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

[Trino]

To take the discussion another direction...

I've always thought one of the most important related (and often overlooked) things was the abductor asked who was the oldest. Why would a year or months make a difference? Why not just take any one of the three when they were so close in age?

 

[cGorg]

To take the discussion another direction...

I've always thought one of the most important related (and often overlooked) things was the abductor asked who was the oldest. Why would a year or months make a difference? Why not just take any one of the three when they were so close in age?

I don't think a year or two would make a difference, however.... It's a nonsensical question....maybe even a diversion on the perp's part to allow time to identify the perp's preferences. IMO, the perp preferred Jacob and needed to identify him without letting the others know that he was targeting Jacob. Jacob + Aaron were the same age(11). Trevor was youngest(10)...let go first. Then Aaron was let go and told to run. I wonder what the actual physical order in the ditch was of Trevor, Aaron, Jacob(my preconception is Trevor to the south, Aaron in the middle, Jacob on the north-this would follow the line of questioning and release)....my suspicion is that the perp wanted Jacob and coincidentally the physical order was the same by chance(Aaron + Trevor could verify this). BECAUSE.....IF it was very dark then the perp knew what he was looking for...he would not have let go Trevor or Aaron if he had no idea what Jacob looked like. The 'age' question is simply a diversion to identify each boy and verfiy(their face). It seems as it happened that Jacob was last...if he had been in the middle, I wonder how things would have transpired.

 

[cGorg]

Yes,the perp,footprint is a problem isn't it.

It certainly is.

 

[human]

To take the discussion another direction...

I've always thought one of the most important related (and often overlooked) things was the abductor asked who was the oldest. Why would a year or months make a difference? Why not just take any one of the three when they were so close in age?

He asked who the oldest is? Do you have a reference for that please?

 

[ELOCsoul]

To take the discussion another direction...

I've always thought one of the most important related (and often overlooked) things was the abductor asked who was the oldest. Why would a year or months make a difference? Why not just take any one of the three when they were so close in age?

I agree that the selection process was a very important aspect of this case. However, I don't think he asked who was the oldest. By all accounts I've read, he asked their ages. They all answered at once. Then the abductor ordered them to answer one at a time. Trevor said he was 10, and was sent to the woods. With Aaron and Jacob both being 11, he looked at each of them before letting Aaron go. That's my understanding.

 

[Shay]

I also believe he knew which boy he wanted. JW may have been to the Rassier's in the past, possibly selling something for a hockey fundraiser.

 

[Sasquatch321]

Do you really think that Jacob's last footprint was planted? Really? Jacob left a trail of footprints culminating in one last footprint....why would the perp plant one last footprint when there is a trail already(which is perplexing enough)? So the perp thought: I'd better go back to the scene, plant a footprint that exhibited an upward motion that creates the appearance that Jacob is stepping up into a vehicle. And while I'm at it....I think I'll mosey around the driveway and 'erase' other print evidence. This really isn't plausible if you just think about the logisitics of it. I believe that the picture of Jacob's last footprint is HIS footprint and was created by HIM-whatever that print means. I consider this picture of his print to be factual evidence of his last known existence and NOT a fabrication by others to mislead investigators. Can we on WS agree that Jacob's last footprint is a FACT and not a hypothetical?

Framing someone else in a serious crime like an abduction/murder is nothing new. Now under the theory that a vehicle was not used and DR is responsible, how do you explain the last known footprint other than that it is planted to throw them off the trail?

 

[ELOCsoul]

OK, need some help here from someone with inside knowledge, or masterful googling skills.

When administering a lie detector test:

1. Is it standard procedure to include a couple of control questions, where the interviewee is asked to state false answers to two questions?

2. Is it standard procedure to administer the same test consecutively, one right after the other?

3. Is it standard procedure to advise the interviewee that the innocent person generally performs better on the 2nd test?

TIA

 

[Sasquatch321]

I agree that the selection process was a very important aspect of this case. However, I don't think he asked who was the oldest. By all accounts I've read, he asked their ages. They all answered at once. Then the abductor ordered them to answer one at a time. Trevor said he was 10, and was sent to the woods. With Aaron and Jacob both being 11, he looked at each of them before letting Aaron go. That's my understanding.

The man ordered them to run and not look back or he would shoot. why is he really so concerned about them not looking back? He was already disguised from head to toe and the boys could have caught a glimpse of his vehicle from the point of the abduction already, so did he not want them to stop and look back because they would never see a vehicle leaving?

 

[Ifollowthis]

If you google his brother Paul's obit you will find that this guys mom and step dad lived in ST Joe.......wonder how often he visited?

I thought maybe I found that other guy who had attempted an abduction in St. Joe a couple months before Jacob was abducted..(not the attempt where the boy slipped out of his jacket and ran, but the one where a guy in a tan van with white rusted trim tried to grab a young boy in St. Joe in the summer of 1989) ...but I'm not sure if he was in prison or out on parole in 1989. (I don't think this guy had anything to do with Jacob or Jared, but I thought he may have been the guy who was attempting all those other abductions of young boys and girls around St. Joe in the summer of 1989 that were reported in the local papers.)

This guy fits so well, looks-wise, same glasses, similar facial shape and hair. Funny shaped eyes. But I think he may have been in prision in 1989, unless he was out on parole for a while.

He appears to have been a severe alcoholic (like several suspects we've looked at) and he killed someone while drunk and doesn't even recall it. Or so he says.

Here's the pic comparison of the suspect from 1989 and the guy I found (while looking through the Reker sisters info):

http://www.deadzoom.com/member/samiping/suspect2copy.jpg

His name is Michael Bartowsheski.

Here's some info on him. And if he WAS in prison, maybe we need to find out who this "Mr. X" is they are talking about in these articles.

Michael J. Bartowsheski, St. Cloud, Minn (He was 21 in 1979 when this mugshot was taken, he would have been 31 in 1989.)

http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Colorado/Arapahoe-County-CO/Michael-J-Bartowsheski.4354132.html

He had an appeal in 1983. I don't understand the legalese below, maybe someone can help with that, to figure out if Bartowsheski ever was re-sentenced, or paroled, and was thus out of prison in 1989?

This seems to be the courts summary here on the appeal:

"The trial court should give as much effect to the jury's resolution of the issues submitted to it as can be done without running afoul of the defendant's constitutional and statutory rights. Because the jury found the defendant guilty of both first degree murder based upon the defendant's killing of Michelle Talbott after deliberation and the separate crime of robbery, and because these crimes do not relate to each other in a manner that precludes the entry of separate judgments of conviction on both offenses, the trial court should enter judgments of conviction on these two crimes and resentence the defendant accordingly.
The judgments of conviction and sentences imposed thereon are vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed."

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1983896661P2d235_1896.xml/PEOPLE v. BARTOWSHESKI



In this KARE11 article, they say Bartowsheski was "still" in prison in Colorado in 2005. (So if he never got out in between those dates, it can't be him. But I can't find what happened on his re-sentencing from that appeal in 1983. His original sentence was life WITH parole.) And they mention Mr. X in the link below also.

"Another man they find every bit as interesting is now out of prison, having already served time for another crime against another Minnesota teenager. When we showed up at his home to try to talk with him and he ordered us off his property in no uncertain terms. We’re not naming this Mr. X because he's not charged in the Reker case."
http://archive.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=111096

Some info on Bartowsheski here also:
http://open.salon.com/blog/laura_wi...ders_of_mary_and_susanne_reker_minnesota_1974

So, he was mostly cutting up and killing young girls when he was drunk. But he looks so much like that suspect sketch pictured above from the attempted abduction, I thought maybe he had tried abducting young boys or girls also.

 

[human]

If you google his brother Paul's obit you will find that this guys mom and step dad lived in ST Joe.......wonder how often he visited?

But was he in prison at the time!

 

[shergal]

But was he in prison at the time!

I found it!

"The petitioner was convicted of murder in 1979, and he is serving a life sentence in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections. [See Doc. #18-1.] According to the respondent, the petitioner has been considered for parole every three years since 1999, and he has been denied release on each occasion. Most recently, following a parole interview on July 6, 2011, the Colorado Parole Board denied the petitioner release on parole and his parole application was deferred until July 2014. [See Doc. #18-3.] The reasons indicated by the parole board for denying the petitioner release on parole in July 2011 are "AGGRAVATING FACTORS/INADEQUATE TIME SERVED (Circumstances of Offense)" and "Didn't Accept Responsibility." [See id.]
The petitioner asserts two claims for relief in the Amended Application in which he contends that the parole board abused its discretion. The petitioner first contends that the parole board abused its discretion by relying on aggravating factors that are more than thirty years old, apparently meaning the circumstances of his offense, to deny him release on parole in July 2011. The petitioner argues in support of this claim that the parole board did not "take into consideration the programs that [the petitioner] has completed and the excellent work ratings and the [petitioner's] excellent behavior that shows that he would do excellent on parole." [Doc. #20 at 1.] The petitioner contends in his second claim that the parole board abused its discretion when it denied him parole based on his failure to participate in sex offender treatment. The petitioner's second claim relates to a July 2005 parole board decision. [See Doc. #6 at 2.]

He is trying to appeal on "loss of liberty" now.

(much more at link)
http://www.leagle.com/decision?q=In FDCO 20130415627.xml/BARTOWSHESKI v. TIMME

But basically, he's been up for parole every 3 years since 1999, and was denied every time. He refused to participate in sex offender treatment. I didn't find anything on his re-sentencing that was ordered in 1983. (But it sounds like he has been in prison since 1979.) His next parole date is July 2014! So it might be worth keeping an eye on, in case he does get out next month.

He certainly looks like that attempted abduction guy sketch though, strange. Maybe he has a relative who looks like him?

 

[human]

Just another person that was a possibility in he area. Never ending!

 

[shergal]

Just another person that was a possibility in he area. Never ending!

I still want to know who Mr. X is that had assaulted a teenager in this area. (I've just been trying to figure out who the "possible other dozen or so local suspects" LE checked out were.)

 

[Pensfan]

Do you know if they took DR's computer, or did they just look at it? If they took it, I think it's pretty telling if they did not return it to him after all this time.

Investigators executed four search warrants at Dan's farm and home the last time they searched in 2010. That was the THIRD time LE presented some form of evidence to a judge and the judge signed a search warrant for Dan's home. Some of those many search warrants had to be for electronic devices.

It's very telling that Dan has never announced what LE took from his home even though he has announced that he wants his belongings returned. What's the reason that Dan hasn't admitted what items LE took from his home with those MANY search warrants?

It was announced by LE that the FBI took Dan's diary and scrapbook in one of their many searches which Dan kept about Jacob's abduction (closely resembling the behavior of many other killers).

 

[Caoutchouc]

Ok. If we're on this whole search warrant aspect, I must chime in with what (imo) is an obvious question:
How does the fire at the Rassier farm factor into this?

For reference:
Note, the above photo was taken in 1987 while Dan was flying over the property with a friend who is a pilot. I asked Dan about the buildings just to the left of the red arrows, which are no longer there. He said the larger one was a machine shed with a dirt floor that was used for storing farm equipment. The smaller one was his dad’s wood shop that had a cement floor. There’s also a small white outhouse to the east of the shop. Those buildings burned down in early June of 2009. I asked if they had been burned down intentionally, or if they had caught fire. He said they had caught fire, and though the fire marshall wasn’t able to determine the exact cause, they figure it most likely was an electrical fire. It started in the wood shop and spread quickly to the rest of the buildings. He said it definitely wasn’t intentional. The Rassiers lost a lot of machinery, antiques, wood shop machines, and several of his father’s projects.
http://www.joybaker.com/2013/04/

I do not mean to imply this is an admission of guilt or innocence, but imo a judge would factor it into consideration, all else considered.

 

[Sasquatch321]

Investigators executed four search warrants at Dan's farm and home the last time they searched in 2010. That was the THIRD time LE presented some form of evidence to a judge and the judge signed a search warrant for Dan's home. Some of those many search warrants had to be for electronic devices.

It's very telling that Dan has never announced what LE took from his home even though he has announced that he wants his belongings returned. What's the reason that Dan hasn't admitted what items LE took from his home with those MANY search warrants?

It was announced by LE that the FBI took Dan's diary and scrapbook in one of their many searches which Dan kept about Jacob's abduction (closely resembling the behavior of many other killers).

You know, isn't it telling that since they didn't take Dans journal until the 3rd time they searched his farm that they probably truly took him by surprise and he was unable to hide it this time? Because otherwise why wasn't it taken before in the other searches? And what kind of info does the shrine hold?

This explains IMO why DR was named POI after the search of his farm. LE never found the journal in the previous 2 searches, but they did this time and the information it holds was enough to become very suspect.

 

[Sasquatch321]

I also heard that in the 3rd search of DRs farm that DR requested to get back onto the property during the search to retrieve some papers, was he actually trying to do whatever he could to retrieve his journal or parts of it?

 

[Caoutchouc]

You know, isn't it telling that since they didn't take Dans journal until the 3rd time they searched his farm that they probably truly took him by surprise and he was unable to hide it this time? Because otherwise why wasn't it taken before in the other searches? And what kind of info does the shrine hold?

This explains IMO why DR was named POI after the search of his farm. LE never found the journal in the previous 2 searches, but they did this time and the information it holds was enough to become very suspect.

It is an interesting line of thought, indeed, Sasquatch.

Perhaps it was evidential to one point and probable to another?

 

[Sasquatch321]

It is an interesting line of thought, indeed, Sasquatch.

Perhaps it was evidential to one point and probable to another?

Yes, exactly. Conversation kills a killer, tonight i feel we've made a breakthrough.