Jbrown324320
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 1,140
- Reaction score
- 264
Psychic info is against Websleuth rules I believe.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
http://theditchrider.weebly.com/robert.html
This letter by LH discusses trips to S. America. That is where DRs brother lives. Hmm...
The definition of Conjecture is: a theory or supposition based on insufficient evidence. A second degree conjecture would be a conjecture based on a conjecture. We have some third degree conjectures going on here. It is pointless.
The way conjectures are used in solving a mystery is using available evidence to convert a conjecture into an established Fact.
Sigrun,
You said that Tracker had earlier claimed that the tire tracks next to Jacob's footprints could not belong to a Monte Carlo. If this can be supported, it is a bombshell.
The location of Jacob's footprints next to those tracks would suggest that they belonged to the vehicle used in the abduction. It would be particularly telling if they were located in a "pull of " area.
We know that no one contacted DR that night but they did speak to him the next day and a week later searched the farm. We must assume that all vehicles on the farm were checked and casts made for comparison against the tracks by Jacob's footprints. It would seem to standard police practice to rule all of those vehicles out. Was this actually done? We don't know.
It is curious that so little interest was paid to DR after the crime. Not only as a suspect but as a witness. The fact that his 911 call was deleted suggests that it was not considered at all important and neither of the vehicles he reported seeing were being searched for. Strange.
At this point, all vehicles and tires that might have been a match are long gone. Some vehicles might be ruled out, but that is probably as good as it's going to get. Otherwise, the only avenue avail to solve this case is probably comparison of similar crimes and known pedophiles in the area.
Before we can begin to track JEWs movements, we need to prepare our transition into the next phase of this narrative. We have some loose ends, literally, at the end the point of our last narrative. We noted that S1 and S2 colluded, taking the victim to a rare vehicle, lifted him up to or on top of it from inside or on top of the vehicle, while S1 continued to walk on the packed gravel and dirt.
The problem with this last phase of the narrative is that it leaves us in a bad place to enter the next phase of the narrative. We have two pieces of evidence that remain unexplained. A good fit must explain all evidence in front of us. The first unexplained evidence is why S1 chose to walk the packed gravel rather than simply hopping in the car himself? Doesnt that seem an intuitively simpler conclusion? But we know from the footprints he didnt do this. Why?
The second piece of unexplained evidence is why was S1 selected as the snatcher and S2 selected as the get-away driver? While this might seem innocuous, it typically is not a flip of the coin but is calculated on some reasoning, however imperfect. For whatever reason, it was determined that S1 would be the snatcher and S2 the driver. Why?
In order to solve this riddle, and as always, we seek the narrative consisting of the fewest number of assumptions that will fully explain the evidence before us. As it stands, we have two full assumptions; one to explain why S1 walked and the other to explain why S1 was the snatcher and S2 the driver. We assume the most favorable arrangement possible, that is, only two full assumptions, whatever they might be (we could use 40 assumptions, but we seek the fewest always). Is there a way to collapse these 2 full assumptions into 1 or 2 weak assumptions, or maybe 1 weak assumption? The answer is yes.
We have already indicated that the tire tracks suggest a rare vehicle. We can make a weak assumption that the vehicle is an agricultural vehicle that seats no more than one adult and child and that requires special skills to operate. This addresses both issues with a single, weak assumption. But we get something free out of it, also. If S2 is the operator, S2 is likely the owner or operator of the equipment. Weve identified the driver, S2, as most likely the resident of that property. We dont need to know the exact kind of agricultural equipment, but investigators should seek one that lays two tire tracks (not 4) of tires of the same diameter, has an open top or no top, has high clearance requiring the lifting of a child and is a relatively low powered vehicle (not greater than 40 HP, its noise signature being the reason for its selection). It likely will not have tail lights and may not be lawful for use on the roadway. It will likely not be a tractor or trailer, or any combination thereof. Persons familiar with agriculture in MN could add to this discussion.
But this also suggests that we do not overtly position a true get-away car in this narrative. For if S1 departed the property, it would presumably be in a vehicle then parked in one of the structures near the house. Next I'll attempt to examine the presenting psychology of flight, or any indications of it, to see what it might tell us of the urgency to continue flight beyond the S2 property itself.
~ svh
If S1 had concealed his car in a barn or some other outbuilding to conceal the fact that he was at the house visiting DR (perhaps from DR's brother) for a few days, I can see using the farm equipment to transport JEW to S1's car, allowing time for S1 to run ahead, start the car, back out and transfer JEW to his vehicle. I think this could be done in a matter of seconds or 1 to 2 minutes.
If S1 had concealed his car in a barn or some other outbuilding to conceal the fact that he was at the house visiting DR (perhaps from DR's brother) for a few days, I can see using the farm equipment to transport JEW to S1's car, allowing time for S1 to run ahead, start the car, back out and transfer JEW to his vehicle. I think this could be done in a matter of seconds or 1 to 2 minutes.
If S1 had concealed his car in a barn or some other outbuilding to conceal the fact that he was at the house visiting DR (perhaps from DR's brother) for a few days, I can see using the farm equipment to transport JEW to S1's car, allowing time for S1 to run ahead, start the car, back out and transfer JEW to his vehicle. I think this could be done in a matter of seconds or 1 to 2 minutes.
Its disgusting and both of these guys have nothing to do with any abductions,imo. By now Jared would have identified them.