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

[Sasquatch321]

IMO, DR didn't do the actual abduction, but possibly knows who did or possibly helped someone get away that night. Or maybe he just helped cover for someone later, a friend who was involved. Thus, there would be no need to bury any bodies, but there may possibly be something written, since DR loves to journal everything.

According to DR himself in various taped interviews, he states that his room is a mess, he is a bit of a "packrat" and could well have had something which made LE wonder just how much he knew. (This is not an interview that media "messed with" it is words right out of his own mouth.) This would be enough reason to name him a POI. A POI can be someone who holds a vital piece of information, as well as someone who actually committed a crime. (All JMO)

If he didn't do it and knows who did, then he has shared that information with LE. LE has and is now watching Jacobs abductor. If he didn't do it but covered for someone, LE probably found that confession in his journal and is now watching Jacobs abductor. Or DR did do it. All in all we most likely have Jacobs abductor in each scenario, how much longer will it take?

 

[cGorg]

Jared seems to be sold on DAH.

sold is an appropriate word

 

[cGorg]

From all the pictures I have seen, there are a lot more than one set of tracks in that driveway. It would have taken a dedicated forensics expert to check every vehicle on the farm (including farm vehicles, hay wagons, carts etc) and indicate how many sets of tracks did not match those owned by the DR family, and these could have been anything from family friends over for a visit to the UPS delivery truck. When I have done this, in some cases it has taken days comparing photographs and plaster casts against tires. Just because two vehicles have the same tires, does not mean they make exactly the same prints (think wear, hunks out of the tread, width between tracks etc).

Given that....why would LE hone in on Kevin's tracks(despite the newness of the tires..or is that it)? IDK...but IMO it has to do with the 'freshness' of the tire tracks....is that of some value?

 

[Trackergd]

It doesn't matter who owned the property, only that DR was there alone during the time of the abduction. Not hard to hide a body if you had time to move, bury, destroy before they got home.

I grew up on a farm. Depending on the type of farming, it is rather easy to dispose of a body. Not to freak anyone out, but the methods can range from hogs to a backhoe on a tractor. I remember back in the 60's my dad and I went to a neighbors farm and dug up some large rectangular depressions along the dirt road to his fields so he could figure out what they were and found two model T Fords and an Overland touring car. No idea how they got there...

 

[Trackergd]

Does anyone know if one of the DR family vehicles was not at the farm but was normally stored there and showed up later?? Maybe loaned to someone or being used by another family member??

In my day, farmers regularly shared equipment. Hay bailing machines, grain wagons, hay wagons, etc... All had tires. Most farms have a knock around pickup and a five ton stake body. Both of ours were from the 40's.

 

[Trino]

If he didn't do it and knows who did, then he has shared that information with LE. LE has and is now watching Jacobs abductor. If he didn't do it but covered for someone, LE probably found that confession in his journal and is now watching Jacobs abductor. Or DR did do it. All in all we most likely have Jacobs abductor in each scenario, how much longer will it take?

I believe our society is so honed in on heterosexual and, currently, LGBT sex - TV, movies, ads, Internet - that it's difficult to comprehend that a middle aged man could be living with his parents and could have no history of homosexuality or heterosexual relationships or inappropriate relationships with children. When a child disappears, the immediate thought is he must be involved, despite working daily with male children with no evidence of inappropriate relationships or evidence of being a pedophile. His employment record was perfect. Why think he suddenly lay in wait at the end of his driveway for an opportunity to molest and abduct a child?

There really are those who don't go to bed with someone else, those who have no interest in sex. I have a farmer friend who is in his mid-60's, still lives with "Mom," has never had a sexual relationship of any kind. I'm thinking, he, too, could easily be accused of a sexual crime because society cannot comprehend such behavior. But, it happens.

 

[HEY YOU!]

Well, this is where we differ because I don't consider it strange for someone to treat the contents of media interviews with caution, I regard it as prudent. Remember you're often getting the media's presentation of what he said, as opposed to the uncut version. Even if the media have always been 100% accurate in the way they've reported him, DR is not required to give a complete account of that night to any journalist. He may have told each of them part of the story.

The only people he is required to give a comprehensive account to are the police, and seeing as we don't know the contents of his police interviews, we're groping in the dark. If I was to guess, I'd say it sounds like DR didn't take the report of a missing child all that seriously at first, maybe he thought it was a prank or the child was hiding or something equally not worth worrying about. Only later when he realised the seriousness of the situation did he attach importance to cars or people he'd seen that night. That, however, is just as much guesswork on my part as your suspicious interpretations of his words are on yours.

So at 11:23 while talking to the 911 operator who tells him that a boy was abducted from the end of his driveway, he does not immediately tell the operator about a car with a small passenger that turned around in his driveway at the time of the abduction? This point alone makes absolutely ZERO sense. And you say LATER when he realized the seriousness then he attached importance? Like the very next morning when he crossed under the crime scene tape and STILL did not mention the car???????

It's 100% suspicious and I would love to know why you don't see it as such. No good explanation.

 

[HEY YOU!]

Hollinger. We need to sleuth Hollinger. He is a dead ringer for the sketch in Jared's case.

Only this is the Jacob Wetterling thread and the boys did not see a face. Jacob's kidnapper was wearing a mask.

 

[Wisdom]

I believe our society is so honed in on heterosexual and, currently, LGBT sex - TV, movies, ads, Internet - that it's difficult to comprehend that a middle aged man could be living with his parents and could have no history of homosexuality or heterosexual relationships or inappropriate relationships with children. When a child disappears, the immediate thought is he must be involved, despite working daily with male children with no evidence of inappropriate relationships or evidence of being a pedophile. His employment record was perfect. Why think he suddenly lay in wait at the end of his driveway for an opportunity to molest and abduct a child?

There really are those who don't go to bed with someone else, those who have no interest in sex. I have a farmer friend who is in his mid-60's, still lives with "Mom," has never had a sexual relationship of any kind. I'm thinking, he, too, could easily be accused of a sexual crime because society cannot comprehend such behavior. But, it happens.

I agree but in regards to Jacob's case we don't know for sure the motive was sexual. I know every text book and opinion of most say it is...but we just don't know. After reading the last couple posts on Joy's blog about the "party in the woods" it made me realize all the activity going on near Rassier's property and probably often...not only the party on Saturday but also when you factor in the supposed car speeding up his driveway and previous comments about their driveway being used as a lovers lane. I just wonder if they had issues with older teens trespassing or causing mischief on their property before the abduction. Maybe he saw the bobbing flashlights out near the road and wondered what the heck the high school kids were up to again and went out in a rage possibly to scare them and was surprised when he realized how young they were....which lead to asking them their ages. And then it took a whole different spur of the moment turn. Just so many possibilities.

 

[Sasquatch321]

I agree but in regards to Jacob's case we don't know for sure the motive was sexual. I know every text book and opinion of most say it is...but we just don't know. After reading the last couple posts on Joy's blog about the "party in the woods" it made me realize all the activity going on near Rassier's property and probably often...not only the party on Saturday but also when you factor in the supposed car speeding up his driveway and previous comments about their driveway being used as a lovers lane. I just wonder if they had issues with older teens trespassing or causing mischief on their property before the abduction. Maybe he saw the bobbing flashlights out near the road and wondered what the heck the high school kids were up to again and went out in a rage possibly to scare them and was surprised when he realized how young they were....which lead to asking them their ages. And then it took a whole different spur of the moment turn. Just so many possibilities.

"Lovers Lane" that is some more new information that came to light after the third search. Has it ever actually existed? Can anyone besides DR confirm it? Or is this more fiction from his journal, that maybe like the tan monte carlo, is trying to explain them away as real when they're not? Imo using a farmers driveway which is active with people living there, could be risky and dumb. An abandoned farm and driveway makes more sense to me.

 

[thenotebook]

Only this is the Jacob Wetterling thread and the boys did not see a face. Jacob's kidnapper was wearing a mask.

Thanks for enlightening me about the mask (??) So now all of a sudden Jared is completely irrelevant to Jacob's case? I think not.

 

[thenotebook]

I agree but in regards to Jacob's case we don't know for sure the motive was sexual. I know every text book and opinion of most say it is...but we just don't know. After reading the last couple posts on Joy's blog about the "party in the woods" it made me realize all the activity going on near Rassier's property and probably often...not only the party on Saturday but also when you factor in the supposed car speeding up his driveway and previous comments about their driveway being used as a lovers lane. I just wonder if they had issues with older teens trespassing or causing mischief on their property before the abduction. Maybe he saw the bobbing flashlights out near the road and wondered what the heck the high school kids were up to again and went out in a rage possibly to scare them and was surprised when he realized how young they were....which lead to asking them their ages. And then it took a whole different spur of the moment turn. Just so many possibilities.

The motive was sexual. And we all just finally agreed to state that it was sexual. Patty has confirmed this publicly, so we need to take her word for it. The boys were fondled. How is that not sexual?

 

[Trackergd]

The motive was sexual. And we all just finally agreed to state that it was sexual. Patty has confirmed this publicly, so we need to take her word for it. The boys were fondled. How is that not sexual?

To me, whomever the abductor is was "shopping" for a boy that met a specific criteria. His, or someone else's. That does not seem to jive with someone abducting on the "spur of the moment" and indicates a level of experience.

 

[HEY YOU!]

Thanks for enlightening me about the mask (??) So now all of a sudden Jared is completely irrelevant to Jacob's case? I think not.

I think one of the biggest mistakes that were made in the beginning was putting out Jared's abductor sketch for Jacob's abduction.

Trevor and Aaron's perp had a mask on so the sketch was irrelevant to their case IMO.

 

[HEY YOU!]

To me, whomever the abductor is was "shopping" for a boy that met a specific criteria. His, or someone else's. That does not seem to jive with someone abducting on the "spur of the moment" and indicates a level of experience.

Or a certain level of pre-planning or fantasizing in place of experience. This was a true crime of opportunity, I believe the mask was to cover a familiar face and that the perp had observed these boys many times during the day. He may have fantasized about what he would do to one of these boys given the opportunity. October 22, 1989 was the very first night these boys were allowed out alone to go to the store in the dark. He had to have observed them going to the store in order to know when they were coming back. He may even have seen the boys parents drive off earlier. It was dark and the POI had the place all to himself as his parents were out of town. Perfect night to commit the perfect crime.

And to those are saying that DR may know who did it or had someone over that night...then where are the tire tracks for that person?

 

[human]

One thing posters are forgetting is that DR did not own the property. His parents owned it and, most likely, were active on the farm. In 1989, his parents were in their late 50's, early 60's. It would be difficult to hide anything from them when they returned from their trip.

That is funny. I did not live on a farm. When my son moved out when we were 45, we found his name scratched into a wall in his room. We had solid wood walls and never saw it. So who can or why would anyone look at his room, for instance?

 

[human]

I believe our society is so honed in on heterosexual and, currently, LGBT sex - TV, movies, ads, Internet - that it's difficult to comprehend that a middle aged man could be living with his parents and could have no history of homosexuality or heterosexual relationships or inappropriate relationships with children. When a child disappears, the immediate thought is he must be involved, despite working daily with male children with no evidence of inappropriate relationships or evidence of being a pedophile. His employment record was perfect. Why think he suddenly lay in wait at the end of his driveway for an opportunity to molest and abduct a child?

There really are those who don't go to bed with someone else, those who have no interest in sex. I have a farmer friend who is in his mid-60's, still lives with "Mom," has never had a sexual relationship of any kind. I'm thinking, he, too, could easily be accused of a sexual crime because society cannot comprehend such behavior. But, it happens.

Ed Gheen lived with mother as well.

No one else knows anyone's inner mind or sexual desires.

 

[human]

Maybe some feel they have, but I have not read any explanations of the numerous lies DR has said.

Why does he lie?

Why does his mother have a breakkdown on the farm search?

 

[human]

I love this from a WS poster, Donjeta

09-29-2010, 07:35 AM
DR quotes: http://www.twincities.com/ci_16200880

"It's a bit of a relief, even though it doesn't answer too many questions," Rassier told the AP on Tuesday. "But it does answer the idea that Jacob could be alive and well somewhere out there. ...

There's the hope, we all have the hope that he is out there."



That's a bit odd IMO. Whether or not he knows what happened to Jacob he knows what there is in his attic and is likely to have known way before the search was ever contemplated whether or not there is evidence that shows Jacob is dead in his lawn furniture and his notes. So if he is innocent and doesn't have any reason to suspect that some other perp used his umbrella stand to kill Jacob he would have been sure about this result, it would have been completely expected and a given for him. The fact that they didn't find Jacob's body in his attic shouldn't have changed his view of the odds that Jacob is alive or died somewhere else. If the police searched my basement and found no evidence about Madeleine McCann's death in there it wouldn't give me any particular increased hope that she is alive out there because I never expected them to find her in my basement anyway.

 

[HEY YOU!]

I love this from a WS poster, Donjeta

09-29-2010, 07:35 AM
DR quotes: http://www.twincities.com/ci_16200880

"It's a bit of a relief, even though it doesn't answer too many questions," Rassier told the AP on Tuesday. "But it does answer the idea that Jacob could be alive and well somewhere out there. ...

There's the hope, we all have the hope that he is out there."



That's a bit odd IMO. Whether or not he knows what happened to Jacob he knows what there is in his attic and is likely to have known way before the search was ever contemplated whether or not there is evidence that shows Jacob is dead in his lawn furniture and his notes. So if he is innocent and doesn't have any reason to suspect that some other perp used his umbrella stand to kill Jacob he would have been sure about this result, it would have been completely expected and a given for him. The fact that they didn't find Jacob's body in his attic shouldn't have changed his view of the odds that Jacob is alive or died somewhere else. If the police searched my basement and found no evidence about Madeleine McCann's death in there it wouldn't give me any particular increased hope that she is alive out there because I never expected them to find her in my basement anyway.

And in the one interview DR states that he doesn't even know all of the things taken from the home by law enforcement for evidence. Really?