MN - Jacob Wetterling, 11, St. Joseph, 22 Oct 1989 - #15

[Sasquatch321]

Tinner007

I applaud your mission today, I just wish you would have told me beforehand. Because I would have told you to look his parents or DR in the eyes and ask them when DR first told anyone about the car he saw turn around in his driveway at 9 15. Did he go to sleep on it or didn't he?

 

[Sasquatch321]

Here is the deal Tinner and it bothers me greatly if true. It's possible that DR had 3 contacts with LE and did not mention the car or cars he saw-the 911 call, the chat by the mailbox with bechtold, and finally when he leaves for work the next morning. It maybe wasnt until 2 investigators had some questions and seeked him out at his place of work, that he admits he is the lone witness of this happening. If this is found to be true, I find that to be substantial.

 

[ELOCsoul]

Here is the deal Tinner and it bothers me greatly if true. It's possible that DR had 3 contacts with LE and did not mention the car or cars he saw-the 911 call, the chat by the mailbox with bechtold, and finally when he leaves for work the next morning. It maybe wasnt until 2 investigators had some questions and seeked him out at his place of work, that he admits he is the lone witness of this happening. If this is found to be true, I find that to be substantial.

To clarify, I believe the contact with Bechtold was by the woodpile, not by the mailbox.

Actually could be 4 contacts if he followed up with Bechtold again after searching the outbuildings. If he didn't follow up with him or another officer, that would seem odd as well. In DR's defense, odd is just odd - doesn't necessarily mean he did anything wrong.

 

[Sasquatch321]

To clarify, I believe the contact with Bechtold was by the woodpile, not by the mailbox.

Actually could be 4 contacts if he followed up with Bechtold again after searching the outbuildings. If he didn't follow up with him or another officer, that would seem odd as well. In DR's defense, odd is just odd - doesn't necessarily mean he did anything wrong.

It's time to know this fact.

 

[tinner007]

Here is the deal Tinner and it bothers me greatly if true. It's possible that DR had 3 contacts with LE and did not mention the car or cars he saw-the 911 call, the chat by the mailbox with bechtold, and finally when he leaves for work the next morning. It maybe wasnt until 2 investigators had some questions and seeked him out at his place of work, that he admits he is the lone witness of this happening. If this is found to be true, I find that to be substantial.

It bothers you, that is your reasoning for continuing to place a person under a cloud of suspicion and place a label on his name as a POI. I'm sure his conversations with LE that evening were very short, based on the facts they asked 2 or 3 questions to my family that night and were around for about 3 minutes and then left. His first thought you're saying was to automatically associate a car that possibly made a wrong turn that afternoon as a suspect? And when given the information that a child was kidnapped he went and searched his buildings, for an armed suspect by the way. I wonder if LE told him the person they were looking for was armed. Or did they put a citizens life in danger by letting him wonder in the dark, by himself, not know what he may come across. Neither you or I are going to walk around in the pitch black dark of night unarmed, looking for a man with a gun. If I would've been an adult at the time, sure I'll help search, but I'm gonna have a firearm, and probably 2 for that matter. So, based on my experience that night, they gave him minimal answers to his question and likely brushed him off putting the mans life in danger by doing so. Bottom line, in there adrenaline rushed hast to find answers, many mistakes were made. I seen first hand that night how rushed they seemed. They didn't interview anyone besides the Wetterlings that night. But thank you for the "English" answer that you can find NO EVIDENCE connecting DR to this crime.

 

[tinner007]

Tinner007

I applaud your mission today, I just wish you would have told me beforehand. Because I would have told you to look his parents or DR in the eyes and ask them when DR first told anyone about the car he saw turn around in his driveway at 9 15. Did he go to sleep on it or didn't he?

Let me try this again so my response does not get deleted. Go ask him yourself.

 

[tinner007]

Interesting quote from The Jacob Wetterling Resource Center:

http://wjon.com/news-noon-new-book-investigates-the-abduction-of-jacob-wetterling/

 

[cGorg]

It bothers you, that is your reasoning for continuing to place a person under a cloud of suspicion and place a label on his name as a POI. I'm sure his conversations with LE that evening were very short, based on the facts they asked 2 or 3 questions to my family that night and were around for about 3 minutes and then left. His first thought you're saying was to automatically associate a car that possibly made a wrong turn that afternoon as a suspect? And when given the information that a child was kidnapped he went and searched his buildings, for an armed suspect by the way. I wonder if LE told him the person they were looking for was armed. Or did they put a citizens life in danger by letting him wonder in the dark, by himself, not know what he may come across. Neither you or I are going to walk around in the pitch black dark of night unarmed, looking for a man with a gun. If I would've been an adult at the time, sure I'll help search, but I'm gonna have a firearm, and probably 2 for that matter. So, based on my experience that night, they gave him minimal answers to his question and likely brushed him off putting the mans life in danger by doing so. Bottom line, in there adrenaline rushed hast to find answers, many mistakes were made. I seen first hand that night how rushed they seemed. They didn't interview anyone besides the Wetterlings that night. But thank you for the "English" answer that you can find NO EVIDENCE connecting DR to this crime.

"It bothers you, that is your reasoning for continuing to place a person under a cloud of suspicion and place a label on his name as a POI." LE placed DR as a POI. He stated publicly that he was not bothered by being labelled a POI....and that it didn't mean too much
"I'm sure his conversations with LE that evening were very short, based on the facts they asked 2 or 3 questions to my family that night and were around for about 3 minutes and then left." Based on your experience yes understandable, but you and (we) don't really know what was said between Bechtold and DR.
"His first thought you're saying was to automatically associate a car that possibly made a wrong turn that afternoon as a suspect?" He said so himself on video. He stated the afternoon car driver is the abductor.
"And when given the information that a child was kidnapped he went and searched his buildings, for an armed suspect by the way." Again, as per his testimony on video, he did this voluntarily. He was told during his 911 call that a child had been abducted....anyone with common sense would surmise that a threat would have been used...gun, knife to coerce. Besides...why search the outbuildings if a second car was observed going thru the driveway at the time of the abduction?
"I wonder if LE told him the person they were looking for was armed. Or did they put a citizens life in danger by letting him wonder in the dark, by himself, not know what he may come across. Neither you or I are going to walk around in the pitch black dark of night unarmed, looking for a man with a gun." Yet DR did just that..are you kidding?!...he lived there...there's a yardlight...DR knows those grounds like the back of his hand...sheesh!....and we don't know the extent of the conversation between Bechtold + DR....yet helicopters hovered.....one would think with the officers at the woodpile and the helicopter(s) above, a sense of danger would be anticipated.

sadabbm(spliced and diced and bold by me)

 

[cGorg]

I'm guessing that LE honed in on the fresh tire track/footprints earlier rather than later despite the woodpile situation or maybe in conjunction thereof. This meaning that the footprints + scent ending combined with the fresh tire tracks would mean that Jacob had been driven away in a vehicle....thus the sense of danger being significantly dissipated. But why officers at the wood pile? What led them there?

 

[tinner007]

I'm guessing that LE honed in on the fresh tire track/footprints earlier rather than later despite the woodpile situation or maybe in conjunction thereof. This meaning that the footprints + scent ending combined with the fresh tire tracks would mean that Jacob had been driven away in a vehicle....thus the sense of danger being significantly dissipated. But why officers at the wood pile? What led them there?

Then why was the driveway not sealed off with crime scene tape? Lots of finger pointing goes on here and little to no fact finding! As you'll notice in this pic from that night.....only the bikes were secured... When was the driveway finally taped off? How many contaminated the scene before hand?

 

[tinner007]

"It bothers you, that is your reasoning for continuing to place a person under a cloud of suspicion and place a label on his name as a POI." LE placed DR as a POI. He stated publicly that he was not bothered by being labelled a POI....and that it didn't mean too much
"I'm sure his conversations with LE that evening were very short, based on the facts they asked 2 or 3 questions to my family that night and were around for about 3 minutes and then left." Based on your experience yes understandable, but you and (we) don't really know what was said between Bechtold and DR.
"His first thought you're saying was to automatically associate a car that possibly made a wrong turn that afternoon as a suspect?" He said so himself on video. He stated the afternoon car driver is the abductor.
"And when given the information that a child was kidnapped he went and searched his buildings, for an armed suspect by the way." Again, as per his testimony on video, he did this voluntarily. He was told during his 911 call that a child had been abducted....anyone with common sense would surmise that a threat would have been used...gun, knife to coerce. Besides...why search the outbuildings if a second car was observed going thru the driveway at the time of the abduction?
"I wonder if LE told him the person they were looking for was armed. Or did they put a citizens life in danger by letting him wonder in the dark, by himself, not know what he may come across. Neither you or I are going to walk around in the pitch black dark of night unarmed, looking for a man with a gun." Yet DR did just that..are you kidding?!...he lived there...there's a yardlight...DR knows those grounds like the back of his hand...sheesh!....and we don't know the extent of the conversation between Bechtold + DR....yet helicopters hovered.....one would think with the officers at the woodpile and the helicopter(s) above, a sense of danger would be anticipated.

sadabbm(spliced and diced and bold by me)

I still see no evidence that points to DR. Just everyone stating personal feelings.....which a court is not going to convict on. Speaking of court, does anyone know when our Constitution was changed from "Beyond a reasonable doubt" to "Based on the preponderance of evidence"? I've just noticed that in a couple of trials in the news and I guess I was just curious as to who thinks they have the authority to re-write the Constitution. Sorry for the off base question.

 

[ThePhantom]

The problem we have here is that we are operating with limited info with regard to the "evidence." We know they found a variety of things they are testing. Are these things absolutely connected to the case or do these items have a 50/50 chance of being connected? I am not a professional in any way about this, but it just seems to me that it would be challenging to hide a body so quickly -- except that -- I think it's possible the police missed their best opportunity to rule out DR by not doing a *thorough search that night." Not blaming police or anyone at all -- just very frustrating. (Ditto the Guimond case, they searched *everywhere* except the one place they should have. And that one monumental error (or was it deliberate?) probably means there will never be a resolution to his case unless we get a deathbed confession. And the odds of that happening ain't lookin real good.)

Just curious, if you had shown up to the abduction scene, and seen footprints that ended on a particular house's driveway, would you have asked the homeowner for permission to thoroughly search the home and property? It's not like it was 1959, it was 1989 and cops were pretty darn sharp even "back then." Technology was fairly advanced even then. I found this from the Innocence project: " • The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 37 states; since 2000, there have been 262 exonerations." So they were pretty good at it.

I don't know which statement is true: 1. LE has found no trace of Jacob's whereabouts in 25 years, or 2. LE has found definitive traces of Jacob's whereabouts.

Was LE hasty in referring to DR as a POI in order to quell the public's desire to have answers? Or, did they find something that said, "oh yeah, DR definitely had something to do with Jacob's disappearance." I guess that's the million dollar question.

 

[ThePhantom]

We are just all over the map here. I realize it's because we're approaching the case from different angles. It's no wonder there is discord here on a regular basis. But I appreciate all the dialogue, theories and most of all the great desire to help uncover the truth about what happened to an innocent boy over twenty five years ago...

 

[Fukiyama]

In criminal trials, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

In civil trials, it is preponderance of the evidence.

Might be the articles you've read are confusing the two because there's no way a criminal is being sent to jail just because it's more likely than not that he or she did it. If he appealed that, he'd win hands down.

 

[human]

The farm is in a rural area. There are trees everywhere. You can get a lot of firewood from just one tree. I'm confused about why you are concerned about where he got the trees.

My family owns property in a rural area. We like to keep the property neat and clean, including our wood piles. Are we hiding something?

We had to buy wood to supplement because even with 20 acres of forest, there is not enough for us.

It they are getting wood off of their own property, it is basically free. Sure, it is work but they are into athletics and it is fabulous exercise where you get something instead of just lifting weights at a gym.

If the wood is free, why the big concern over that and not about a missing child? A child of the age that is the same age as students that one teaches? Why the ho hum attitude?

 

[tinner007]

The problem we have here is that we are operating with limited info with regard to the "evidence." We know they found a variety of things they are testing. Are these things absolutely connected to the case or do these items have a 50/50 chance of being connected? I am not a professional in any way about this, but it just seems to me that it would be challenging to hide a body so quickly -- except that -- I think it's possible the police missed their best opportunity to rule out DR by not doing a *thorough search that night." Not blaming police or anyone at all -- just very frustrating. (Ditto the Guimond case, they searched *everywhere* except the one place they should have. And that one monumental error (or was it deliberate?) probably means there will never be a resolution to his case unless we get a deathbed confession. And the odds of that happening ain't lookin real good.)

Just curious, if you had shown up to the abduction scene, and seen footprints that ended on a particular house's driveway, would you have asked the homeowner for permission to thoroughly search the home and property? It's not like it was 1959, it was 1989 and cops were pretty darn sharp even "back then." Technology was fairly advanced even then. I found this from the Innocence project: " • The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 37 states; since 2000, there have been 262 exonerations." So they were pretty good at it.

I don't know which statement is true: 1. LE has found no trace of Jacob's whereabouts in 25 years, or 2. LE has found definitive traces of Jacob's whereabouts.

Was LE hasty in referring to DR as a POI in order to quell the public's desire to have answers? Or, did they find something that said, "oh yeah, DR definitely had something to do with Jacob's disappearance." I guess that's the million dollar question.

I believe yes, LE was hasty in naming DR as a suspect. It seems to me they feel the need to name someone as a POI (which means NOTHING in court by the way) just for the simple reason that they are executing a search warrant of someone's property. It's widely known in St. Joseph and has been publicly reported nothing was found in the dirt taken for analysis. Again, tests on my property were completed in 1 month, though LE told me otherwise. Stearns kept telling me the BCA had my property, though when some of the property I have received, clearly shows they received the property months prior. If they would've found anything, he would have been arrested immediatly.

 

[human]

It bothers you, that is your reasoning for continuing to place a person under a cloud of suspicion and place a label on his name as a POI. I'm sure his conversations with LE that evening were very short, based on the facts they asked 2 or 3 questions to my family that night and were around for about 3 minutes and then left. His first thought you're saying was to automatically associate a car that possibly made a wrong turn that afternoon as a suspect? And when given the information that a child was kidnapped he went and searched his buildings, for an armed suspect by the way. I wonder if LE told him the person they were looking for was armed. Or did they put a citizens life in danger by letting him wonder in the dark, by himself, not know what he may come across. Neither you or I are going to walk around in the pitch black dark of night unarmed, looking for a man with a gun. If I would've been an adult at the time, sure I'll help search, but I'm gonna have a firearm, and probably 2 for that matter. So, based on my experience that night, they gave him minimal answers to his question and likely brushed him off putting the mans life in danger by doing so. Bottom line, in there adrenaline rushed hast to find answers, many mistakes were made. I seen first hand that night how rushed they seemed. They didn't interview anyone besides the Wetterlings that night. But thank you for the "English" answer that you can find NO EVIDENCE connecting DR to this crime.

I am confused because he has stated that why should he bother to look cuz he wanted to sleep cuz he had work and then that he searched his own property .

Which is it?

The info is all on here to see for one's self

 

[human]

Interesting quote from The Jacob Wetterling Resource Center:

http://wjon.com/news-noon-new-book-investigates-the-abduction-of-jacob-wetterling/

I wonder if anyone who is criticizing it has read it.

I am mystified as there is nothing in it that should bother anyone except maybe Hollinger

 

[human]

Then why was the driveway not sealed off with crime scene tape? Lots of finger pointing goes on here and little to no fact finding! As you'll notice in this pic from that night.....only the bikes were secured... When was the driveway finally taped off? How many contaminated the scene before hand?
View attachment 72538

DR has stated that he crossed the tape in the AM.

 

[tinner007]

In criminal trials, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

In civil trials, it is preponderance of the evidence.

Might be the articles you've read are confusing the two because there's no way a criminal is being sent to jail just because it's more likely than not that he or she did it. If he appealed that, he'd win hands down.

Thanks for your information on this. I was asking because of the trial in St. Cloud recently of the murderer of Officer Scott Patrick. The prosecutors closing arguments he he instructed the jury to look at the preponderance of evidence in coming to a conclusion. I mean based on the preponderance of evidence, yes I would agree that he was guilty of all charges, but if looked at beyond a reasonable doubt, I just don't understand how it was there being there were 3 eyewitnesses that gave 3 different descriptions. In no way, shape, or form and I supporting this guy, but I just think the government seems to be slowly changing things without people taking note of what they're doing......Ok, back to the issue this thread is about!