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

[Caoutchouc]

Sigrun, if you're so certain of two suspects, why not take your theory to LE? Writing it online does not solve a case.

I want to jump in w/a bit of "food for thought" in defense/support of Sigrun. My opinion only, take it or leave it - and clearly I can't speak for Sigrun and Sigrun speaks for themselves.

I'd been a long time lurker of WS and was compelled to join when Sigrun joined in the conversation.
To me, what you're (we're) engaging in is a systematic process Sigrun is using while attempting to make (for lack of a better term) an "educated guess". IMO this a very abstract school of thought may be difficult for some of us to grasp...not because we're less intelligent or have a different set of goals/principles/fact sets - it's just a different way of thinking. It's not wrong or right, it's simply different.

In general, I'm not a very patient person and I usually hate "process", but Sigrun's unique process has challenged me to patiently and systematically think outside the box.
In law, there's evidence or no evidence; fact or objectionable fact. In psychology, there's a whole lot of unknown, but likely known, and increasingly discoverable traits (humans are like snowflakes - each one individual, yet sometimes alike and all are snow...to draw on some MN terminology- it's either fluffy, slushy, or icy. And sometimes it's a bit of all). In detective work, there's often a hybrid of these. If you follow what I write, you'll probably realize I've got an affection for pop culture. HBO's "True Detective" IMO resonated with many people because IMO the writers tried to marry these different schools, and very successfully)

Again, to me, what we're taking part in is a unique process of thought. Sigrun may ultimately reach a conclusion you don't agree with, but the cool thing will be to see how Sigrun got there and why. Perhaps you, like me, will be forced to rethink our positions. Ultimately, that may lead to finding Jacob Wetterling or at least help in providing some kind of explanation, lest it ever happen again.

 

[Sigrun]

Thanks for explaining this. I couldn't picture before how his footprint could be "backward" if he was getting out of a car. But trying to climb down from the back of a pickup truck (or cart) makes perfect sense.

Right, except for the fact that the foot axis is perpendicular to the tire track axis, which indicates boarding from the side. The only way I can see stepping off is if it is hasty or, given a rare vehicle, it is just equipped that way.

Thinking about it some more, I think the car could not have been moving because the impression wouldn't be that clean, especially on the sides of the foot. Therefore, for the stepping off option to result in the simplest solution, the vehicle needs to be stopped. But stopping the vehicle after you have the cargo on board is a naked assumption; meaning, I have to create that assumption to make the theory work rather than it appearing naturally.

~ svh

 

[Sasquatch321]

Right, except for the fact that the foot axis is perpendicular to the tire track axis, which indicates boarding from the side. The only way I can see stepping off is if it is hasty or, given a rare vehicle, it is just equipped that way.

Thinking about it some more, I think the car could not have been moving because the impression wouldn't be that clean, especially on the sides of the foot. Therefore, for the stepping off option to result in the simplest solution, the vehicle needs to be stopped. But stopping the vehicle after you have the cargo on board is a naked assumption; meaning, I have to create that assumption to make the theory work rather than it appearing naturally.

~ svh

How much can you process and conclude with a single magnified picture of a footprint? Theres not enough photo evidence for us to conclude anything imo. Including a vehicle at this point in time also conflicts with LE's most likely findings. We must also include in testing why that footprint is there without a vehicle used, to give LE some credit.

 

[shergal]

Right, except for the fact that the foot axis is perpendicular to the tire track axis, which indicates boarding from the side. The only way I can see stepping off is if it is hasty or, given a rare vehicle, it is just equipped that way.

Thinking about it some more, I think the car could not have been moving because the impression wouldn't be that clean, especially on the sides of the foot. Therefore, for the stepping off option to result in the simplest solution, the vehicle needs to be stopped. But stopping the vehicle after you have the cargo on board is a naked assumption; meaning, I have to create that assumption to make the theory work rather than it appearing naturally.

~ svh

Well, basically everything you are stating here is an assumption you have created, or your own opinion, right?

I agree the vehicle would have to be stopped. Here's another assumption. The abductor's vehicle could have driven all the way into the driveway, turned around and stopped facing the road about 40 yards in. Then the abductor walked out to the road (in the hard part that doesn't leave tracks), confronted the boys and took Jacob. Walked back to his car (alone w/Jacob) either walking on the hard packed area or grabbing him up and carrying him. He got to the car and dumped Jacob in ahead of himself into the front seat. There was a struggle and Jacob got one foot out of the car. The abductor shoved him back in, through or over the seats, and told him to get flat in the the back seat. Then he drove away leaving only one footprint.

It makes as much sense as two guys juggling Jacob around, IMO.

 

[Sigrun]

How much can you process and conclude with a single magnified picture of a footprint?

An awful lot if you pay close attention to detail.

Theres not enough photo evidence for us to conclude anything imo.

I agree. I've reached no conclusions at this point, only deduced what most likely happened out to Utah. When you look in the closet for a shirt, it is more likely to find it in the shirt section. So you look there first.

Including a vehicle at this point in time also conflicts with LE's most likely findings.

Really? Are you sure?

~ svh

 

[Sigrun]

Well, basically everything you are stating here is an assumption you have created, or your own opinion, right?

I agree the vehicle would have to be stopped. Here's another assumption. The abductor's vehicle could have driven all the way into the driveway, turned around and stopped facing the road about 40 yards in. Then the abductor walked out to the road (in the hard part that doesn't leave tracks), confronted the boys and took Jacob. Walked back to his car (alone w/Jacob) either walking on the hard packed area or grabbing him up and carrying him. He got to the car and dumped Jacob in ahead of himself into the front seat. There was a struggle and Jacob got one foot out of the car. The abductor shoved him back in, through or over the seats, and told him to get flat in the the back seat. Then he drove away leaving only one footprint.

It makes as much sense as two guys juggling Jacob around, IMO.

I do not think they are equivalent because your explanation contradicts the evidence. There are no fresh adult prints in the vicinity of JEW's last impression, so how did he follow him into the vehicle? Yes, he could long jump into the car, but that is not the simplest explanation at all.

~ svh

 

[Sasquatch321]

Hey guys, I'm sorry, I'm getting out of hand and not making sense anymore. I'm hereby taking a 3 day leave from the case, to relieve mental stress. Happy Sleuthing to you all and let hope live.

 

[shergal]

I do not think they are equivalent because your explanation contradicts the evidence. There are no fresh adult prints in the vicinity of JEW's last impression, so how did he follow him into the vehicle? Yes, he could long jump into the car, but that is not the simplest explanation at all.

~ svh

It doesn't seem any more complicated to me then two men being involved, but we each have our own opinions.

I need to go back in the threads and find an explanation a poster made one time. It was an interesting scenario.

 

[Marzipan]

Hey guys, I'm sorry, I'm getting out of hand and not making sense anymore. I'm hereby taking a 3 day leave from the case, to relieve mental stress. Happy Sleuthing to you all and let hope live.

"It was isolated. It was an area where a car wouldn't attract attention. It was a challenging area to start with, as difficult as any I've ever been involved with." Al Garber, FBI 2009

http://www.minnesotamonthly.com/media/Minnesota-Monthly/October-2009/Without-a-Trace/

I'll do a leave too sometime, maybe unplug for summer vacay. Enjoy your time away, Sasquatch, and then come back.

 

[Silverngold]

I have some questions about Father Tom Gillespie.

I believe he is the one who made the aerial photos that DR provided to Joy.

How does a priest get enough money to fly a plane??

How good of friends was DR with Gillespie?

Little planes are mot monitored very much. Does Gillespie own the plane or the church or whose plane is it?

Did he go for a flight in the time after the abduction?

We don't know for sure he was flying with father Tom taking that pic imo. However, I thought the same thing. Those priests get stationed all over the place. Out of country. Maybe it's st John's plane and out at stc airport.

 

[cindya]

I want to jump in w/a bit of "food for thought" in defense/support of Sigrun. My opinion only, take it or leave it - and clearly I can't speak for Sigrun and Sigrun speaks for themselves.

I'd been a long time lurker of WS and was compelled to join when Sigrun joined in the conversation.
To me, what you're (we're) engaging in is a systematic process Sigrun is using while attempting to make (for lack of a better term) an "educated guess". IMO this a very abstract school of thought may be difficult for some of us to grasp...not because we're less intelligent or have a different set of goals/principles/fact sets - it's just a different way of thinking. It's not wrong or right, it's simply different.

In general, I'm not a very patient person and I usually hate "process", but Sigrun's unique process has challenged me to patiently and systematically think outside the box.



In law, there's evidence or no evidence; fact or objectionable fact. In psychology, there's a whole lot of unknown, but likely known, and increasingly discoverable traits (humans are like snowflakes - each one individual, yet sometimes alike and all are snow...to draw on some MN terminology- it's either fluffy, slushy, or icy. And sometimes it's a bit of all). In detective work, there's often a hybrid of these. If you follow what I write, you'll probably realize I've got an affection for pop culture. HBO's "True Detective" IMO resonated with many people because IMO the writers tried to marry these different schools, and very successfully)

Again, to me, what we're taking part in is a unique process of thought. Sigrun may ultimately reach a conclusion you don't agree with, but the cool thing will be to see how Sigrun got there and why. Perhaps you, like me, will be forced to rethink our positions. Ultimately, that may lead to finding Jacob Wetterling or at least help in providing some kind of explanation, lest it ever happen again.

well said. I agree.

 

[nmogren]

I have some questions about Father Tom Gillespie.

I believe he is the one who made the aerial photos that DR provided to Joy.

How does a priest get enough money to fly a plane??

How good of friends was DR with Gillespie?

Little planes are mot monitored very much. Does Gillespie own the plane or the church or whose plane is it?

Did he go for a flight in the time after the abduction?

Human, you would be surprised to learn that even small town priests start out at about 60K, they have plenty of money.

Sher, thanks for the info on the JW show airing this week.

Sigrun, great info! Busy day here, still catching up!

 

[HEY YOU!]

Hey guys, I'm sorry, I'm getting out of hand and not making sense anymore. I'm hereby taking a 3 day leave from the case, to relieve mental stress. Happy Sleuthing to you all and let hope live.

I hear that. I think I'll just come back once in a while until sigrun & co come to a conclusion.

 

[thenotebook]

This image addresses our discussion fairly well. Tracker looked at these and concluded that all those steps were JEW's. There may have been some older prints underneath, but the only prints associated in time with the tire track were JEW's.

Notice that someone would have to jump over that entire picture to get into the car. The ground is soft all the way around the car. The other closeup shows JEW's impression appearing as a step up, as if being lifted upward, but then not joined by an adult. And clearly JEW didn't drive the car alone.

The jump might be achievable by an athlete, but why? My opinion is that the simplest and I dare say only solution to this riddle is that there were two people present; a "gun" and a driver.

~ svh

What do you mean by the bolded part in the quote above?

 

[bessie]

I want to jump in w/a bit of "food for thought" in defense/support of Sigrun. My opinion only, take it or leave it - and clearly I can't speak for Sigrun and Sigrun speaks for themselves.

I'd been a long time lurker of WS and was compelled to join when Sigrun joined in the conversation.
To me, what you're (we're) engaging in is a systematic process Sigrun is using while attempting to make (for lack of a better term) an "educated guess". IMO this a very abstract school of thought may be difficult for some of us to grasp...not because we're less intelligent or have a different set of goals/principles/fact sets - it's just a different way of thinking. It's not wrong or right, it's simply different.

In general, I'm not a very patient person and I usually hate "process", but Sigrun's unique process has challenged me to patiently and systematically think outside the box.
In law, there's evidence or no evidence; fact or objectionable fact. In psychology, there's a whole lot of unknown, but likely known, and increasingly discoverable traits (humans are like snowflakes - each one individual, yet sometimes alike and all are snow...to draw on some MN terminology- it's either fluffy, slushy, or icy. And sometimes it's a bit of all). In detective work, there's often a hybrid of these. If you follow what I write, you'll probably realize I've got an affection for pop culture. HBO's "True Detective" IMO resonated with many people because IMO the writers tried to marry these different schools, and very successfully)

Again, to me, what we're taking part in is a unique process of thought. Sigrun may ultimately reach a conclusion you don't agree with, but the cool thing will be to see how Sigrun got there and why. Perhaps you, like me, will be forced to rethink our positions. Ultimately, that may lead to finding Jacob Wetterling or at least help in providing some kind of explanation, lest it ever happen again.

With all due respect, Websleuths hosts a wide, diverse body of members. When expressed within the guidelines set forth by our TOS, ALL views are welcome here; and no extra value is placed on any one opinion, "process", or personality. On the contrary, it's the very convergance of ideas that makes it work.

Having said that, I should also point out that WS is a privately owned, moderated website. Those who believe TOS does not apply to them soon find out they are mistaken.

 

[bessie]

Please only copy no more than 10% of an article and do not forget the link!

Posts that copy more than that will be edited and posts with no link will be removed entirely.

If you copy an image or picture from another site, please provide a link to the original source or the picture will be removed.

Be courteous to the work of others.
Thank you.

Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Verification Process for Professional or Insider Posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Copyright Rules - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Rules New Rules on Sex Offenders and Rumors - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

​

 

[human]

Human, you would be surprised to learn that even small town priests start out at about 60K, they have plenty of money.

Sher, thanks for the info on the JW show airing this week.

Sigrun, great info! Busy day here, still catching up!

Wow. Vow of poverty! Not!

 

[nmogren]

Wow. Vow of poverty! Not!

I know! I was shocked to find out how much they make!

 

[bessie]

Posting a thread to comment on, question, or criticize moderator or administrator action is not appropriate in a public forum. Please utilize the board’s Private Message function, or email staff, if you wish to discuss these issues.

Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[nmogren]

Sher, if it was you who had the link to the tumbler crime scene photos, please repost. Also, are these the only ones we have public access to that you know of? Thank you.