because its a felonious prank and the boy will reappear in another place.

Question:
Why would you abduct an 11 year-old child by ambush from 250 feet inside a stranger's driveway?
Answer:
Because that is your confederate, not a stranger.

Question:
Why would you park your car in exactly the spot necessary to be hidden from the northern roadway; that is, the boys approaching you, but visible from a house on a line of sight over a wood pile?
Answer:
Because your confederate wants to get home fast after dropping off his package, then hide inside like a little scared girl.

Question:
Why does a man engage in "dissembling assembly" at his house if an abducted child is not there?
Answer:
Because he is a clown that goes around snatching up boys upside down. He is the prankster that grabbed the boy. No need to waste time, the boy isn't there.

If the prankster wore a mask, maybe JEW did, too (of the blindfold sort). Drink and drive, have some fun.

In this narrative, we can grant that DR is mostly truthful. But somewhere between Baker and the county line somebody flipped the script. Do you think this is a worthwhile path to look at? I like it inasmuch as it really does have potential for explanatory power.

~ svh

 

[Sigrun]

Sigrun,

I read your analysis with interest and your knowledge of Applied Psychology adds an interesting perspective to this discussion. Still, there is a serious problem.

Per John Douglas, the FBI will not do a profile once a suspect has been identified since information about that suspect can influence the profiler. Even if the profiler has no knowledge of the suspect, the collection of crime scene evidence and the determination as to what is relevant and what isn't can be significantly influenced by the identification of a suspect.

Ideally, a criminal investigation should begin with the evidence and follow it to the resolution. Often, that doesn't work; you must start eliminating "names" that come up and dig deeper on those that can't be eliminated. Once someone becomes a suspect/POI or whatever, behavioral "tells" and other subjective evidence can be very problematic.

If you look a cases where people were convicted and later exonerated, you will find that the jury was told of many examples of "evasive statements" and "inappropriate behavior". A "gut feeling " that someone is lying is significant if you expected the subject to be truthful but it is meaningless if you expect the person to lie.

Hey Kemo, very good point.

I should start by explaining where I'm coming from. I'm a grad student and my professor has worked on something called Best Fit Analysis for the U.S. Government. In that application, there is no choice but to know something about the parties involved. In other words, what I'm doing (BFA) was not originally designed for application in criminology.

And I have no idea who did it. But I guess you could say I'm influenced by what we already know about DR. I know next to nothing about Kevin, or some other party we haven't identified, obviously. But in the DR case, yes, I agree.

And what you describe as a serious problem is in fact much bigger than just this. I don't have the space to get into it here, but the lack of double-blind standards, published results and adequate controls permeates crime lab work all over the country.

I would further point out that this problem of subjectivity comes up throughout psychology. I've seen subjectivity in a lot of psychological evaluations, such as custody evaluations. This is why psychometricians try to provide standardized testing as much as possible for a constellation of characteristics. At the end of the day, only the prior accuracy of the profiler is a reliable test. From what I've seen, almost all of them have some intimate connection to the disorders themselves. Not all bad, it just means they have both the academic knowledge and the experience to be able to easily and concretely see feature sets despite what they already know of the parties involved.

Another thing that can help is to not be local. Being far removed makes it easier at least in some way.

~ svh

 

[HEY YOU!]

Sigrun-I have to say that I am confused by your deduction. Can you state what you think happened and who the person was in a simple paragraph without all the technical verbiage? I get confused easily, thank you.

 

[Caoutchouc]

Were you the one talking about the mother's reference to a prank?

Taking the prank narrative seriously I'll start the ball rolling. Just thinking out loud for now.

Question:
Why would you abduct an 11 year-old child from your own driveway?
Answer:
Because its a felonious prank and the boy will reappear in another place.

Question:
Why would you abduct an 11 year-old child by ambush from 250 feet inside a stranger's driveway?
Answer:
Because that is your confederate, not a stranger.

Question:
Why would you park your car in exactly the spot necessary to be hidden from the northern roadway; that is, the boys approaching you, but visible from a house on a line of sight over a wood pile?
Answer:
Because your confederate wants to get home fast after dropping off his package, then hide inside like a little scared girl.

Question:
Why does a man engage in "dissembling assembly" at his house if an abducted child is not there?
Answer:
Because he is a clown that goes around snatching up boys upside down. He is the prankster that grabbed the boy. No need to waste time, the boy isn't there.

If the prankster wore a mask, maybe JEW did, too (of the blindfold sort). Drink and drive, have some fun.

In this narrative, we can grant that DR is mostly truthful. But somewhere between Baker and the county line somebody flipped the script. Do you think this is a worthwhile path to look at? I like it inasmuch as it really does have potential for explanatory power.

~ svh

Indeed it was I who suggested the prank theory (mostly if we wish to view K+K/Kevin as suspects)

The prank theory might help to explain:
*the wild racing, amber colored Monty Carlo DR reported seeing earlier that afternoon in his turnabout
*the last footprint of JEW leading to what we now know was "K+K/Kevin's" tire tracks
*the so-called medical cop (reference Joy's interview with Kevin)

What it doesn't necessarily explain:
*the perp's question to the 3 boys, "How old are you". After Trevor answered 10 and Aaron and Jacob answered 11, the perp chose Jacob. Psychologically there's a lot there, but if don't think it'd necessarily fit with the prank theory
*the potential familiarity of the perp's m.o. "Run and don't look back or I'll shoot"

 

[Sigrun]

Sigrun-I have to say that I am confused by your deduction. Can you state what you think happened and who the person was in a simple paragraph without all the technical verbiage? I get confused easily, thank you.

Hey Hey You. Yes. I don't know what happened. That is my deduction. And the reason why I'm saying that?

Well, the driveway indicates to me, quite clearly, that it is most likely the case that either DR or K+K (that's "Kevin" and g/f) or both took Jacob. Jacob's disposition after the fact would depend heavily on which narrative it is. But since I've only really looked at the driveway, I can't say nearly as much as I will later as there is a ton of stuff still to look at.

btw, when I say DR, well, I really mean DR & Co. also. I'm not so sure DR was home alone that night. And the driveway didn't tell me that, two witnesses near the driveway did. But I'll spare that detail for now.

Summary: you've found me at the very beginning of a "Best Fit" analysis, which usually takes about 2 months to do. I promise to share everything though. I'm not being cagey, I'm just processing a lot of info.

~ svh

 

[Sigrun]

Indeed it was I who suggested the prank theory (mostly if we wish to view K+K/Kevin as suspects)

The prank theory might help to explain:
*the wild racing, amber colored Monty Carlo DR reported seeing earlier that afternoon in his turnabout
*the last footprint of JEW leading to what we now know was "K+K/Kevin's" tire tracks
*the so-called medical cop (reference Joy's interview with Kevin)

What it doesn't necessarily explain:
*the perp's question to the 3 boys, "How old are you". After Trevor answered 10 and Aaron and Jacob answered 11, the perp chose Jacob. Psychologically there's a lot there, but if don't think it'd necessarily fit with the prank theory
*the potential familiarity of the perp's m.o. "Run and don't look back or I'll shoot"

Right, and given the track evidence:
1. A footprint indicating a vertical, upward push
2. That push facing the position of a car
3. That car's tire rolling just across the toe section of that foot
4. The tire and shoe impressions appearing to be about the same "age"
5. The dog scent that disappeared, apparently extending just a few feet up the driveway from the last footprint, as if carried in a car.

Makes it quite unlikely to have been laid in this manner by chance. Therefore, to conclude that JEW was not picked up by a car requires we take on some pretty heavy handed assumptions. Not impossible, but unlikely, it seems.

Since the only fresh tire track that was present has been positively associated with the open top Grand Prix driven that night by "Kevin"; ergo, K+K picked JEW up. It seems the next step is to find out how he was so thoroughly "cleared", who all his confederates were, and what was the script, planned and actual.

I already see enough with DR to suspect he was in the script somewhere. I think this may be why this case is so baffling. We have someone who is thoroughly "cleared" (not) who was colluding with a most unexpected confederate. His "dissembling assembly", paraded into our view by his sleeping under a gas turbine rotary wing aircraft that shook the ground, is a bit much to ignore.

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

 

[HEY YOU!]

Right, and given the track evidence:
1. A footprint indicating a vertical, upward push
2. That push facing the position of a car
3. That car's tire rolling just across the toe section of that foot
4. The tire and shoe impressions appearing to be about the same "age"
5. The dog scent that disappeared, apparently extending just a few feet up the driveway from the last footprint, as if carried in a car.

Makes it quite unlikely to have been laid in this manner by chance. Therefore, to conclude that JEW was not picked up by a car requires we take on some pretty heavy handed assumptions. Not impossible, but unlikely, it seems.

Since the only fresh tire track that was present has been positively associated with the open top Grand Prix driven that night by "Kevin"; ergo, K+K picked JEW up. It seems the next step is to find out how he was so thoroughly "cleared", who all his confederates were, and what was the script, planned and actual.

I already see enough with DR to suspect he was in the script somewhere. I think this may be why this case is so baffling. We have someone who is thoroughly "cleared" (not) who was colluding with a most unexpected confederate. His "dissembling assembly", paraded into our view by his sleeping under a gas turbine rotary wing aircraft that shook the ground, is a bit much to ignore.

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

You are saying that you think K&K took Jacob and somehow lifted him into the sunroof opening? Jacob's footprint pressing down and indicating he was lifted would indicate a 2nd set of footprints that should indicate carrying a heavier weight as well...if Jacob was put into a car at that point, the tire tracks would indicate a stop and go and perhaps an increase in weight if in fact the perpetrator and Jacob got in...you are saying both K&K involved so one must already be in the car driving. The tire tracks are continuous at the point of Jacob's last footprint. No stopping, starting again or increased weight indicated in those tire tracks.

 

[Sigrun]

You are saying that you think K&K took Jacob and somehow lifted him into the sunroof opening? Jacob's footprint pressing down and indicating he was lifted would indicate a 2nd set of footprints that should indicate carrying a heavier weight as well...if Jacob was put into a car at that point, the tire tracks would indicate a stop and go and perhaps an increase in weight if in fact the perpetrator and Jacob got in...you are saying both K&K involved so one must already be in the car driving. The tire tracks are continuous at the point of Jacob's last footprint. No stopping, starting again or increased weight indicated in those tire tracks.

Hey Hey You,
This is not quite what I wrote, no. According to "Kevin" there were at least two people in the car. JEW was most likely lifted/assisted into the car from someone inside the car. If you look at the layout of a Grand Prix, this would be the fastest way to get two people in the car, and you'd never need to open or close the door. As for weight distribution on tires, I'm not convinced that the addition of the weight of one child and possibly an adult would alter the tire impression. As for starting and stopping, I'm not convinced of that either unless one accelerates or brakes hard enough to create a furrow. And if it did, I haven't examined the full section of the tire print to look for that in any case. I doubt the images we have would be of sufficient resolution to locate the discontinuity created, if any, of a rolling tire stopping and starting. And in order to get a discontinuity on a dry road, in my experience, you need to either lock the tires or spin them.

~ svh

 

[human]

http://www.kare11.com/video/625387048001/0/Julie-Nelson-interviews-Dan-Rassier-Part-I

Don't forget -- when you are imagining DR abducting Jacob, Jared, and assaulting the Paynesville boys (okay assuming he did all of the above) when he speaks in his low pitch commanding voice-- add the lisp!

I don't need a degree in speech pathology or criminal psych to figure out that it's highly unlikely he disguised THAT too. Did he major in theater? No. Wrong guy.

And as far as personality disorders go... I am very familiar. Most of my coworkers have one! And they all passed extensive background tests.

This person was pure evil, unloved, unloving.

Of course people can modify their speech. Mel Tillis was a stutterer but he could sing. Different parts of the brain.

And anyone can talk with a lisp or a fake accent. Modifying your natural voice

 

[HEY YOU!]

Hey Hey You,
This is not quite what I wrote, no. According to "Kevin" there were at least two people in the car. JEW was most likely lifted/assisted into the car from someone inside the car. If you look at the layout of a Grand Prix, this would be the fastest way to get two people in the car, and you'd never need to open or close the door. As for weight distribution on tires, I'm not convinced that the addition of the weight of one child and possibly an adult would alter the tire impression. As for starting and stopping, I'm not convinced of that either unless one accelerates or brakes hard enough to create a furrow. And if it did, I haven't examined the full section of the tire print to look for that in any case. I doubt the images we have would be of sufficient resolution to locate the discontinuity created, if any, of a rolling tire stopping and starting. And in order to get a discontinuity on a dry road, in my experience, you need to either lock the tires or spin them.

~ svh

So Jacob stood there alone while driver pulled him in through roof? Then other person must have entered the car, where were their footprints? And I don't see how a person could lean over and lift Jacob without the tire prints showing added weight, the perp would have to lean over to get Jacob in the car. Using K & K as suspects you realize the brother in law and friend would also be involved in the crime and cover up?

 

[ELOCsoul]

All this talk of Kevin possibly being involved is intriguing, no doubt.

But, I'll ask the obvious question: If Kevin was involved in Jacob's abduction, why would he come forward after getting away with it for 14 years?? Makes no sense to risk explaining his presence if he was not on LE's radar to begin with.

 

[Sigrun]

All this talk of Kevin possibly being involved is intriguing, no doubt.

But, I'll ask the obvious question: If Kevin was involved in Jacob's abduction, why would he come forward after getting away with it for 14 years?? Makes no sense to risk explaining his presence if he was not on LE's radar to begin with.

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

 

[Sigrun]

So Jacob stood there alone while driver pulled him in through roof? Then other person must have entered the car, where were their footprints? And I don't see how a person could lean over and lift Jacob without the tire prints showing added weight, the perp would have to lean over to get Jacob in the car. Using K & K as suspects you realize the brother in law and friend would also be involved in the crime and cover up?

I don't think JEW stood there alone, I think the perpetrator was behind him, just as he had been as he walked up, and was waiting on his turn to get in the car. As for the perpetrator's prints, where are they anywhere? I think we need to ask where they ended to address that question. Did that end behind JEW? We discussed that earlier (I think with Sasquatch) and I explained that this is what we'd expect.

As for the tire imprints, I'm not at all convinced that simply sitting in a car is going to cause the tires to sink further into the ground to any visibly noticeable degree. Certainly not anything we can see in those pictures. Remember, the ground was also dry, not wet. And it was a gravel driveway.

As for alibis, yes, I believe relatives will provide alibis when they probably shouldn't. That's why they aren't good alibis to begin with, imo, and LE should know this. Conspiracy however, does not follow. They didn't need to conspire in the crime, only provide alibis.

~ svh

 

[human]

The car starting up would indicate in the dirt.

Anyway, sigrun, I really don't know of anyone who has clippings, etc of Jacob's case.

Why do you think DR wants them back from LE?

 

[Sigrun]

The car starting up would indicate in the dirt.

Anyway, sigrun, I really don't know of anyone who has clippings, etc of Jacob's case.

Why do you think DR wants them back from LE?

Why would the car starting up leave a mark in the ground? Besides, who said it was ever turned off? All I'm saying about the alibis and prints is that we don't have anything telling us it is not exactly as "Kevin" said, the only difference being Kevin's sense of time and what we can obviously see with our own eyes: JEW was standing and stepping up in a conspicuous position relative to the car.

The question about wanting stuff back I answered I think one or two pages back. Did you see it yet? Let me know if I need to re-post but I thought it was there.

~ svh

 

[human]

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.

 

[VinylTravis]

Plus there is having black pantyhose available and a coat on a warm night.

Just on this point alone, people who like to abduct and assault children might keep this kind of thing on them/in a car. I once worked with someone who was knew Alfonso Rodriguez Jr., who killed Dru Sjodin, a high profile North Dakota case. Apparently he used to hide rape/murder and torture kits in various places if opportunities arose, in addition to keeping items on himself.

Good to be back, have been catching up on twenty pages over the last two days; busy couple of weeks!