MN - Jacob Wetterling, 11, St. Joseph, 22 Oct 1989 - #13

[Dave K]

It makes perfect sense and again, very well stated. I, like you, am not trying to implicate anybody. But I think it is important to dissect the information we have available to us to the nth degree....what else can we do? Hopefully this dissection process will eventually lead to something substantial. IMHO the footprints + tire tracks hold something of value....as well as any testimonial evidence available....combined, they offer a powerful tool in arriving at the truth.

I agree pretty much completely! As I think I've said, basically, the 'crime scene' is, as far as I can tell, the extent of forensic evidence that exists. If you don't start there; where do you start. And, like I said, among the purposes I'm considering in trying to bring this stuff up, is to illustrate that, I don't think that the crime scene was appropriately processed in the first place, and for a few reasons, we can't really accept what LE will leave us to believe is fact. One of my big considerations is that, I think that it makes no sense that LE could somehow conclude that 'No Vehicle' was used. And, to me, that's an incredibly big issue.

Addition: If it were "Fact" solid fact, no possible variables, that 'No Vehicle' were used in the abduction, then there would be pretty much a 96% likelihood that DR is the perpetrator. Very few people in that area, where would they have taken Jacob (on foot), etc... Of the few people in the area, how many of the nature to be even considering, much less actually executing an actual abduction of a child. Also, a child who would likely be a neighbor, because, I suppose the perpetrator must have lived in the area. Despite other things being less than perfect, LE was on the scene relatively quickly; not too likely for someone with an uncooperative kid getting away on foot. Other than that, there's one person who knew the kids were going to the store, and knew that the parents were away from home and who fits the description given by Trevor, and that's Merle J. I personally think that if nothing else, that DR is Not the sole perpetrator; whether he knew the perpetrator or knew of the abduction, can't say at this time. It's possible that someone who knows DR just happened to be in the area, saw the kids on their bikes, and was familiar with DR's place and knew his driveway, it's just a possibility.

 

[Dave K]

View attachment 65951

The green star is on the most recent tire track. There is no corresponding new tire track for the other side of the vehicle. Note next to the green star is an indirect register of the front tire. My read is the vehicle is moving away from the point of view of the camera. The front tire of the vehicle stopped where the green star is.

The blue star is a high flotation tire such as used on an ATV or liquid fertilizer vehicle such as used on farms. There are a lot of prints all over it. Possibly from investigators and anyone else who walked in the print field.

The red stars are older tire prints. The second red star from the left "could" be the corresponding print to the blue star one.

Expanding on the 'crime scene is a nightmare' scenario.

A couple of things hit me. I think the photo that you have marked w/green star in post #710 is the same one Sasquatch referred to in post #693.

You note: "My read is the vehicle is moving away from the point of view of the camera. The front tire of the vehicle stopped where the green star is."

S'quatch states: "While looking at this image I'm wondering if I am noticing a tire coming to a stop and going again-"

So we have, at the least, a possibility that there is evidence of an auto, stopping then proceeding on the driveway.

The area you mark with a green star is the same area S'quatch marks with a black rectangle.

Well, a couple of things come to mind here. For one, as we've noted, concerning the inadequate preservation and processing of the crime scene. Why are they placing all the plaster casts directly on the tire print, including the spilling over of plaster, etc..., following that, where you mark the possible stop/start of the vehicle, is within a foot or so of one of the plaster cast molds. Makes you wonder if anyone even ever noticed what you're pointing out there as a possible stopping point for the vehicle.

It had hit me before, but, not to the extent that I'm thinking of it now. It just seems so completely out of whack with common sense, to take the plaster cast molds and place them directly on the existing fresh tire track. I just don't see it. As if there's no place else on the driveway where they can place them, they have to be placed directly over an existing print. Maybe I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

I know that it can be said, that they probably already processed the tire print, before they did this etc..., but, I just don't know, it really seems to me to be a bad practice, and makes me wonder even more about how well the tire prints were processed.

So, to me, with my amateur background, this goes against good practice, and, really makes me wonder whether anyone had ever examined the tire print well enough before they used it as a staging for the plaster molds, that whether anyone even ever noticed what you've pointed out about a possible stopping point of the vehicle, which seems would be colossal.

 

[HEY YOU!]

RBBM. Now that I have much clearer shots of the last prints, It is my opinion they were not planted. If planted they would have been dead flat with no mounding on the edges, and there would have been a clear left print next to the right.

I have to disagree. If someone was clever enough to know that a car came up the driveway AFTER he abducted Jacob and left a fresh set of tire prints that could be utilized to throw off investigators, then surely that person would be clever enough to make the print appear as if it was pressing down prior to entering the vehicle of said tracks. He could do this by placing his hand inside of Jacob's sneaker and then pressing down hard to make a clear print next to the track. This speaks to a very clever mind, and if DR came out of his home during the overnight hours with Jacob's sneaker in his hand he could just say he found it. He could have easily approached the fresh tire track, put his hand in Jacob's sneaker and pressed toe first down into the driveway adjacent to the fresh tire track left by Kevin. This particular picture shows a lot by what it is lacking, and that is other Jacob or perp prints. If DR came down the driveway in the overnight hours to plant that footprint, it would seem to follow that he would go back and destroy other prints made during the abduction. And it appears that the footprint is pushed right up against that track. When we step into a car, is our foot direct adjacent to the tire track? I would think it would be further out at least by a couple of inches. Perp wouldn't necessarily have place another print with the other shoe. Why? If that were the case he would have made a path with both sneakers...He just needed to show one of Jacob's footprints directly against the tire track to throw off the investigation and keep cops from investigating him by thinking a car was involved. He would have likely been investigated that very night if Kevin's fresh tire track on brand new tires hadn't lead the investigators to think a car was involved. Remove those fresh tire tracks and there is no car. It is that simple.

As for the tracks. I think Kevin and his brother were guilty of being afraid to be implicated once this blew up overnight. Shame that he didn't come forward then. That footprint next to his tire track speaks volumes to me. A very clever perp who was on scene all night long.

There are no other tire tracks that have not been identified. Kevin could not have completely driven over another set of prints in exactly the same pattern all the way up and around the driveway.

We keep showing Jacob's last footprint next to Kevin's tire track. How could it be so important when those tire tracks were made AFTER Jacob was abducted? The facts that LE have released to the public speak volumes. Once Kevin came forward, they declared no car was involved and subsequently named DR a person of interest where he remains to this day/

As for the additional Jacob 'toe impression' Tracker may see as Jacob's, I would be interested to know if it was the exact same sneaker that left the large, last print next to the tire and not the opposing one.

 

[MNSuz]

Are we aware if Kevin's girlfriend was interviewed?

 

[shergal]

Are we aware if Kevin's girlfriend was interviewed?

She may have been interviewed in 2003 by LE, that information has never been released that we know of. I think Kevin made a comment on Joy's blog or somewhere that she did not want her name out there or to be involved. Strange for a family who had a scanner and a firefighter in the family...

 

[shergal]

I agree pretty much completely! As I think I've said, basically, the 'crime scene' is, as far as I can tell, the extent of forensic evidence that exists. If you don't start there; where do you start. And, like I said, among the purposes I'm considering in trying to bring this stuff up, is to illustrate that, I don't think that the crime scene was appropriately processed in the first place, and for a few reasons, we can't really accept what LE will leave us to believe is fact. One of my big considerations is that, I think that it makes no sense that LE could somehow conclude that 'No Vehicle' was used. And, to me, that's an incredibly big issue.

Addition: If it were "Fact" solid fact, no possible variables, that 'No Vehicle' were used in the abduction, then there would be pretty much a 96% likelihood that DR is the perpetrator. Very few people in that area, where would they have taken Jacob (on foot), etc... Of the few people in the area, how many of the nature to be even considering, much less actually executing an actual abduction of a child. Also, a child who would likely be a neighbor, because, I suppose the perpetrator must have lived in the area. Despite other things being less than perfect, LE was on the scene relatively quickly; not too likely for someone with an uncooperative kid getting away on foot. Other than that, there's one person who knew the kids were going to the store, and knew that the parents were away from home and who fits the description given by Trevor, and that's Merle J. I personally think that if nothing else, that DR is Not the sole perpetrator; whether he knew the perpetrator or knew of the abduction, can't say at this time. It's possible that someone who knows DR just happened to be in the area, saw the kids on their bikes, and was familiar with DR's place and knew his driveway, it's just a possibility.

RBBM

Maybe I am misinterpreting this comment, but are you are suggesting Merle could have been the abductor? The boys called his daughter to come over and be with their little sister while they went to the store, I'm not sure she would have explained why she was going next door to babysit to her dad, or just told him she was going next door to babysit for a bit. In other words, I'm not sure Merle would have even known the boys were going to Tom Thumb.

Also, the time involved makes that scenario seem improbable, that the boys would have run south to their home from the scene, away from Jacob and the abductor, and that the abductor would then somehow have hidden Jacob fast enough to get back home next door to Wetterlings slightly ahead of running boys (when he was middle aged) without passing them and been at home to answer the phone when his daughter called to tell him what happened. Or were you just suggesting that perhaps someone else knew also?

 

[Trackergd]

Expanding on the 'crime scene is a nightmare' scenario.

A couple of things hit me. I think the photo that you have marked w/green star in post #710 is the same one Sasquatch referred to in post #693.

You note: "My read is the vehicle is moving away from the point of view of the camera. The front tire of the vehicle stopped where the green star is."

S'quatch states: "While looking at this image I'm wondering if I am noticing a tire coming to a stop and going again-"

So we have, at the least, a possibility that there is evidence of an auto, stopping then proceeding on the driveway.

The area you mark with a green star is the same area S'quatch marks with a black rectangle.

Well, a couple of things come to mind here. For one, as we've noted, concerning the inadequate preservation and processing of the crime scene. Why are they placing all the plaster casts directly on the tire print, including the spilling over of plaster, etc..., following that, where you mark the possible stop/start of the vehicle, is within a foot or so of one of the plaster cast molds. Makes you wonder if anyone even ever noticed what you're pointing out there as a possible stopping point for the vehicle.

It had hit me before, but, not to the extent that I'm thinking of it now. It just seems so completely out of whack with common sense, to take the plaster cast molds and place them directly on the existing fresh tire track. I just don't see it. As if there's no place else on the driveway where they can place them, they have to be placed directly over an existing print. Maybe I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

I know that it can be said, that they probably already processed the tire print, before they did this etc..., but, I just don't know, it really seems to me to be a bad practice, and makes me wonder even more about how well the tire prints were processed.

So, to me, with my amateur background, this goes against good practice, and, really makes me wonder whether anyone had ever examined the tire print well enough before they used it as a staging for the plaster molds, that whether anyone even ever noticed what you've pointed out about a possible stopping point of the vehicle, which seems would be colossal.

I suspect they took the plaster casts of the tire tracks in spots that gave them the best indication of the tread pattern. It is possible they missed the indirect register next to where I have the green star.

I have no idea what direction we are looking in that picture. No point of reference. I was hoping that someone from the area would have a better idea. If those are Kevin's tire prints and the indirect register point where the car stopped is not near where the bikes were left, we have a glaring inconsistency.

 

[Sasquatch321]

It is truly startling how much the driveway is talking this week. One thing it keeps saying to me is there is not a shred of evidence available suggesting another car besides kevins. The freshness of the tire track and the footprints coincide with each other. So I'm going to make a bold claim here- either Kevin and His Girlfriend took Jacob, or DR planted a few footprints. Closer to grey.

 

[human]

My guess is that Steve Mund is making the first(?) plaster cast of Jacob's footprint....but how does this explain the 'brother's' phone call at 1 a.m. telling Kevin that the FBI is making plaster casts of the tire tracks?

The picture was staged for the media.

 

[Trackergd]

I have to disagree. If someone was clever enough to know that a car came up the driveway AFTER he abducted Jacob and left a fresh set of tire prints that could be utilized to throw off investigators, then surely that person would be clever enough to make the print appear as if it was pressing down prior to entering the vehicle of said tracks. He could do this by placing his hand inside of Jacob's sneaker and then pressing down hard to make a clear print next to the track.

You are assuming that at that moment in time, there was someone so clever that they knew how to fake a shoe print. Something that almost no one outside of a forensic expert in prints or an individual with years of track experience could pull off.

Pressing down with a shoe on your hand does not make a true print. The possible 115 surface and sub surface pressure releases and indicators that can occur in a shoe print that are caused by the persons foot in the shoe make it a real print. A "print' is much more than the impression and pattern.

So...we are going to agree to disagree.

 

[Trackergd]

The picture was staged for the media.

I need to go back and look at that picture again, but from what I remember, I tend to agree with you.

 

[ELOCsoul]

I suspect they took the plaster casts of the tire tracks in spots that gave them the best indication of the tread pattern. It is possible they missed the indirect register next to where I have the green star.

I have no idea what direction we are looking in that picture. No point of reference. I was hoping that someone from the area would have a better idea. If those are Kevin's tire prints and the indirect register point where the car stopped is not near where the bikes were left, we have a glaring inconsistency.

In that picture, we are looking toward the east. The road runs east and west. Looking at the cast blocks, they would cast a shadow toward the north.

 

[Sasquatch321]

Now that we have identified 2 of Jacobs shoe prints in this picture, what does it mean that one of the footprints overlaps the tire track (white arrow) and the other one is driven over by the tire track (red arrow)?

 

[Sasquatch321]

This picture is showing you (blue arrow) a second point that dirt was pushed over half of the tire track and does not appear to be driven over.

 

[cGorg]

The picture was staged for the media.

Oh?...thx but why?

 

[Sasquatch321]

Peewee's evidence town meeting-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjSVRsoBYNY

 

[Dave K]

RBBM

Maybe I am misinterpreting this comment, but are you are suggesting Merle could have been the abductor? The boys called his daughter to come over and be with their little sister while they went to the store, I'm not sure she would have explained why she was going next door to babysit to her dad, or just told him she was going next door to babysit for a bit. In other words, I'm not sure Merle would have even known the boys were going to Tom Thumb.

Also, the time involved makes that scenario seem improbable, that the boys would have run south to their home from the scene, away from Jacob and the abductor, and that the abductor would then somehow have hidden Jacob fast enough to get back home next door to Wetterlings slightly ahead of running boys (when he was middle aged) without passing them and been at home to answer the phone when his daughter called to tell him what happened. Or were you just suggesting that perhaps someone else knew also?

Hi, I'm a little hesitant that I can word what I'm wanting to say sufficiently. Basically, for the most part, (almost completely), it was said jokingly. In the context of the post/paragraph; that paragraph starts out saying "If it were "Fact" solid fact, no possible variables, that 'No Vehicle' were used in the abduction, then there would be pretty much a 96% likelihood that DR is the perpetrator." Obviously, that's not a solid statistic, but, hopefully you get my drift. Given the unofficial statistic of 96%, that leaves not too much room for 'others'. Then I go on to mention what I think are the limited possibilities of other perpetrators, in the area, on foot. It had hit me a while ago, that, as I said, there's one guy who 1) was known to be in the area; 2) fits the description given by Trevor; 3) "Likely" knew that the kids were going to the store, and that the parents weren't home. I could argue that I think it'd be more likely than not that Merle would have known why his teenage daughter was going out for over an hour due to a last minute phone call on a Sunday night; including the possibility, if not likelihood that either Merle or his wife could have answered the phone when they called. Anyway, it's just kind of a statement that seemed to fit in the description of how many possible perpetrators could there have been in that location, at that time of a Sunday night, and both in the area on foot, and kidnapped an 11 year old boy and gotten away on foot. If I had any real sense that Merle would have been the perpetrator, which I don't, I would have tried to make a real case for it. Hope that makes sense.

By the way; what is RBBM? I see several posts that start out with various 3 or 4 letter abbreviations like that, and I have no idea what any of them mean.

 

[Dave K]

I have just connected two footprints to Jacobs shoe in this picture, and also a possible perp footprint indicated by the red rectangle-

View attachment 65988

Hi, let me ask you about this post, and the conclusion that it shows 2 of Jacob's footprints. I think that I disagree with you. But, let me describe why I think it may be wrong, and maybe you can let me know whether or how I'm misunderstanding. Also, I say this in the spirit of being able to disagree without being disagreeable.

The one print, we're pretty much all familiar with has been identified, as Jacob's last footprint, stepping right before the tire print. It's been identified using the same type and size of shoe that Jacob was known to have been wearing; pictures of which we have. On the sole of that shoe is a pretty significant circular pattern that expands into kind of an egg shaped oval.

I don't know of anything that has ever stated that the other print was also Jacob's. And, as noted it steps into the tire track, so, if that had been identified early on as Jacob' print, then that would have to have been taken into consideration when they believed, for 14 years or so, that Jacob's last print stops right at the tire track of the car that they thought took him. In that case, they couldn't have both been his.

In the picture you mark two prints with a small black rectangle that looks like it's identifying a circular shape. What I'm wondering is are you saying that you think that these circular shapes identify the shoe as Jacob's?

What I'm thinking is that, if that's what you're saying, then, I think that's where I disagree. Let's go with the print in the upper/left, that steps into the tire track. You have the circular shape marked by a rectangle. That's a good circular shape, but, it's not in the location of the circular shape on the bottom of Jacob's known shoe. That print, I'd say is a left shoe, and the shape you identify is at the very left of the shoe, (left of the shoe as the shoe is facing) in what looks like would be behind the left toe; quite a bit back from the front of the shoe. Compare that with the close up of Jacob's last print, where it shows that the print left an impression that identifies the whole egg shaped oval and that, that shape, pretty much takes up the front part of the shoe/print. See what I mean? It's not really consistent with the smaller circle, further back that you've identified. I think that as Tracker mentioned in one post responding to yours, that that picture, blown up, is too pixilated, and that we can't really tell what makes that circular shape in that particular print. That's my thinking, and I think that for that reason, I don't think that we can say that the print in the upper/left, stepping into the track is Jacob's.

Let me know what you think.

 

[Trino]

Snipped...

By the way; what is RBBM? I see several posts that start out with various 3 or 4 letter abbreviations like that, and I have no idea what any of them mean.

Respectfully Bolded by Me
When in doubt, refer to Websleuths Lingo:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?193885-Websleuths-Lingo

 

[Sasquatch321]

View attachment 66050View attachment 66051

Hi, let me ask you about this post, and the conclusion that it shows 2 of Jacob's footprints. I think that I disagree with you. But, let me describe why I think it may be wrong, and maybe you can let me know whether or how I'm misunderstanding. Also, I say this in the spirit of being able to disagree without being disagreeable.

The one print, we're pretty much all familiar with has been identified, as Jacob's last footprint, stepping right before the tire print. It's been identified using the same type and size of shoe that Jacob was known to have been wearing; pictures of which we have. On the sole of that shoe is a pretty significant circular pattern that expands into kind of an egg shaped oval.

I don't know of anything that has ever stated that the other print was also Jacob's. And, as noted it steps into the tire track, so, if that had been identified early on as Jacob' print, then that would have to have been taken into consideration when they believed, for 14 years or so, that Jacob's last print stops right at the tire track of the car that they thought took him. In that case, they couldn't have both been his.

In the picture you mark two prints with a small black rectangle that looks like it's identifying a circular shape. What I'm wondering is are you saying that you think that these circular shapes identify the shoe as Jacob's?

What I'm thinking is that, if that's what you're saying, then, I think that's where I disagree. Let's go with the print in the upper/left, that steps into the tire track. You have the circular shape marked by a rectangle. That's a good circular shape, but, it's not in the location of the circular shape on the bottom of Jacob's known shoe. That print, I'd say is a left shoe, and the shape you identify is at the very left of the shoe, (left of the shoe as the shoe is facing) in what looks like would be behind the left toe; quite a bit back from the front of the shoe. Compare that with the close up of Jacob's last print, where it shows that the print left an impression that identifies the whole egg shaped oval and that, that shape, pretty much takes up the front part of the shoe/print. See what I mean? It's not really consistent with the smaller circle, further back that you've identified. I think that as Tracker mentioned in one post responding to yours, that that picture, blown up, is too pixilated, and that we can't really tell what makes that circular shape in that particular print. That's my thinking, and I think that for that reason, I don't think that we can say that the print in the upper/left, stepping into the track is Jacob's.

Let me know what you think.

Well this picture will show why I think those two with the black boxes are connected as Jacobs "right" shoe, I have located another shoe print (Black Arrows) that puts the eggshape on the other side making it his "left" shoe, and stepping down twice there-