Hi all - I'm new here but have followed the forum and the Wetterling case for years. As a social worker, I've developed a healthy (I think) skepticism of the justice system along with a healthy respect for law enforcement itself. I wasn't prepared to see the shoeprints at the end of the criminal complaint. I assumed there would be something ambiguous or unclear about them. When I looked at that photo I lliterally felt like I'd been punched in the stomach. So my first post is lame because I'm going to be the hundredth person to re-ask - why wasn't he charged in 1990? Surely LE could have gotten a search warrant after seeing those shoeprints (the tires are harder for me to judge), and all but surely would have found child *advertiser censored* there then. I see criminal cases brought with weaker and less circumstantial and physical evidence than this frequently - so seriously, can someone explain this? Why did they have to wait? Yes, I get the "unique wear patterns, etc." are "missing," but seriously, what are the odds of those shoeprints *not* being made by him?