Remains found confirmed as Jacob Wetterling/Suspect led LE to Remains #2

[oswald111069]

I still have so many qestions.
Are we going to get to see what actually was DNA'd?

 

[ELOCsoul]

Thanks for your insight. I'm interested at looking into the unsolved crimes in Stearns County. Do you have a link or a list of the unsolved crimes?

No link, but I can tell you I'm currently researching and writing a book about a collection of cold or long term cases from Stearns County, that will include the following: (the year shown is to best of my recollection)

Jackie Theel (1944)
Roy Benn (1970)
Reker Sisters (1974)
Ivend Holen (1976)
Huling Family (1978)
Joan Bierschbach (1979)
Myrtle Cole (1981)
Steven Bechtold (1987)
Jacob Wetterling (1989)
Ronnie Bromenshakel and Cynthia Schmidt (1986)
Herb Fromelt (1994)
Josh Guimond (2002)
Tom Decker (2012)

 

[Tippy Lynn]

No link, but I can tell you I'm currently researching and writing a book about a collection of cold or long term cases from Stearns County, that will include the following: (the year shown is to best of my recollection)

Jackie Theel (1944)
Roy Benn (1970)
Reker Sisters (1974)
Ivend Holen (1976)
Huling Family (1978)
Joan Bierschbach (1979)
Myrtle Cole (1981)
Steven Bechtold (1987)
Jacob Wetterling (1989)
Ronnie Bromenshakel and Cynthia Schmidt (1986)
Herb Fromelt (1994)
Josh Guimond (2002)
Tom Decker (2012)

You made my day! Thank you for this list. I'm looking forward to reading your book. Thanks again.

 

[oswald111069]

I am still waiting. I thought the date was going to be June 5, 2017? You have had more then enough time. I think 10 days was the limit....maybe 15 at the most.
Their personal information is going to hold up the release of all the other information?
Just redact the personal information about the Wetterlings.
What could be so hard about it?
https://www.foia.gov/faq.html
exemption 6.
I see no exemptions for authorities looking bad.
APM has already done a pretty good job at that.
No apology yet or are we all just going to resign?

 

[Tippy Lynn]

I am still waiting. I thought the date was going to be June 5, 2017? You have had more then enough time. I think 10 days was the limit....maybe 15 at the most.
Their personal information is going to hold up the release of all the other information?
Just redact the personal information about the Wetterlings.
What could be so hard about it?
https://www.foia.gov/faq.html
exemption 6.
I see no exemptions for authorities looking bad.
APM has already done a pretty good job at that.
No apology yet or are we all just going to resign?

http://www.fox9.com/news/258519781-story

[FONT=.SF UI Display][FONT=.SFUIDisplay]Wetterlings sue, stopping release of files in Jacob's investigation - StarTribune.com[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=.SF UI Display][FONT=.SFUIDisplay]

ST. CLOUD – A district judge on Friday stopped the scheduled public release next week of some investigative documents related to Jacob Wetterling’s 1989 abduction and murder.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[oswald111069]

Let's see. Let me get this straight.
The attorney/attornies for the Wetterlings get until tomorrow to present their objections for the release of their records. Right?
Then the judge get how much time to rule?
I did get the law that covers records wrong. I thought it was Freedom of Information Act they were talking about. But this law is just for the state of Minnesota--the Minnesota Data Practices Act.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/dataprac.pdf

But if we let one person object to the release of the information because of privacy concerns, then couldn't everything that they were going to release be considered private or confidentia?. Why create the law in the first place? I see that the courts and the legislative branches are not included. How fair is that? I remember the Jon Benet Ramsy case and I think they released all of those records without concern for any privacy but Minnesota is not Colorado and maybe we are more nice.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

Let's see. Let me get this straight.
The attorney/attornies for the Wetterlings get until tomorrow to present their objections for the release of their records. Right?
Then the judge get how much time to rule?
I did get the law that covers records wrong. I thought it was Freedom of Information Act they were talking about. But this law is just for the state of Minnesota--the Minnesota Data Practices Act.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/dataprac.pdf

But if we let one person object to the release of the information because of privacy concerns, then couldn't everything that they were going to release be considered private or confidentia?. Why create the law in the first place? I see that the courts and the legislative branches are not included. How fair is that? I remember the Jon Benet Ramsy case and I think they released all of those records without concern for any privacy but Minnesota is not Colorado and maybe we are more nice.

A law to prevent a law. Sadly, this is only one of many flaws within the judicial system. MOO

 

[Kojak81]

But if we let one person object to the release of the information because of privacy concerns, then couldn't everything that they were going to release be considered private or confidential?

It's difficult to answer that because IMO we aren't exactly sure what the Wetterlings are referring to in regards of information they want excluded for privacy reasons. Personally, I don't care what it may be and I don't feel the need to know the information they want blocked. I'm more interested in reading about tips and leads the SCSO received and determining if they could have solved the case years ago with that information. It seems like they certainly could have, but of course, hindsight is always 20/20.

Edited to add: I think the main concern as far as the media is the balance between a closed case's information being released to the public and the privacy of the family members involved... in a case like this, could the Wetterlings halt the release of the whole investigative file due to the privacy concerns that they have pertaining to a portion of the documents, and the same scenario being played out in another case file being closed and its information being sealed because of that precedence.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

I agree. I don't want to know about of their personal lives or the dynamics of their daily lives. It would be different if they were suspects or what not, but that's not the case.

 

[Kojak81]

Did anyone else catch the rebroadcast of Jacob's case on The Hunt With John Walsh tonight? I'm glad I DVR'd it. At the end of the segment John Walsh talks about the DNA testing matching Heinrich. It might have gotten lost in translation, but in regards to the plea deal, Walsh says "Heinrich negotiated a shocking plea. He would admit to killing Jacob Wetterling and lead the police to Jacob's remains, so long as he wasn't charged with the actual murder. The Wetterling family agreed to this deal. They wanted to know what happened to Jacob." I had the understanding that former US Attorney Andrew Luger (et al.) went to Heinrich and his lawyers with that deal. Maybe I'm over-analyzing it, but it makes it sound Heinrich went to authorities to make a deal with them.

Walsh continued by saying, "In September of 2016, Heinrich confessed in court to the kidnapping and sexual assault of several other boys." That's what struck me the most. He admitted in court of the kidnapping and assault of Jared, but no where in the court transcripts was there any mention of more than Jacob and Jared, in fact, as part of that plea deal, investigators couldn't even ask him about other cases.

Am I missing something here? Either the research on The Hunt's part got bungled, or John Walsh has more details than others.

 

[kaen]

I don't remember all of the facts in the chain leading to the confession, but, I recall that someone made contact (not published who) which led to the beginning of the exchange of info.

Never heard that he admitted to harming anyone except JS. The plea deal only mentions 2 victims besides the children in the pornographic material he possessed.

 

[Listen]

in fact, as part of that plea deal, investigators couldn't even ask him about other cases.

That's correct. I didn't even know they were broadcasting an updated version of The Hunt, but they got that part wrong.

 

[Kojak81]

That's correct. I didn't even know they were broadcasting an updated version of The Hunt, but they got that part wrong.

Seeing as the new season starts on Sunday, I expected them to do another "Still Running" episode, giving updates on past episodes, but apparently not this season. I had a hunch they would have at least mentioned Heinrich's confession during the re-airing so I thought I'd record it. John Walsh calls it a "special edition revisiting Jacob's story." It's essentially the same episode as the original airing, except with John Walsh going over what happened since the airing. I'm still curious to know if there's more to the confession than what we already know.

 

[Listen]

Seeing as the new season starts on Sunday, I expected them to do another "Still Running" episode, giving updates on past episodes, but apparently not this season. I had a hunch they would have at least mentioned Heinrich's confession during the re-airing so I thought I'd record it. John Walsh calls it a "special edition revisiting Jacob's story." It's essentially the same episode as the original airing, except with John Walsh going over what happened since the airing. I'm still curious to know if there's more to the confession than what we already know.

Hmm, I don't see that anywhere. I did watch tonight what appeared to be the first episode of the new season, which was a rehash on many of the previous cases profiled. Jacob's was included in the beginning in a 2-3 minute segment, during which I think Mr. Walsh made it seem as though they had a large impact on Heinrich being re-investigated only after their original broadcast.

 

[oswald111069]

Did anyone else catch the rebroadcast of Jacob's case on The Hunt With John Walsh tonight? I'm glad I DVR'd it. At the end of the segment John Walsh talks about the DNA testing matching Heinrich. It might have gotten lost in translation, but in regards to the plea deal, Walsh says "Heinrich negotiated a shocking plea. He would admit to killing Jacob Wetterling and lead the police to Jacob's remains, so long as he wasn't charged with the actual murder. The Wetterling family agreed to this deal. They wanted to know what happened to Jacob." I had the understanding that former US Attorney Andrew Luger (et al.) went to Heinrich and his lawyers with that deal. Maybe I'm over-analyzing it, but it makes it sound Heinrich went to authorities to make a deal with them.

Walsh continued by saying, "In September of 2016, Heinrich confessed in court to the kidnapping and sexual assault of several other boys." That's what struck me the most. He admitted in court of the kidnapping and assault of Jared, but no where in the court transcripts was there any mention of more than Jacob and Jared, in fact, as part of that plea deal, investigators couldn't even ask him about other cases.

Am I missing something here? Either the research on The Hunt's part got bungled, or John Walsh has more details than others.

I was wondering about this also. Its seems like Danny Heinrich was calling the shots. What kind of power does this guy have?
I remember reading that when he was being interviewed the first time that when he got lawyered up they dropped the investigation into his involvement right away. Its seems like they were dragging their feet in looking into him from beginning for some reason. Did they know that he was not guilty or does he know something that is better left hidden?

 

[kaen]

I was wondering about this also. Its seems like Danny Heinrich was calling the shots. What kind of power does this guy have?
I remember reading that when he was being interviewed the first time that when he got lawyered up they dropped the investigation into his involvement right away. Its seems like they were dragging their feet in looking into him from beginning for some reason. Did they know that he was not guilty or does he know something that is better left hidden?

Heinrich had the power because of the lack of evidence and he knew it. With Jacob, he took a huge gamble and the unfortunate truth was that there was little to pin on him. I think the police work was not up to par with major metropolitan force capabilities at the time. If he had done this today, the crime scene, warrants for his car and everything else would have been much more about the dna, the timeline, and his day-to-day life.

Heinrich had the power about the plea as well and he knew it. The chances of Jacob ever being found were very low. I am sure that he knew that. Besides pedophilia, it is hard to know the other psychological problems he has. He was aware enough of his power to play the position well given the LEO he was facing.

 

[Trackergd]

Respectfully snipped for brevity

in a case like this, could the Wetterlings halt the release of the whole investigative file due to the privacy concerns that they have pertaining to a portion of the documents, and the same scenario being played out in another case file being closed and its information being sealed because of that precedence.

To me that precedent could circumnavigate freedom of information as it could be used at the whim of the court in concert with the DA or LE Agency. Should be rewritten to redact the sensitive information and release the rest.

 

[oswald111069]

Respectfully snipped for brevity



To me that precedent could circumnavigate freedom of information as it could be used at the whim of the court in concert with the DA or LE Agency. Should be rewritten to redact the sensitive information and release the rest.

But all information could be considered sensitive to someone and then we would have nothing being released. Are we to trust the authorites and take their word and not demand to look at the records in this case? We should not second guess them. They did everything possible to find Jacob and Danny just was to smart for them and committed the perfect murder? What is Danny's IQ anyway? Should be pretty high to get away for 27 years. They just quit watching him for all these years after they first suspected him in these crimes? Doesn't make sense.

 

[Listen]

But all information could be considered sensitive to someone and then we would have nothing being released.

That is definitely a tricky swamp to wade into. What would the parameters be for what is condsidered sensitive and what is not, and who will decide those parameters?

 

[oswald111069]

How much longer is it going to take to have this judge decide? Moving kinda slow I think. Lets get a move on please. It's starting to look like the Dallas police department in 1963. Will we get to know if their was a police car or sheriff's car in the vincinity of the are where Danny said it spooked him which causes him to panic and shoot Jacob?