MN - Jacob Wetterling, 11, St. Joseph, 22 Oct 1989 - #4

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last year I stumbled on a thread that suggested that a 20 year old child abduction might be about to break. After looking into it, I found out that LE had only discovered a serious error that occurred in the initial investigation and they were attempting a "do-over". Apparently early reports of a strange vehicle caused them to focus on finding that car and neglect to do a thorough "elimination" of people who were present near the crime scene. What happened was that DR, who lived 100 yards or so from the scene, was dismissed as a POI very quickly without any search of his property or vehicle. It seemed to me to be a "long-shot" to go and "re-search" the property 20 years later but it is not completely unreasonable to close out every loose end. What concerned me was that posters on this site, particularly folks from the St Joseph area, were jumping to the conclusion that DR was "probably" guilty and a cloud of suspicion would hang over him the rest of his life. I found this particularly disturbing because DR appears to be a very upstanding member of the community with absolutely no "whiff of a scandal". As a teacher, he is particularly venerable to gossip and rumor.

Living near a crime scene and having LE fail to "exclude" you do to an investigative error is happenstance; it does not make you a "suspect". I suspect the real reason some folks in the community consider him guilty (and the REAL reason his home was re-searched in the first place) is that he is middle aged, single, and still living with his parents. That is considered "strange" and all sorts of sinister inferences are drawn from that. While I suspect that it is not all that uncommon for men who grow up on farms to remain on the farm with their parents when they grow up, it is totally irrelevant; people can be "different" from you and me and still be assets to their community.

I want this case solved and the perp brought to justice as much as anyone. I just want an innocent man to have his reputation dragged through the mud.
 
The mask suggests to me that this was a somewhat planned abduction. He may not have known WHICH of the three boys he would take until he was in the moment -- having them close in front of him to see their faces and reaction to his attack.... but if he had a gun and a mask... then whomever it was was waiting for an opportunity to take ONE of them at a time when no one else was around. It seems to me that the boys were stalked ahead of time. Someone watched to see where they went, and what they did... and just probably followed them out to the dark road, where the opportunity presented itself, and he struck. :(

I'd like to get someone convicted in this matter, but so far, as much as I like him for the crime (he had opportunity, if not motive that we know of)... DR hasn't yet been charged OR cleared. I hope they figure this one out soon.
 
If the gunman wanted to abduct Jacob, in specific, then why didn't he ask the boys their names instead of just asking their ages?
 
This asking the ages thing was probably an attempt to obfuscate the real intention which was to find out, in the dark, which of the boys was Jacob (and that is what one of our websleuthers here posted here earlier.) without stating the obvious: asking names.

That also would have the effect of shielding any clue to the gunman's identity, since if he stated the names, the obvious conclusion would be that he knew the children.

Otherwise, if the gunman just wanted any 11-yr. old boy, then why not take Aaron since he was the first to state his age?
 
Kemo-
We are not dragging DR's name through the mud. He is putting himself into this situation and making himself very visible to the community with televised interviews leaving us to speculate about his unusual behavior and conflicting statements. If he is a teacher and cares about children, why did he not help search for Jacob and supposedly go to sleep? He didn't see anything, then he did see a car in his driveway. His unusually casual, non-chalant demeanor during news interviews instead of being upset about the false accusations. Keeping several newspaper clippings and a journal about the abduction. His own actions are making him suspicious.
 
In thinking about DR this evening, it dawned on me that HE is the one who advised us (in a televised interview recently) that LE took from his home / property some items of interest for further testing. Among those items he said, was a trunk which had blood on / in it. DR stated the trunk came from someone else (though I don't recall who specifically, I think he might have said from an aunt or some other family member?).

So tell me:
-> How did / does DR know that the trunk has / had blood in / on it??

Answer:
-> DR could only have known that the trunk had blood in or on it if:
a) he was aware of an incident involving someone who was bleeding on, or near the trunk. If he knew of such an incident or event though, why wouldn't he disclose THAT during his interview with media as well? If the trunk was given to DR's family by someone else, then sure it is possible that it has a history that DR might be unaware of, and it doesn't automatically make him / his family suspects in the case.

b) LE told DR that the trunk had blood on it during their most recent search, and THAT is how DR found out about the blood in / on it.

But if the trunk had blood on it, then we have to ask ourselves more questions:

How did police know that the trunk has / had blood in/on it in the first place?

ANSWER:
a) perhaps police received a tip about the trunk and this is what sparked the latest search.
b) maybe LE who are new to the case were reviewing the file and saw an old tip or something in the file that suggested that someone had seen / heard about there having been blood on / in that trunk at the time of their initial investigation, or in the years following? Maybe THIS is the evidence that was overlooked in years prior that LE was now going back to have look at?
c) perhaps police used a chemical such as luminol on/in the trunk during their most recent search and discovered for themselves that there was blood present.

I'm not sure if the original warrant for the most recent search covered the area where the trunk was located or not. If it was, then I'm more inclined to think that police knew about the trunk and the blood on it before they began their search. I'd also be more inclined to think they went in specifically looking for this item and the other items of interest seized (the journal, the umbrella stand - which I think was from a patio set) etc.

If the trunk was seized as part of the second warrant obtained DURING the search per the initial warrant (there were two warrants obtained and used during the most recent search during summer 2010) - then I'd be more likely to think these findings were more incidental and probably due to the use of luminol in the general area where they were searching.

What say you?
 
I just went back and listened to his 14 minute interview to be sure. The trunk, the lawn chair and the umbrella stand were found in a loft over the garage. Blood being found on the trunk was what got them the search warrant for the house on the 2nd day. DR tells that himself in this KSTP interview (at about 3:00 minutes in).
http://kstp.com/news/stories/s1767412.shtml

DR mentioned in his interview that the trunk was from an old aunt who got it from some one else, but he also mentioned at first there were "several items with blood or blood residue on them." When asked which items were taken besides the umbrella stand, he claimed to not remember, he said his dad has the list.

I did see an interesting comment/question on another news site while looking for this interview asking if the FBI had ever gone back now with their more advanced testing and done DNA touch samples on Trevor's and Aaron's clothes. Although I'm guessing the abductor wore gloves, and I'm not sure he touched the boys at all, or if he just looked at their faces and then told them to run.
 
Jbrown324320 said:
Kemo-
We are not dragging DR's name through the mud. He is putting himself into this situation and making himself very visible to the community with televised interviews leaving us to speculate about his unusual behavior and conflicting statements. If he is a teacher and cares about children, why did he not help search for Jacob and supposedly go to sleep? He didn't see anything, then he did see a car in his driveway. His unusually casual, non-chalant demeanor during news interviews instead of being upset about the false accusations. Keeping several newspaper clippings and a journal about the abduction. His own actions are making him suspicious.
Click to expand...


Yes, he is "putting himself into this situation and making himself very visible to the community". He is trying to convey the message that "I am co-operating, I have nothing to hide". The alternative approach would be to "lawyer up" and refuse to speak to anyone. Would that make him appear "less suspicious"?

I've seen a few clips that posters here have linked and his demeanor seemed pretty appropriate. He appears to be a little obsessive about keeping records; perhaps he is OCD, but so what? Plenty of people are a little eccentric, musicians more than most, but again, it is OK, it doesn't mean they are deviates, doesn't mean they are bad people.

The very fact that LE did not search his house, car or the out buildings around the farm or otherwise "check him out" that night is a pretty good indication that his behavior was not "suspicious". As for failing to "help search for Jacob", this was a crime scene, there was a man with a gun and a child hostage out there. I can absolutely guarantee that they did not want some civilian out there trying to help.

Hey, I don't know DR. I live 2000 miles away and have absolutely no dog in this fight. I am not certain he is innocent but I am aware of nothing that suggests guilt except that he lived near the crime scene. My only concern is that DR may become the second victim of this crime.
 
It occurred to me that it must be a somewhat novel occurrence that new leads were generated; otherwise, why restate the fact on tonight's show? (shergal was the first to initially post that leads were generated).

Appreciate SheWhoMustNotBeNamed your notification that it was indeed restated.
 
Joshua Guimond's case must be covered on NG Missing program. Even if he is case #51. Thank you.
 
I agree with you Kemo, that no one should rush to judgment simply because he is odd. But as a POI, I think it's fair to discuss him in connection with this case.

I personally can't decide what I think about him, because IMO there are a few things that don't seem to add up when you look at him as a suspect.

For one, unless he broadened his geographic horizons greatly or police are suspicious of him for other local disappearances, he would have now gone 21 years without taking another child. I don't know the stats on this, but that seems unlikely.

But what really bugs me is the idea that he would call about a car turning around in his driveway if he was the perp. Wouldn't the last person you'd want to call after taking a child be the police? What if they came out to check it out?!

I suppose it's possible he made it to create the appearance of another suspect. But put yourself in the perp's shoes for a moment.

You've just snatched the boy, gotten him to some place that's safe for you, and you're about to finally live out your sick fantasy--whatever that may be--and you're going to put it on hold to call police?

Because when you think about how the boys went back, and maybe told the babysitter before telling her dad, who might have asked a few questions of his own before making the call, then you figure in time for police to get there--scanner guy couldn't have made the turnaround more than, what, 20-30 minutes max after the incident?

It just doesn't make sense that the perp would stop to make the call at this point.

Of course, that's assuming he called right after the turnaround. I haven't been able to find a time for the phone call, though I may have missed it somewhere.

Although if he called later to complain about it, then it might be a different story.

And the clippings don't surprise me all that much. Jacob's mom said on NG that she's met a number of people who are kind of obsessed with the case.

Considering that it happened, literally, in DR's backyard...I can see being fascinated with it. I know I would be.

Anyway, whether DR did it or not, I hope police know more than we do so they can bring some closure to Jacob's family soon.
 
One of the many possible scenarios I've had running thru my mind lately is the possibility that DR played the role of an accomplice and the abductor was taking advantage of the situation knowing that DR's parents were away in Europe and figured that he could use DR's property to commit the crime and hide out. I don't know how much sense this makes or to what extent DR could have been involved (or if he acted alone or had nothing to do with it). I also wonder how LE found blood on the trunk, is it possible for dogs to detect something like that?
 
Lotus said:
One of the many possible scenarios I've had running thru my mind lately is the possibility that DR played the role of an accomplice and the abductor was taking advantage of the situation knowing that DR's parents were away in Europe and figured that he could use DR's property to commit the crime and hide out. I don't know how much sense this makes or to what extent DR could have been involved (or if he acted alone or had nothing to do with it). I also wonder how LE found blood on the trunk, is it possible for dogs to detect something like that?
Click to expand...

They might have known in the following two ways (if there are more, someone will be along shortly to add to this list, I'm sure).

1. They received a tip / found a tip on their files which had not ever been followed up on yet about the blood on the trunk. Maybe someone reported (now or historically) that there had been blood on the trunk?

2. LE may have sprayed a substance called "luminol" on the trunk. This has a chemical reaction to blood, and other types of stains - even long after the stain has been washed away. Specifically, I believe its the protein in blood that leaves a remnant that is traceable by the luminol substance. Once sprayed, LE turn off the lights, and use a UV light to show areas where blood once was (it glows under a UV light). If they used this technique, they might have been able to see where blood was, and possibly even a pattern where the blood was smeared in an attempt to wash it away. They might then have opted to take the trunk for DNA analysis and testing to see if the blood was a match to Jacob.

I'm unclear yet whether cadaver dogs might have been able to detect the presence of blood / human remains on/in the trunk as its been so long since Jacob went missing. I'm researching to find out how possible this is, and to see if this has happened in other cases. If the dogs DID hit on the trunk for any reason, it might indicate a need to use the luminol to check for blood stains -- but I have to wonder -- if it was indeed a dog who hit on the trunk, if they would even have bothered to use the luminol at all at the scene? I suspect if the dogs hit on the trunk they would more likely want to take it to the lab for some sort of testing, swabs for DNA / blood / and then luminol and other tests? I'm not sure what effect luminol might have on DNA fragments / blood etc once its used (if it breaks down what it comes in contact with and renders further testing impossible or not?). Definitely lots to think about. Sure hope the results of further testing comes back soon!!
 
tlneedham said:
I agree with you Kemo, that no one should rush to judgment simply because he is odd. But as a POI, I think it's fair to discuss him in connection with this case.

I personally can't decide what I think about him, because IMO there are a few things that don't seem to add up when you look at him as a suspect.

For one, unless he broadened his geographic horizons greatly or police are suspicious of him for other local disappearances, he would have now gone 21 years without taking another child. I don't know the stats on this, but that seems unlikely.

But what really bugs me is the idea that he would call about a car turning around in his driveway if he was the perp. Wouldn't the last person you'd want to call after taking a child be the police? What if they came out to check it out?!

I suppose it's possible he made it to create the appearance of another suspect. But put yourself in the perp's shoes for a moment.

You've just snatched the boy, gotten him to some place that's safe for you, and you're about to finally live out your sick fantasy--whatever that may be--and you're going to put it on hold to call police?

Because when you think about how the boys went back, and maybe told the babysitter before telling her dad, who might have asked a few questions of his own before making the call, then you figure in time for police to get there--scanner guy couldn't have made the turnaround more than, what, 20-30 minutes max after the incident?

It just doesn't make sense that the perp would stop to make the call at this point.

Of course, that's assuming he called right after the turnaround. I haven't been able to find a time for the phone call, though I may have missed it somewhere.

Although if he called later to complain about it, then it might be a different story.

And the clippings don't surprise me all that much. Jacob's mom said on NG that she's met a number of people who are kind of obsessed with the case.

Considering that it happened, literally, in DR's backyard...I can see being fascinated with it. I know I would be.

Anyway, whether DR did it or not, I hope police know more than we do so they can bring some closure to Jacob's family soon.
Click to expand...

I'd always heard (or read) that DR called about the car turning around in his driveway BEFORE Jacob was even taken. (According to DR himself, he was asleep later at 10 when they were searching his family farm.) But I just searched for it now and found this:

"In his TV interview with KARE-11’s Julie Nelson, Rassier said he went for a run the day Jacob was abducted. He remembers it being “a splendid day for running.” When he wasn’t running, he says he spent the remainder of the day typing index cards he used to organize his record collection. He went to bed early and was awakened by the sound of the dog barking outside. He looked out the window and saw people with flashlights out by the wood pile. He thought they were intruders and called 911. The 911 operator told him there had been a boy abducted, and he said 'ohhhh.'
_______
Then I found this (on the death by 100 papercuts website):
________

In the 2004 FOX 9 news report, the reporter stated the unnamed suspect (Rassier was still unnamed in 2004) had given a DNA sample in “February” with investigators searching the man’s computer.

“I just have to hope they make sense out of it and not wreck my life.”

Reporter: Remember, he’s the witness who placed a car at the scene. (The unnamed suspect reported someone turned around in his driveway then sped away around the time Jacob was abducted.)

Reporter: Later that night he heard a commotion. It was the search, it was in his yard. He went back to bed.

Reporter: “Why would you just go back to bed if a kid had just disappeared essentially out of your yard?”

Unnamed Suspect: “I wanted to get some sleep. I mean I mean I, what was I to do? I wasn’t going to waste time.”

_________________
(also from death by 1000 papercuts - including the italicized portion)

"Based on news reports, in 1989, Dan Rassier’s idea of “helping out” in the abduction case was to:

-Go to bed even though Rassier knew there was a “commotion” going on.
-At some point, Rassier told the police–we can only assume this occurred the next day when Rassier was interviewed as a witness–Rassier noticed a car turn around in his driveway, then “speed away” around the time Jacob was abducted.
____________
My comments:

So if he told them the next day about a car turning around and speeding away, it does make a difference. Both DR and the reporter state the 911 call he made was when he saw the lights out in his yard and heard the dog barking. IMO, this would have been around 10 pm at the latest by the time LE started searching the farm. Jacob was abducted at 9:15 pm. Kind of early for a 34 year old guy to be in bed sleeping - especially when in a later interview he said he stayed up most of the night watching them search out the window. (If he really did go outside and search through outbuildings as he's saying in 2010 interviews - why didn't any police officers see him? I think that's a detail he added later in case any recent traces of him were found in those outbuildings.) JMO.
 
On the blood on the trunk, they may have just seen it also. But my guess would be luminol.

I found an interesting blog page on Jacob while searching just now. I don't know who this "Joy" is, her about me says she's a mom from MN. I'm thinking if she isn't already here under a different posting name, we should invite her here, she has several interesting theories. The portion of her page that got my attention, was where she has pictures posted from a driving tour she took to St. Joe. She drove down the road that Jacob was abducted on and she took photos as she was driving. It's a good look at the land for those of you not from around here. Even 21 years later, it's still pretty desolate and rural out there.
http://www.joybaker.com/category/jacob/page/3/
(Scroll down on page for pics of driving tour)
Something else she found at our local library was the next day (Oct. 23rd) local paper after Jacob was taken. (Photo below.) What caught my eye was a separate article about some St. Ben's college students who had camped out overnight in tents made out of cardboard for one of those homeless support type events. There is a picture of the students in their tents, and they are right in front of St. Ben's. (St. Ben's is now part of St. John's University, back then it was separate I believe - not sure.) This is approx. 1/2 to 3/4 mile from DR's farm if you go cross country. I wonder if they ever interviewed any of those girls to see if they saw anything out of the ordinary that night?
 

Attachments

  • Scan_StCloudTimes.jpg
    Scan_StCloudTimes.jpg
    46.2 KB · Views: 34
shergal said:
On the blood on the trunk, they may have just seen it also. But my guess would be luminol.

I found an interesting blog page on Jacob while searching just now. I don't know who this "Joy" is, her about me says she's a mom from MN. I'm thinking if she isn't already here under a different posting name, we should invite her here, she has several interesting theories. The portion of her page that got my attention, was where she has pictures posted from a driving tour she took to St. Joe. She drove down the road that Jacob was abducted on and she took photos as she was driving. It's a good look at the land for those of you not from around here. Even 21 years later, it's still pretty desolate and rural out there.
http://www.joybaker.com/category/jacob/page/3/
(Scroll down on page for pics of driving tour)
Something else she found at our local library was the next day (Oct. 23rd) local paper after Jacob was taken. (Photo below.) What caught my eye was a separate article about some St. Ben's college students who had camped out overnight in tents made out of cardboard for one of those homeless support type events. There is a picture of the students in their tents, and they are right in front of St. Ben's. (St. Ben's is now part of St. John's University, back then it was separate I believe - not sure.) This is approx. 1/2 to 3/4 mile from DR's farm if you go cross country. I wonder if they ever interviewed any of those girls to see if they saw anything out of the ordinary that night?
Click to expand...

What a great blog! I love how she drove the route, snapping pics as she went - it really helps give a sense of what the area is today, and how desolate it might have been back then.
 
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/...g-neighbor-in-2004-fox-9-report-june-30-2010#

This video has been posted here several times and is also in the blog.

A few things are in my mind after watching the video again:

1) I assume the search footage is from 1989. You see searchers riding ATV's. We've questioned in the past, if an ATV was the getaway vehicle for the abductor.

2) Wonder if Kevin remembered what the police officer looked like who seemed to brush him off? That officer never mentioned Kevin. That's suspicious as they say. However, the officer has never been ID'ed, while Kevin has.

3) A websleuth here posted early on that Rassier does have a deep, gravelly type voice in this video.
 
The author of the blog noted above posts a great question:

DR was awakened by the DOG barking? What about sirens in his driveway?!

So -- were sirens used?? If they were, how come THOSE didn't wake the sleeping man?
 
concentric said:
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/...g-neighbor-in-2004-fox-9-report-june-30-2010#

This video has been posted here several times and is also in the blog.

A few things are in my mind after watching the video again:

1) I assume the search footage is from 1989. You see searchers riding ATV's. We've questioned in the past, if an ATV was the getaway vehicle for the abductor.

2) Wonder if Kevin remembered what the police officer looked like who seemed to brush him off? That officer never mentioned Kevin. That's suspicious as they say. However, the officer has never been ID'ed, while Kevin has.

3) A websleuth here posted early on that Rassier does have a deep, gravelly type voice in this video.
Click to expand...

I've thought this was strange too -- about how Kevin eventually came forward to identify himself, but the officer he spoke to has not? How come no one can verify that he spoke to an officer?? This to me should have been in the file somewhere, and we're told its not. So then who was this cop that he supposedly talked to? How many cops were present when Kevin arrived? If it was just one - then I have to ask:
-> who arrived first? Kevin or the cop?
-> Did the cop have his siren on / lights flashing?
-> Was the cop in an official cop uniform? If not, was he wearing DARK clothing? Did he have an official (or official looking badge?).
-> Did the officer he talk with have a gravely voice?

I'm asking because scary as it is - what if the man who adbucted Jacob posed as a cop when he talked to Kevin? Worse, what if the abductor WAS an actual police officer??

If it was an actual officer, or someone posing as one - then it would be plausible that the poser / officer had fast / easy access to a gun, dark clothing (possibly already wearing it), and could blend in while Jacob was stashed out of sight somewhere.

How come police haven't been able to verify that someone at the scene talked to Kevin? If I were an officer on this file, I'd be calling every single cop that ever touched this case on that first night to find out what the heck happened!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 171 more.
Total: 3,849 (members: 172, guests: 3,677)

Online statistics

Members online
172
Guests online
3,677
Total visitors
3,849
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,022
Messages
17,980,000
Members
228,993
Latest member
Maria_Falc
Back
Top