Suspect: Daniel Heinrich - #3

[nmogren]

It's one of the classic behaviors of a serial violent offender. The first time Liz Colllin called me the first time, the first question she asked me was 'What did you think about the arson story WCCO did last night?' I said it was great, but not for the reasons that everyone thinks. That surprised her, until I told her about the homicidal triad and what I had learned from reading about FBI profiling. She listened, and then came up with this very original and important story;

https://youtu.be/icajE7_ie5k

Incidentally, there was another arson fire practically next door, just days before Jacob's kidnapping. It all fits, just not for the reasons many think...

Hmmm...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Listen]

I used to think that until I heard he had a gun with bullets. He did not need a loaded gun to scare a child.

The gun was not loaded though. He only loaded it after seeing the police car and panicking. He had (likely the same) gun when he abducted Jared, and let him go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ELOCsoul]

The gun was not loaded though. He only loaded it after seeing the police car and panicking. He had (likely the same) gun when he abducted Jared, and let him go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In court, Heinrich said he did not have again in Jareds case, he bought it after.

 

[Listen]

In court, Heinrich said he did not have again in Jareds case, he bought it after.

So he had a different gun, or just said he had a gun during Jared's assault?

Either way, he claims that the gun was unloaded during Jacob's abduction and assault until he decided to kill him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kaen]

With Jacob, he significantly upped the ante...he forcibly abducted a child into a vehicle AND did so in front of eyewitnesses. Because there were eyewitnesses, law enforcement responded very quickly in Jacob's case. This was by far Heinrich's most serious and brazen attempt to abuse a child, and I think the combination of hearing the scanner traffic about the abduction and seeing the patrol car at the scene of the assault caused him to panic. It doesn't make him any less evil, but I personally don't think he set out to kill Jacob from the get-go.

RSBM. I think the whole abduction scenario showed an upped ante. I don't see it so much as brazen but more that he could not stand/tolerate waiting for a more controlled circumstance. Was he at the farm earlier in the day? His prior assaults were a mixture of more brazen and stealth stalking. From my perspective, he was needing to abuse/assault and was cruising. I think he might have been looking for opportunity. When he saw the boys, he had to have recognized the risk. But, yet, he hid his car. He assaulted and threatened the other two victims and took Jacob. He had him in the car and had to have recognized that he had made a major mistake---the two witnesses, any other witnesses who might have recognized his car from the dead end road if they were canvassed and the scanner alert about Jacob. He took him to his home area and, then, panicked when he saw the cruiser? I know we can't know his mind but it doesn't make sense to me. Yes, he couldn't go back on the road with Jacob. Yes, the story was being repeated on the scanner. But, the reasons it was beyond what he could do without getting caught was based on his inability to wait for an abduction that would allow him to assault a child and drop him/her off. I think he was more angry with himself and Jacob than panicked. His lack of future abductions may have stemmed from not trusting his ability to make an attempt that would make it so he was not caught in the same kind of situation.

He got careless, why? Was he angry and out of control? Stressors from losing his job? Stress from not having had a victim in a while? I hope we will someday get answers.

 

[Listen]

With Jacob, he significantly upped the ante...he forcibly abducted a child into a vehicle AND did so in front of eyewitnesses. Because there were eyewitnesses, law enforcement responded very quickly in Jacob's case. This was by far Heinrich's most serious and brazen attempt to abuse a child, and I think the combination of hearing the scanner traffic about the abduction and seeing the patrol car at the scene of the assault caused him to panic. It doesn't make him any less evil, but I personally don't think he set out to kill Jacob from the get-go.

Exactly. He clearly was looking to find an adolescent boy to assault but the fact that there were 3 together complicated a plan that was already not thought through to the conclusion. I suppose they were just too tempting a target when he spotted them though, and he risked the eyewitnesses.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kaen]

Exactly. He clearly was looking to find an adolescent boy to assault but the fact that there were 3 together complicated a plan that was already not thought through to the conclusion. I suppose they were just too tempting a target when he spotted them though, and he risked the eyewitnesses.

Yes, but the wait time between first seeing the boys on their way to the store and the return was easily 10 minutes or more. What prevented him from assessing that this was too risky? Why did he have to do it with the three boys together? I think the plan was to murder all the way along. He had too many potential identifiers unless he wanted the thrill of almost being caught. I just can't get to the last moment panic that lead to Jacob's death.

 

[Listen]

Yes, but the wait time between first seeing the boys on their way to the store and the return was easily 10 minutes or more. What prevented him from assessing that this was too risky? Why did he have to do it with the three boys together? I think the plan was to murder all the way along. He had too many potential identifiers unless he wanted the thrill of almost being caught. I just can't get to the last moment panic that lead to Jacob's death.

Again, I think it was simply too tempting regardless of the risk. He's clearly shown a propensity for prioritizing his urges over rational thought. This is further evidenced by the fact that he didn't already have a spot chosen for the assault to take place. Again, not a well thought out plan.

If he was planning to murder Jacob all along instead of letting him go, why have him get dressed again after the assault?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ELOCsoul]

Can you elaborate on how Trish Van Pilsum stepped on toes of investigators and the JWRC? What leads did the head of the JWRC supply? Just curious.

Here is an excerpt from "It Can't Happen Here" detailing the information that Trish VanPilsum reported on:


WCCO TV aired a two-part report in May 1992, which leaked information about some early suspects in Jacob's abduction. The report, titled Dimension: A Look Inside the Wetterling File, leaked information that had come from Ron Marotte, former executive director of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation. Marotte contended that the information released was harmless because it was information that law enforcement had already investigated fully. He reasoned that the public was curious about the investigation and deserved to know more details about the investigation from behind the scenes.

Investigators, however, were concerned that the WCCO report would cause the public to become apprehensive about reporting potential leads. The release of information could be viewed by potential informants as compromising the confidentiality of tipsters, or could possibly lead to more prank calls from people claiming to be Jacob. Furthermore, the program suggested that investigators did not follow up on some leads.

Patty Wetterling called out WCCO for using the story for ratings purposes. “This is not about leaks. This is not about sweeps. This is about Jacob. We've got to stay focused. I am,” she said.

The details revealed in the WCCO series included information about Jacob's footprints in the dirt driveway, tire tracks, and a man in black with a gun. The tire tracks were right at the edge of Jacob's footprints, and were presumed to be those of the kidnapper's vehicle. The presence of the fresh tracks next to Jacob’s footprints was an important clue that investigators quietly keyed on. Trish Van Pilsum, broadcaster at WCCO, said the station's coverage was intended to showcase “some of the highs and the lows in the most intensive search ever conducted in Minnesota.”

Here is an excerpt from the book that explains the same, except from the viewpoint of the JWRC:


A two-part television news report on WCCO in May 1992, revealed previously unreleased details of the investigation. Ron Morotte, former executive director of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, provided the station with the information. Morotte said that the leads revealed in the news reports had been thoroughly investigated and were not part of the ongoing investigation.

“Often times, there are huge question marks about what's going on,” said Morotte. “I feel the public was served and that providing the information in no way jeopardized the investigation.”

Authorities were wary of the report, however, because they felt it could result in false leads and might even discourage people with relevant information from calling it in. Morotte was fired from the Wetterling Foundation two weeks before the story aired, although Foundation officials said the timing was merely coincidental. (Riiiiighhht!....)

The WCCO program was called Dimension: A Look Inside The Wetterling File. The report said that more than 26,000 leads had been received in the nearly three years since Jacob's abduction. WCCO investigative reporter, Trish Van Pilsum, revealed during the broadcast that a case detective had received a phone call from a woman about a week after the kidnapping. The woman claimed she knew a man who often wore black clothing and carried a gun, and told the detective that the man had changed all the tires on his car the day after Jacob's abduction. Sheriff Jim Kostreba was interviewed for the program and he indicated that his department was actively investigating three or four main suspects in Jacob’s case. There were about two dozen more that have been investigated but not yet cleared. Van Pilsum’s report revealed that at that point of the investigation law enforcement officials had executed a total of eighteen search warrants, including raids on suspects' homes and automobiles.

I can tell you from personal experience, that the JWRC has done much to exercise control over what the media reports and who they talked to. It all started with their comments on a 1/14/15 WJON report, in which Alison Feigh made 4 claims, 3 of which she knew to be untrue. A week later, the JWRC coerced cancellation of a book club author discussion with the Granite City Book Club in St. Cloud. Two days earlier, Joy Baker emailed me, threatening that if tried to publish my book that I would face "an uphill battle all the way."

Following the arrest of Danny Heinrich, and after I had been interviewed by Fox9 Television, the JWRC issued warnings to several media organizations that they were not to talk to me or about my book. According to a Kare11 reporter, who called me despite the warning, they were warned specifically that if they talked to me the family would not do interviews with that station. The premise, I learned later from this reporter, was that the JWRC did not feel it did any good to criticize investigators. That was very ironic because in the book I only question what investigators did. In reality, it was questioning of LE (and not just by me) that eventually drove the FBI to take the case over from Stearns.

In another instance, when my book first hit the market and I donated the first $200 to the NCMEC, their Chief Legal Counsel contacted me (although she hid her title from me at the time) and returned that first donation. So...I waited a month and used a different form of my name and a different credit card. I received several "Thank You" letters from the NCMEC. Fast forward a year, and I'm in my second meeting with the Kare11 reporter, and she asks me if I had any trouble donating money to the NCMEC? So...how do you suppose she knew to ask me that question? Kare11 read my book, they desperately wanted my information, but were careful to not send someone so close to the family as Caroline Lowe, so they sent someone else. They wanted to know what I knew, but they were secretive about meeting with me because it had been forbidden. Why?

If you listen to the podcasts of In The Dark...Episode 4 even quotes the Wetterlings from this past July, saying it would do no good to question investigators. Sorry, but I wholeheartedly but respectfully disagree.

The JWRC has a history of manipulating media coverage, and I have absolutely no doubt that their activity had the unintended effect of prolonging the investigation. Look at Trish's story - it was 1992. Trish was the very first reporter to rock the boat and investigate the case. How many times did she interview the Wetterlings after that story?

What does all of this mean to you, anyone?

 

[kaen]

Again, I think it was simply too tempting regardless of the risk. He's clearly shown a propensity for prioritizing his urges over rational thought. This is further evidenced by the fact that he didn't already have a spot chosen for the assault to take place. Again, not a well thought out plan.

If he was planning to murder Jacob all along instead of letting him go, why have him get dressed again after the assault?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it was too tempting despite the higher level of risk, I can't imagine that he had not thought what he would do in that case: kill the child.

I think he probably had a spot but didn't count on hearing what he heard on the scanner. He knew enough to be out of Paynesville and Cold Spring.

Why have him get dressed? Because he would have had to load the gun and have Jacob watch him as he shot at him. Letting him get dressed gave Jacob a sense of returning to normalcy-- the assault was done and he would go home. Lulled rather than survival drive to run set in. To have him turn around to avert his eyes also makes no sense except that the monsters a coward and didn't want to deal with the terror that would ensue or the fighting back that might happen. It would not be neat as he would probably have not died immediately or his body would have been marred. Too much blood if he shot him anywhere but in the back of the head.

From the beginning, he had Jacob sit up front. Jacob would be able to identify him from the time spent in the front seat. Why do that if you were going to let him go?

Your points are interesting to me. I am not trying to be contentious but rather trying to puzzle through my questions.

 

[Listen]

Why have him get dressed? Because he would have had to load the gun and have Jacob watch him as he shot at him. Letting him get dressed gave Jacob a sense of returning to normalcy-- the assault was done and he would go home. Lulled rather than survival drive to run set in. To have him turn around to avert his eyes also makes no sense except that the monsters a coward and didn't want to deal with the terror that would ensue or the fighting back that might happen. It would not be neat as he would probably have not died immediately or his body would have been marred. Too much blood if he shot him anywhere but in the back of the head.

I dunno if I can buy that. It takes seconds to load a gun. If you're planning to kill this boy after assaulting him, wouldn't it be easier to hide the evidence if he took the clothes? I apologize if this is a bit morbid for some, but the body would disappear rather quickly. As we have seen this month, at least some articles of clothing survived in relatively good condition, even after 27 years. Why not take the clothes and burn them? In addition to that, if the plan was murder from the get go, why leave the body right away and return an hour later to bury him? He had already spotted LE in the area and, while unlikely, it's possible Jacob could have been discovered. Why leave him there and flee immediately unless he was so freaked out by what he had just done? Also, wouldn't he already have the equipment necessary to dig a grave if this had been planned out? Driving a Bobcat out there, again in an area where LE had passed by already, seems ludicrous and panicky. If this is in fact what happened, it was a bold move by someone who clearly was not thinking rationally about how to hide this body. All of this, to me, adds up to somebody who had acted rashly and was then forced to deal with the consequences of those actions.

From the beginning, he had Jacob sit up front. Jacob would be able to identify him from the time spent in the front seat. Why do that if you were going to let him go

Definitely a fair question. I would answer that with the fact that he allowed Jared to see his face and still let him go, so there is already a precedent there. The reason he put him in the backseat and Jacob in front could be explained by the fact that he brought handcuffs this time, and was not as concerned with him trying to escape or otherwise interfere.

Your points are interesting to me. I am not trying to be contentious but rather trying to puzzle through my questions.

No worries, I'm not taking them as being contentious at all. I very much appreciate hearing the thoughts of others, especially when they challenge my own perceptions. That's healthy and productive in my opinion, and can only lead to a greater understanding for everyone. I'm new here but I have followed this case for a long time, and have a lot to sat about it. I wish I had registered and chimed in years ago instead of lurking from time to time. That being said, I believe there is still plenty to discuss and learn here and hope that everyone continues to contribute their thoughts.

 

[tgemelke]

Here is an excerpt from "It Can't Happen Here" detailing the information that Trish VanPilsum reported on:


WCCO TV aired a two-part report in May 1992, which leaked information about some early suspects in Jacob's abduction. The report, titled Dimension: A Look Inside the Wetterling File, leaked information that had come from Ron Marotte, former executive director of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation. Marotte contended that the information released was harmless because it was information that law enforcement had already investigated fully. He reasoned that the public was curious about the investigation and deserved to know more details about the investigation from behind the scenes.

Investigators, however, were concerned that the WCCO report would cause the public to become apprehensive about reporting potential leads. The release of information could be viewed by potential informants as compromising the confidentiality of tipsters, or could possibly lead to more prank calls from people claiming to be Jacob. Furthermore, the program suggested that investigators did not follow up on some leads.

Patty Wetterling called out WCCO for using the story for ratings purposes. “This is not about leaks. This is not about sweeps. This is about Jacob. We've got to stay focused. I am,” she said.

The details revealed in the WCCO series included information about Jacob's footprints in the dirt driveway, tire tracks, and a man in black with a gun. The tire tracks were right at the edge of Jacob's footprints, and were presumed to be those of the kidnapper's vehicle. The presence of the fresh tracks next to Jacob’s footprints was an important clue that investigators quietly keyed on. Trish Van Pilsum, broadcaster at WCCO, said the station's coverage was intended to showcase “some of the highs and the lows in the most intensive search ever conducted in Minnesota.”

Here is an excerpt from the book that explains the same, except from the viewpoint of the JWRC:


A two-part television news report on WCCO in May 1992, revealed previously unreleased details of the investigation. Ron Morotte, former executive director of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, provided the station with the information. Morotte said that the leads revealed in the news reports had been thoroughly investigated and were not part of the ongoing investigation.

“Often times, there are huge question marks about what's going on,” said Morotte. “I feel the public was served and that providing the information in no way jeopardized the investigation.”

Authorities were wary of the report, however, because they felt it could result in false leads and might even discourage people with relevant information from calling it in. Morotte was fired from the Wetterling Foundation two weeks before the story aired, although Foundation officials said the timing was merely coincidental. (Riiiiighhht!....)

The WCCO program was called Dimension: A Look Inside The Wetterling File. The report said that more than 26,000 leads had been received in the nearly three years since Jacob's abduction. WCCO investigative reporter, Trish Van Pilsum, revealed during the broadcast that a case detective had received a phone call from a woman about a week after the kidnapping. The woman claimed she knew a man who often wore black clothing and carried a gun, and told the detective that the man had changed all the tires on his car the day after Jacob's abduction. Sheriff Jim Kostreba was interviewed for the program and he indicated that his department was actively investigating three or four main suspects in Jacob’s case. There were about two dozen more that have been investigated but not yet cleared. Van Pilsum’s report revealed that at that point of the investigation law enforcement officials had executed a total of eighteen search warrants, including raids on suspects' homes and automobiles.

I can tell you from personal experience, that the JWRC has done much to exercise control over what the media reports and who they talked to. It all started with their comments on a 1/14/15 WJON report, in which Alison Feigh made 4 claims, 3 of which she knew to be untrue. A week later, the JWRC coerced cancellation of a book club author discussion with the Granite City Book Club in St. Cloud. Two days earlier, Joy Baker emailed me, threatening that if tried to publish my book that I would face "an uphill battle all the way."

Following the arrest of Danny Heinrich, and after I had been interviewed by Fox9 Television, the JWRC issued warnings to several media organizations that they were not to talk to me or about my book. According to a Kare11 reporter, who called me despite the warning, they were warned specifically that if they talked to me the family would not do interviews with that station. The premise, I learned later from this reporter, was that the JWRC did not feel it did any good to criticize investigators. That was very ironic because in the book I only question what investigators did. In reality, it was questioning of LE (and not just by me) that eventually drove the FBI to take the case over from Stearns.

In another instance, when my book first hit the market and I donated the first $200 to the NCMEC, their Chief Legal Counsel contacted me (although she hid her title from me at the time) and returned that first donation. So...I waited a month and used a different form of my name and a different credit card. I received several "Thank You" letters from the NCMEC. Fast forward a year, and I'm in my second meeting with the Kare11 reporter, and she asks me if I had any trouble donating money to the NCMEC? So...how do you suppose she knew to ask me that question? Kare11 read my book, they desperately wanted my information, but were careful to not send someone so close to the family as Caroline Lowe, so they sent someone else. They wanted to know what I knew, but they were secretive about meeting with me because it had been forbidden. Why?

If you listen to the podcasts of In The Dark...Episode 4 even quotes the Wetterlings from this past July, saying it would do no good to question investigators. Sorry, but I wholeheartedly but respectfully disagree.

The JWRC has a history of manipulating media coverage, and I have absolutely no doubt that their activity had the unintended effect of prolonging the investigation. Look at Trish's story - it was 1992. Trish was the very first reporter to rock the boat and investigate the case. How many times did she interview the Wetterlings after that story?

What does all of this mean to you, anyone?

Wow. Thank you for elaborating. I was always curious as to why the Wetterlings did not support your book, so this post sheds a little light on that, as well as many other things. I had no idea Trish Van Pilsum was essentially blackballed from interviewing the family due to her coverage of the case. I know the Wetterlings as a whole had a pretty strong relationship with many of the media, probably because they relied on the media greatly to generate information and interest in the case. It's interesting to hear that Van Pilsum wasn't in the good graces of the Wetterling family or the JWRC.

I guess on some level, I can understand why the Wetterlings would be reticent to be too critical of law enforcement. Maybe they thought if they were too critical of law enforcement, investigators would retaliate by not aggressively pursuing a resolution to Jacob's case. That's the only explanation I can think of. Like you said, it was pressure from outside sources that eventually led the FBI to conduct a cold case review. What's even more ironic is that the Wetterlings themselves pushed for that review. Their push for that review could be construed as criticism of Stearns...they felt (and correctly so) that the case needed a fresh set of eyes. Furthermore, I think "In The Dark" is significantly more critical of law enforcement than your book is, so I'm curious as to why that production hasn't encountered the level of resistance from the JWRC and the Wetterling family that your book has.

 

[ELOCsoul]

Wow. Thank you for elaborating. I was always curious as to why the Wetterlings did not support your book, so this post sheds a little light on that, as well as many other things. I had no idea Trish Van Pilsum was essentially blackballed from interviewing the family due to her coverage of the case. I know the Wetterlings as a whole had a pretty strong relationship with many of the media, probably because they relied on the media greatly to generate information and interest in the case. It's interesting to hear that Van Pilsum wasn't in the good graces of the Wetterling family or the JWRC.

I guess on some level, I can understand why the Wetterlings would be reticent to be too critical of law enforcement. Maybe they thought if they were too critical of law enforcement, investigators would retaliate by not aggressively pursuing a resolution to Jacob's case. That's the only explanation I can think of. Like you said, it was pressure from outside sources that eventually led the FBI to conduct a cold case review. What's even more ironic is that the Wetterlings themselves pushed for that review. Their push for that review could be construed as criticism of Stearns...they felt (and correctly so) that the case needed a fresh set of eyes. Furthermore, I think "In The Dark" is significantly more critical of law enforcement than your book is, so I'm curious as to why that production hasn't encountered the level of resistance from the JWRC and the Wetterling family that your book has.

Sure, and thanks. The Wetterlings complained of inaccuracies, but declined several offers to correct them. I later learned that it was Amy's age that was wrong, and the misspelling of Jeanna North's first name. While regrettable, they were insignificant to the crime. I was also labeled as "not qualified" to research and report on the case. Well....there was a lot in the first edition that even Al Garber was not aware of or did not remember. And, as we have heard through the podcasts, there was a lot that many law enforcement officers did not know. And, in fact...there was a lot the Wetterlings did not know, but was in the book.

It's all about control, IMO. The JWRC was not accustomed to anyone not bending to their wishes, and the media not doting to the family. Look at how reporters like Caroline Lowe and Esme Murphy are praised these days. What did they really do? I couldn't even find a single Caroline Lowe story worthy of information for the first book, and there was only one for the 2nd book. Granted, most of her coverage was no longer available online or in print. But, many others were. Apparently that put off Kare11 as well, because I was asked why Caroline Lowe wasn't more prominent in the books.

 

[human]

1. Heinrich is an established liar so believng anything he says is difficult.

2. I forget now. Why was there a video of him showing his house? I can hardly think of anything more bold thsn showing the murder weapon.

3. Although a lot of people are aware of Heinrich and what went down with him, it is possible that other victims have either died or moved away and know nothing about all of this.

 

[AF555]

1. Heinrich is an established liar so believng anything he says is difficult.

2. I forget now. Why was there a video of him showing his house? I can hardly think of anything more bold thsn showing the murder weapon.

3. Although a lot of people are aware of Heinrich and what went down with him, it is possible that other victims have either died or moved away and know nothing about all of this.

I wondered about the video with the gun as well. It was in a "video tour" he recorded of his house, and the gun appeared to be loaded. Pretty risky to hang onto that.

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/wjon.com/files/2015/10/DanielHeinrichIndictment-Optimized.pdf

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Sure, and thanks. The Wetterlings complained of inaccuracies, but declined several offers to correct them. I later learned that it was Amy's age that was wrong, and the misspelling of Jeanna North's first name. While regrettable, they were insignificant to the crime. I was also labeled as "not qualified" to research and report on the case. Well....there was a lot in the first edition that even Al Garber was not aware of or did not remember. And, as we have heard through the podcasts, there was a lot that many law enforcement officers did not know. And, in fact...there was a lot the Wetterlings did not know, but was in the book.

It's all about control, IMO. The JWRC was not accustomed to anyone not bending to their wishes, and the media not doting to the family. Look at how reporters like Caroline Lowe and Esme Murphy are praised these days. What did they really do? I couldn't even find a single Caroline Lowe story worthy of information for the first book, and there was only one for the 2nd book. Granted, most of her coverage was no longer available online or in print. But, many others were. Apparently that put off Kare11 as well, because I was asked why Caroline Lowe wasn't more prominent in the books.

I've read the book, some sections of it more than once, and I admire your work more than I can say, speaking as a professional who teaches writing and research. It's amazing how much you figured out from looking at material in the public domain. It seems unlikely to me that anything or anyone could have saved Jacob once he was abducted. One thing your book convinces me of is that the pressures on Heinrich at the point in his life where so intense that they align fairly well with the profilers' protocol for predicting that a perpetrator will escalate his behavior. It seems to me that if you could figure that out, and make me (years later) see the logic, then the LE professionals should have too. Parents in these situations are not always rational on some points. And frankly, local law enforcement would still be going nowhere with this case, simply because they were not open to thinking anything new. It's a shame that you have been treated so disrespectfully, when it's your work (and Joy's, along with jared's courage) that moved this case out of limbo land.

In one of my courses, we're studying the NFL concussion crisis. We just read Dr. Bennet Omalu's initial--and seminal-- scientific study naming the condition CTE (chromic traumatic encephalopathy). After years of NFL pseudo-science on concussion, a pathologist sees the damaged brain of a retired player and knows something terrible is wrong, while the NFL studies (like those done in the tobacco industry) reassured everyone that the NFL didn't have a concussion policy. He wasn't even allowed at a conference to discuss his own work. I truly don't know what is wrong with people who can't admit that someone else sees what they were blind to. So you, I think, are in good company. You did splendid work, found the key information that started a new line of thought with an FBI agent who was more interested in solving the case than protecting his "image." And all along the way, you did the work by connecting to other people, learning with them, sharing what you found. Perhaps one day the Wetterlings will see the great contribution you made to bringing their boy home. I hope so. In the meantime, I hope journalists and others will stop taking their marching orders from the family.

 

[JerseyJo]

The gun was not loaded though. He only loaded it after seeing the police car and panicking. He had (likely the same) gun when he abducted Jared, and let him go.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heinrich claimed he loaded the gun AFTER (the assault) and after being "spooked" by a police cruiser. Not sure I buy that. No way to prove it or disprove it now.

 

[ELOCsoul]

I've read the book, some sections of it more than once, and I admire your work more than I can say, speaking as a professional who teaches writing and research. It's amazing how much you figured out from looking at material in the public domain. It seems unlikely to me that anything or anyone could have saved Jacob once he was abducted. One thing your book convinces me of is that the pressures on Heinrich at the point in his life where so intense that they align fairly well with the profilers' protocol for predicting that a perpetrator will escalate his behavior. It seems to me that if you could figure that out, and make me (years later) see the logic, then the LE professionals should have too. Parents in these situations are not always rational on some points. And frankly, local law enforcement would still be going nowhere with this case, simply because they were not open to thinking anything new. It's a shame that you have been treated so disrespectfully, when it's your work (and Joy's, along with jared's courage) that moved this case out of limbo land.

In one of my courses, we're studying the NFL concussion crisis. We just read Dr. Bennet Omalu's initial--and seminal-- scientific study naming the condition CTE (chromic traumatic encephalopathy). After years of NFL pseudo-science on concussion, a pathologist sees the damaged brain of a retired player and knows something terrible is wrong, while the NFL studies (like those done in the tobacco industry) reassured everyone that the NFL didn't have a concussion policy. He wasn't even allowed at a conference to discuss his own work. I truly don't know what is wrong with people who can't admit that someone else sees what they were blind to. So you, I think, are in good company. You did splendid work, found the key information that started a new line of thought with an FBI agent who was more interested in solving the case than protecting his "image." And all along the way, you did the work by connecting to other people, learning with them, sharing what you found. Perhaps one day the Wetterlings will see the great contribution you made to bringing their boy home. I hope so. In the meantime, I hope journalists and others will stop taking their marching orders from the family.

Wow! Thank you so much. I know I sometimes let some bitterness come through. It's just that the last couple of years I've spent a lot of time observing what has gone on, and it's caused me to really appreciate history, and how we all live so fast that we miss a heckuva lot of the cause and affect. The case became unnecessarily complicated, and big. Very, very few people truly understand this case - and I know there's a whole lot more that I don't know about it, and maybe never will.

 

[hidil]

Wow! Thank you so much. I know I sometimes let some bitterness come through. It's just that the last couple of years I've spent a lot of time observing what has gone on, and it's caused me to really appreciate history, and how we all live so fast that we miss a heckuva lot of the cause and affect. The case became unnecessarily complicated, and big. Very, very few people truly understand this case - and I know there's a whole lot more that I don't know about it, and maybe never will.

Here's another good article & comments from St. Cloud Times: http://www.sctimes.com/story/news/local/2016/09/23/dna-cracked-wetterling-case/90849308/

ELOCsoul, many thanks for your determination and effort!

And, kudos to WS and you sleuth's! Lots of insight, caring and respect here!

And, Jared, what an honor to see your participation and comments. You are courageous and inspirational.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Doghairrules]

Wow! Thank you so much. I know I sometimes let some bitterness come through. It's just that the last couple of years I've spent a lot of time observing what has gone on, and it's caused me to really appreciate history, and how we all live so fast that we miss a heckuva lot of the cause and affect. The case became unnecessarily complicated, and big. Very, very few people truly understand this case - and I know there's a whole lot more that I don't know about it, and maybe never will.

But jumping off the OP'e thoughts, it seems like your book could be a case study in how to conduct such an investigation. Look at every detail, share information with everyone and keep asking questions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk