MN - Jacob Wetterling, 11, St. Joseph, 22 Oct 1989 - #9

[Sigrun]

I have obtained a large volume of exemplar writings vis-à-vis S1 and now have a more accurate personality profile to track. S1 is most likely Axis II Histrionic Personality with features of Axis II Reactive Attachment and Axis II Narcissistic Personality; all of which are most likely to appear as mild in clinical testing. This is not a diagnosis, merely a weighing of odds based on written material. If even approximately correct, whether JEW were left in the captivity of S1 or S2 would have major consequences for the outcome. It also means S1 will not be as easy to track as S2, however it will suffice to have a small amount of information to do so because my knowledge of the personality is more complete.

If anyone can point me to a source for a “master” list of JEW sighting synopses with dates and locations for each I would appreciate, thanks in advance.

~ svh

 

[Sigrun]

Imo wouldn't it be crucial to change vehicles if a person was transporting a missing child which had national media?

Quite possibly. And if S2 were a person of reasonable means, loaning a car out wouldn't be a problem. I can think of a lot of options there, thanks for pointing this out.

~ svh

 

[Silverngold]

Quite possibly. And if S2 were a person of reasonable means, loaning a car out wouldn't be a problem. I can think of a lot of options there, thanks for pointing this out.

~ svh

LH(S1) info: http://m.deseretnews.com/article/182206/EX-TEACHER-SEEKS-DISMISSAL-OF-COUNTS.html?pg=all
Imo LH knew the NEvada area*

 

[kemo]

My interest in True Crime has focused primarily on following criminal investigations to resolution and the issue those "falsely convicted" i.e. innocent folks convicted of crimes they did not commit. When I learned about Jacob's case, I saw the possibility of watching a "false conviction" unfold. I hasn't happened but it easily could have.

I'm not saying DR is innocent. He lived near the crime scene and has no alibi, but there is no evidence linking him to the crime and he has no history that suggests he might be capable of it. For that reason, I feel he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. All too often, once someone becomes a "suspect", everything they say or do becomes some sort of evidence of guilt.

In this case, the obvious physical evidence was the footprints and tire tracks. We really do not know what was collected and what comparisons were made. The tracks near Jacobs footprints and any others that could be collected would be critical. I'm not so sure that an exact tire size could be established but certainly it could be narrowed down and from that, every vehicle could at least be ruled in or out. If, as I am inclined to suspect, not much was done except to collect the one tracks they were certain belonged to the perp and wait until they could check it against any suspect they developed.

Other than that, all that can be pursued is to look at know pediphiles that could be linked to other "snatch and grab" cases in the area.

Something I've wondered about is if there is a way for Law Enforcement to scan records of convicted phediphiles for Prior Residences, i.e. where they lived before they were convicted. There is a good chance that whoever abducted Jacob left the area soon after it happened and very likely continued his activity elsewhere.

 

[Sasquatch321]

What does it mean when LE suddenly names a single POI 21 years after the abduction? And also after the search of that persons farm?

 

[Sigrun]

LH(S1) info: http://m.deseretnews.com/article/182206/EX-TEACHER-SEEKS-DISMISSAL-OF-COUNTS.html?pg=all
Imo LH knew the NEvada area*

Yes, there is much more to that. In respect of privacy I haven't discussed it here.

~ svh

From 1976 to 1979 S1 lived in the Reno, NV area, which is where the sighting was.

 

[Sigrun]

My interest in True Crime has focused primarily on following criminal investigations to resolution and the issue those "falsely convicted" i.e. innocent folks convicted of crimes they did not commit. When I learned about Jacob's case, I saw the possibility of watching a "false conviction" unfold. I hasn't happened but it easily could have.

I'm not saying DR is innocent. He lived near the crime scene and has no alibi, but there is no evidence linking him to the crime and he has no history that suggests he might be capable of it. For that reason, I feel he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. All too often, once someone becomes a "suspect", everything they say or do becomes some sort of evidence of guilt.

In this case, the obvious physical evidence was the footprints and tire tracks. We really do not know what was collected and what comparisons were made. The tracks near Jacobs footprints and any others that could be collected would be critical. I'm not so sure that an exact tire size could be established but certainly it could be narrowed down and from that, every vehicle could at least be ruled in or out. If, as I am inclined to suspect, not much was done except to collect the one tracks they were certain belonged to the perp and wait until they could check it against any suspect they developed.

Other than that, all that can be pursued is to look at know pediphiles that could be linked to other "snatch and grab" cases in the area.

Something I've wondered about is if there is a way for Law Enforcement to scan records of convicted phediphiles for Prior Residences, i.e. where they lived before they were convicted. There is a good chance that whoever abducted Jacob left the area soon after it happened and very likely continued his activity elsewhere.

This is very well stated. I think we're coming at this with two fundamentally different objectives. In what I do, I look for a most probable narrative. But that only means more probable than any other we can think of. This is nothing like the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" in court. When you mention wrongful convictions, I think your concerns are really with the kind of certainty needed for conviction.

This doesn't interest me for my purposes here, nor does it interest those that developed Best Fit Analysis. They are only concerned with what most likely happened. It's a subtle difference that you have illuminated very well in this post. When I finish I do believe the narrative I write up will in fact point to the most likely perpetrator/s. But it will also tell us what most likely happened to the victim. This has a practical value that has practical uses outside criminology.

But it can also be used by investigators to "harvest" more evidence when they have a better idea of what most likely happened. And harvesting evidence is not creating it, just getting the perps to inadvertently slip up. It helps to know what most likely happened if you want to do a good job of that, imo.

~ svh

 

[Caoutchouc]

Sigrun, another question/thought about your process: Is it possible you narrow in on 2 suspects with 2 specific personality traits, but are wrong about the suspects and correct about the traits?
This assumes the truth or new evidence/facts come out of course, but hypothetically, could you identify specific personalities of S1 and S2, name DR and LH as S1/2, but then find out that the culprits are DH and TH? Or must your personalities end up matching/identifying S1/2? A broad problem I have at this point is that your personality descriptions of S1/S2 sound like they could also very easily match DH and TH and I am wondering at what point do you exclude DH and TH or do you still include them? I guess another general way to ask this is: at what point or how do you balance psychology with limited or questionable evidence?

 

[HEY YOU!]

What does it mean when LE suddenly names a single POI 21 years after the abduction? And also after the search of that persons farm?

Exactly!

 

[Caoutchouc]

Also, I don't fully understand how you're discounting the fact that the suspect sketch you're basing your S1/S2 named suspects was a composite made on the assumption Jarred's attacker and the kidnapper of JEW are the same. ...or maybe you'll get there? (I should perhaps also look through more carefully what you did today!)

 

[Caoutchouc]

What does it mean when LE suddenly names a single POI 21 years after the abduction? And also after the search of that persons farm?

Sasquatch, this is one of my hang ups, too. And that the search warrant of DH's property remains sealed is highly strange, IMO. 2 observations: the timeline DH described in his interview may help explain a bit. As I understand, approx 2 years before the search warrant was executed, two notable events took place. 1. Two adjoining buildings on the property burned down, likely due to faulty/aging wire. 2. DR met with PW

IMO one thing DR should do at this point IS to "lawyer up" in an attempt to make some of this information public (and /or get his stuff back, I suppose). In his defense, I suppose this could be a costly and perhaps fruitless effort, but given the attention on the case, some lawyer may jump at the chance (but that isn't always helpful, either, I guess...)

 

[Sigrun]

Sigrun, another question/thought about your process: Is it possible you narrow in on 2 suspects with 2 specific personality traits, but are wrong about the suspects and correct about the traits?

Definitely. And I have to be careful about which traits I glean from the crime scene and from identified suspects comes from.

So, crime scene:
S1 -> AII HPD severity mild to moderate
S2 -> AII NPD severity mild to moderate

Not much else. Latest development based on identified suspects:

S1 -> AII HPD w features AII RA, AII NP mild
S2 -> AII NPD w features AII ASP mild

This assumes the truth or new evidence/facts come out of course, but hypothetically, could you identify specific personalities of S1 and S2, name DR and LH as S1/2, but then find out that the culprits are DH and TH?

Yes, but we'd expect that those same patterns would appear uniform from one to the next. We might add info, but it shouldn't change the primary feature. If that doesn't happen it's a red flag.

Or must your personalities end up matching/identifying S1/2? A broad problem I have at this point is that your personality descriptions of S1/S2 sound like they could also very easily match DH and TH and I am wondering at what point do you exclude DH and TH or do you still include them? I guess another general way to ask this is: at what point or how do you balance psychology with limited or questionable evidence?

The first controlling factor is the rarity of the condition. Less than 1% of the general population exhibits mild to severe Axis II disorders. So, when you're looking at a laundry list of suspects, often they are not representative of the population. So, if we identify from actual evidence that we have two sets of candidates whose primary features match, we need something else to distinguish them. Right now, the evidence alone (no psychology) points to the most probable conclusion that S1 and S2 are as I've tentatively identified them, imo. And if that were not the case I wouldn't have left the crime scene yet.

But say you don't agree. Then keep reading, because we have not abandoned that subject at this stage, we're just moving forward:

Once the full narrative is built, what may seem weaker in the beginning can be stronger. In law they refer to this as "tiles of a mosaic" but it basically means that evidence can corroborate different parts of a narrative. So, I have to go with the best thing I have and run it out to see what the big picture says before I can say, oh wait, maybe it was this other set of suspects and a different narrative. That process doesn't take forever and usually runs much faster than this first phase, but yes you must reconcile the entire narrative, not just the part we've examined so far.

~ svh

 

[human]

Elizabeth Smart was found by sighting, i assume she had been slightly brainwashed because at first she was hesitant to say she was Elizabeth.

So was Jaycee D kind of.

 

[Sigrun]

Also, I don't fully understand how you're discounting the fact that the suspect sketch you're basing your S1/S2 named suspects was a composite made on the assumption Jarred's attacker and the kidnapper of JEW are the same. ...or maybe you'll get there? (I should perhaps also look through more carefully what you did today!)

Think about it. Assume for discussion you agree that our S1 looks like the composite, or is the best match we've found. Then we say, again for discussion, he is the most likely attacker of Jared.

But suppose we then find out he has known S2 for decades, talks to him and went to grad school with him.

What are the odds that JEW is going to be purely by chance abducted on S2's property 9 months later if it were NOT S1 doing it? No, it doesn't prove anything, but it makes a connection more likely than any we've established so far. And btw, remember there are other circumstantial similarities and the DNA of S2 doesn't need to match the Jared attack.

~ svh

 

[Caoutchouc]

Quite possibly. And if S2 were a person of reasonable means, loaning a car out wouldn't be a problem. I can think of a lot of options there, thanks for pointing this out.

~ svh

Also keep in mind tractors, trailers, atvs, motorcycles, golf carts...etc. and that because you might have access to any of the above doesn't necessarily mean you're a person of means. Ex: growing up we had a dumpy trailer and a standing agreement with neighbors that they could borrow it.

 

[Sigrun]

Sasquatch, this is one of my hang ups, too. And that the search warrant of DH's property remains sealed is highly strange, IMO. 2 observations: the timeline DH described in his interview may help explain a bit. As I understand, approx 2 years before the search warrant was executed, two notable events took place. 1. Two adjoining buildings on the property burned down, likely due to faulty/aging wire. 2. DR met with PW

IMO one thing DR should do at this point IS to "lawyer up" in an attempt to make some of this information public (and /or get his stuff back, I suppose). In his defense, I suppose this could be a costly and perhaps fruitless effort, but given the attention on the case, some lawyer may jump at the chance (but that isn't always helpful, either, I guess...)

Consider the following thought experiment:

I don't have to convict anyone. But LE does (or has to prepare that). So, both me and LE have eyes. We can both look at a composite drawing and a pic of a suspect and SEE the obvious. But unless you can substantiate visits to MN you can't very well do anything with it.

Thus, you seal warrants so S2 doesn't know what you know, and you try to either get evidence of such visits or you try not to dissuade the two from visiting each other, and maybe try to find out when/if they plan to visit again.

~ svh

 

[Sigrun]

What does it mean when LE suddenly names a single POI 21 years after the abduction? And also after the search of that persons farm?

Well Sasquatch, it probably means he's a person of interest because he is. They need to show he had a visitor, that this person had opportunity.

~ svh

 

[Sasquatch321]

Well Sasquatch, it probably means he's a person of interest because he is. They need to show he had a visitor, that this person had opportunity.

~ svh

It also says the 50,000 other individuals we've looked at are not.

 

[Sigrun]

Also keep in mind tractors, trailers, atvs, motorcycles, golf carts...etc. and that because you might have access to any of the above doesn't necessarily mean you're a person of means. Ex: growing up we had a dumpy trailer and a standing agreement with neighbors that they could borrow it.

Good point

 

[Caoutchouc]

Think about it. Assume for discussion you agree that our S1 looks like the composite, or is the best match we've found. Then we say, again for discussion, he is the most likely attacker of Jared.

But suppose we then find out he has known S2 for decades, talks to him and went to grad school with him.

What are the odds that JEW is going to be purely by chance abducted on S2's property 9 months later if it were NOT S1 doing it? No, it doesn't prove anything, but it makes a connection more likely than any we've established so far.

~ svh

[facepalm] There go those odds again. Grrr. But if S1 was with/around S2 9 months earlier - or at least in the area, I'd think that'd need some kind of evidence, especially assuming the parents weren't in Europe 9 months earlier. But I suppose there could also be the lack of evidence to strengthen this assumption. Grrrr. LH has some explaining to do IMO in this hypothetical.