Originally posted by HappyChic727
I haven't followed the case much but do believe that Dru is gone. I thought that of Elizabeth Smart too and was super shocked when she was found . . . alive . . . but I think that was a very unusual situation. I hope her body is found soon for the sake of the family. I can't imagine what it would be like to have someone missing and possibly murdered. I go crazy when my cats don't come in after a few hours. Yes, I go looking for them! I call their names and clap and make a nuisance of myself. But I love them, and I can't imagine losing them. Prayers and strength to Dru's family and friends.
startribune.com
Not knowing Dru Sjodin's whereabouts complicates things
Richard Meryhew
Star Tribune
Published 12/23/2003
On paper, the case that Grand Forks authorities are building against the man accused of kidnapping Dru Sjodin seems formidable.
They found a knife in Alfonso Rodriguez Jr.'s car that matches a sheath discovered in the shopping mall parking lot where Sjodin disappeared Nov. 22. They've got evidence they say places Rodriguez at the mall that day. They found Sjodin's blood in Rodriguez's car and recovered one of her shoes by the Red Lake River not far from his home. And they've got Rodriguez, a 50-year-old convicted sex offender from Crookston, Minn., caught in an alibi that doesn't add up.
What they don't have is Sjodin.
And without knowing the whereabouts of the 22-year-old University of North Dakota student, convicting Rodriguez on a kidnapping or murder charge becomes trickier.
Without a body, prosecutors can't say for certain how or whether Sjodin was abducted or assaulted. Without a body, they can't establish that Sjodin is dead.
"In a murder case, you've got to prove there has been a death of a human being and you've got to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt," said John Goff, a former North Dakota prosecutor who filed murder charges in 1998 in the disappearance of 11-year-old Jeanna North in Fargo, N.D. Her body was never found.
"Everybody can conclude she is dead, but you still have to prove that."
Aiding prosecutors in the Sjodin disappearance is the fact that the collection and presentation of DNA evidence has evolved significantly in recent years and that statistics associated with such evidence are much more likely to be allowed in court. In one high-profile case during the early 1990s, a Dakota County jury wasn't permitted to hear statistical evidence because the science behind it was considered to be in its infancy.
Evidence and clues
In 1988, authorities in Cass and Crow Wing counties in north-central Minnesota prosecuted Jerome Bye, a Pequot Lakes real-estate agent, in the death of Charlotte Lysdale, 68, who disappeared from her Pine River home three years earlier.
Bye, the last person to have seen Lysdale, was accused of killing her, stealing the deed to her lakeshore property and hiding her body, which was never found. Although a grand jury found enough probable cause to charge Bye, a jury acquitted him of murder.
Despite some compelling physical evidence, the outcome was the same in 1992 when Robert Guevara was charged with murder, kidnapping and rape in the disappearance of Corrine Erstad, a 5-year-old girl from Inver Grove Heights who was reported missing that June.
Investigators found a bloody dress with Guevara's and Corrine's hair in Guevara's storage locker and a shower curtain stained with semen and blood. Nevertheless, Guevara was acquitted.
Several jurors said after the trial that the inability of investigators to find Corrine's body hurt the prosecution's case. Without it, they said, prosecutors didn't have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had died. And without being able to prove that, they said, they couldn't convict Guevara of a killing.
"I was shocked at the verdict at the time," said Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom, who prosecuted Guevara. "And I'm still shocked and disappointed today. It is hard to rationalize how you could overlook the significant evidence we had in that case.
"We had DNA evidence that linked the victim's blood and the defendant's semen combined on one item of evidence. But in our case, we didn't have a body. And it might have tipped the scales enough to lead to their decision," Backstrom said.
Andrew Baker, assistant chief medical examiner for Hennepin County, said finding a body is important for several reasons: Not only does it prove that a death occurred, but in most cases, it also establishes a cause of death and valuable clues about what happened.
"Depending on the circumstances, there may be a great deal of evidence on the body," Baker said.
Stab wounds, gunshot wounds, strangulation marks or torn or shredded clothing often give investigators information that can be helpful when interrogating potential suspects. Backstrom said a body can also provide prosecutors with valuable DNA evidence -- semen, hair, blood -- that could be critical at trial.
In some cases, that's the key to sustaining a criminal case.
Earlier this year, William Gene Myears, 25, was charged with manslaughter in connection with the disappearance and suspected killing of 21-year-old Erika Dalquist of Brainerd, in October 2002. According to a criminal complaint, Myears led investigators to a mine pit 10 miles east of town and pointed to a spot where he said he put Dalquist.
Despite exhaustive underwater searches, investigators never found a body. Two weeks later, the charge was dropped and Myears was set free.
Stronger cases
Investigators in Cass County, N.D., never found Jeanna North's body, but they still won a conviction against repeat sex offender Kyle Bell in 1999, based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence.
Bell, who lived near Jeanna, was in the neighborhood at the time she disappeared and was the last person to see her alive. At one point, he confessed to killing Jeanna. He later recanted, but some of the confession was admitted at trial.
Bell also told authorities that he tied Jeanna's body to a concrete block and dumped it in a nearby river. Investigators later found a concrete block and rope in the spot where Bell said he dumped the body.
Circumstantial evidence also was critical in the 2000 conviction of Donald Blom, who was accused of kidnapping and murder in the disappearance of Katie Poirier, 19, from a Moose Lake convenience store where she worked.
Blom, a repeat sex offender, also confessed to the crime early on, then recanted. But as in the Bell case, part of the confession was admitted as trial evidence.
Investigators also had physical evidence -- human bone fragments were found in a fire pit on Blom's property not far from the crime scene. However, that evidence was so badly burned that investigators could not obtain DNA samples.
They also found a tooth that showed dental work consistent with that performed on Poirier by her dentist. Working off those findings, prosecutors called on "state-of-the-art, highly qualified experts to put together" a likely scenario of what happened, said Tom Pertler, assistant Carlton County Attorney who prosecuted the case.
Prosecutors also worked with testimony from eyewitnesses who placed Blom and his truck at or near the crime scene and a store surveillance tape that showed a man looking like Blom leading Poirier out the door.
Even then, Pertler said, defense attorneys still asked prospective jurors during jury selection, "Do you think Katie Poirier is dead?"
"In this case, we had to add up every piece of circumstantial evidence that put him at the scene," Pertler said. "But a lot of that stuff I don't need in a typical case where there is a body."
In the Sjodin case, if more evidence is uncovered in coming weeks or if her body is found, the kidnapping charge against Rodriguez would likely be amended to include murder. Yet even without a body, Backstrom and other prosecutors say the case against Rodriguez is strong.
Like Bell and Blom, Rodriguez is a repeat sex offender. What's more, the physical evidence against him, which includes a DNA match of the blood found in his car with DNA from Sjodin's toothbrush, is strong.
Backstrom said it also will help prosecutors that DNA technology, in its infancy more than a decade ago, has improved greatly over the years and is now "fully accepted" by the courts and understood by jurors.
"Today, from very small quantities of blood, you can produce a DNA match," he said.
Prosecutors also are now allowed to tell jurors at trial the significance of the DNA match.
In 1992, "we couldn't use statistical data to explain just how rare a chance it would be that anyone else in the population could have left the sample that had been tested," Backstrom said. "And that's a very important part of the testimony to explain the significance of that to the jury. Twelve years ago, it was good evidence. But it didn't carry the same weight it does today.
"It's a strong case," he added. "The prosecutors are doing exactly what they needed to do."
Said Goff, "You have to prove there was a death, but I don't think it's a huge obstacle in this case. Circumstantially, they have a very, very good case."
Richard Meryhew is at
richm@startribune.com.
© Copyright 2003 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.