Remains found confirmed as Jacob Wetterling/Suspect led LE to Remains #2

[kemo]

Maybe a better run investigation could have nailed Heinrich in 1989, maybe not. In any event, the podcast did not focus on "errors" of that investigation. It seemed like the consensus was that Heinrich was involved but they did not have enough for an arrest.

It was the "investigation" of Dan Rassier where the SCS and specifically Sheriff Sanner that the podcast comes down on very hard. The questions raised are valid. If Sanner and the lead investigators really believed Rassier was good for the crime based solely on his "demeanor" and proximity to the crime scene in spite of the known real evidence against Heinrich, then their competence as investigators must be called into question. If this was more just a "show" put on by the Sheriffs Dept to convince the local voters that Sanner had the perpetrator "in his sight" and was worthy of re-election, then the whole system of "independent" county sheriffs must be called into question.

 

[DEVGRU]

If he moved they noted it, if he got new employment they noted it, if you look at the facts they never did forget about Heinrich. They followed him for weeks, there was nothing. The evidence from Jareds assault was never forgotten as well, it was routinely submitted to testing until technology caught up with it. The key was a confession, and it would take an old and confiscated Heinrich to get that.

What information do you have that Jared's sweatshirt and other clothing were "routinely submitted to testing until technology caught up with it"? I thought that Jared's sweatshirt sat on a shelf in the SCSO's and/or BCA's office until it was subjected to DNA testing in 2012. ELOCsoul, can you help out with this?

 

[Sasquatch321]

What information do you have that Jared's sweatshirt and other clothing were "routinely submitted to testing until technology caught up with it"? I thought that Jared's sweatshirt sat on a shelf in the SCSO's and/or BCA's office until it was subjected to DNA testing in 2012. ELOCsoul, can you help out with this?

This is where I would also want proof that it was routinely submitted for testing. This information was released by LE after Heinrich confessed in court. But as I know it, it was the show "the hunt" that raised widespread attention to the case again, and from that the Sheriff out of Wright County turned over evidence from Jareds assault that had been sitting in their storage.

 

[DEVGRU]

This is where I would also want proof that it was routinely submitted for testing. This information was released by LE after Heinrich confessed in court. But as I know it, it was the show "the hunt" that raised widespread attention to the case again, and from that the Sheriff out of Wright County turned over evidence from Jareds assault that had been sitting in their storage.

So, if Iam reading your latest post correctly, Sasquatch, you are admitting that youhave no hard facts to back up your statement that Jared’s clothing was repeatedly submitted to testing prior to 2012 – is that correct? Your statement about what you seem to recall LE saying after an episode of “The Hunt” is certainly not a “hard fact,” since you haven’t cited any direct quote from LE, nor have you cited to the source or medium supposedly containing any such quote. (Moreover, while I suppose it’s a possibility, it doesn’t make sense that the Wright County Sheriff’s Office would have Jared’s clothing in its possession, since the assault against Jared occurred in and around Cold Spring and Richmond – which are in Stearns County. However, I guess it is a possibility.)

Obviously,whether or not LE tested Jared’s clothing – either for DNA, blood type(s), or other identifying information - is an important factual consideration in our current discussion on this thread concerning whether the SCSO or other LE properly investigated the Paynesville cases and/or Jared’s and Jacob’s abductions. I’m not suggesting that we can’t discuss things from our memories, but it doesn’t help our discussion here to have unsupported statements of “fact” made about what LE did or didn’t do in its investigations. Also, I’m not trying to sound too harsh – and if I’m wrong I apologize – it’s just that I don’t think we should be making unsupported statements of such an important nature on this thread – statements which go to the very heart of our discussion about LE here.

 

[Sasquatch321]

So, if Iam reading your latest post correctly, Sasquatch, you are admitting that youhave no hard facts to back up your statement that Jared’s clothing was repeatedly submitted to testing prior to 2012 – is that correct? Your statement about what you seem to recall LE saying after an episode of “The Hunt” is certainly not a “hard fact,” since you haven’t cited any direct quote from LE, nor have you cited to the source or medium supposedly containing any such quote. (Moreover, while I suppose it’s a possibility, it doesn’t make sense that the Wright County Sheriff’s Office would have Jared’s clothing in its possession, since the assault against Jared occurred in and around Cold Spring and Richmond – which are in Stearns County. However, I guess it is a possibility.)

Obviously,whether or not LE tested Jared’s clothing – either for DNA, blood type(s), or other identifying information - is an important factual consideration in our current discussion on this thread concerning whether the SCSO or other LE properly investigated the Paynesville cases and/or Jared’s and Jacob’s abductions. I’m not suggesting that we can’t discuss things from our memories, but it doesn’t help our discussion here to have unsupported statements of “fact” made about what LE did or didn’t do in its investigations. Also, I’m not trying to sound too harsh – and if I’m wrong I apologize – it’s just that I don’t think we should be making unsupported statements of such an important nature on this thread – statements which go to the very heart of our discussion about LE here.

Well I tend to believe it since that is what the FBI said during their press conference. Others have speculated that they quickly crafted it to cover themselves and their jobs.

 

[DEVGRU]

Well I tend to believe it since that is what the FBI said during their press conference. Others have speculated that they quickly crafted it to cover themselves and their jobs.

What I recall is that the FBI did NOTsay that Jared’s clothing had been repeatedly tested prior to 2012. What Irecall being stated at the press conference after Heinrich’s guilty plea wassomething to the effect that “Thanks to advances in DNA testing, we were ableto test Jared’s sweatshirt in 2012.” (not a direct quote, just a paraphrase by me). Maybe you could locate a transcript of thepress conference so we can see what was said about the DNA testing of Jared’ssweatshirt??
It certainly may have been the case that,by 2012, the DNA in Jared’s sweatshirt had deteriorated to such a degree fromsitting on a shelf for 23 years that only advances in DNA testing that hadoccurred since 1989 allowed the deteriorated DNA in Jared’s sweatshirt to betested in 2012. But, that doesn’t explain why Jared’s sweatshirt wasn’t tested forDNA in 1989 – when the DNA on the sweatshirt was fresher and, presumably, moreabundant than it was in 2012. It also doesn’t explain why other forensic testsweren’t performed on the sweatshirt in 1989 (if that’s the case).

If Jared’s sweatshirt and Heinrich’s hairsample from early 1990 were not tested for 23 (or more!) years, that is, in myopinion, inexcusable. I presume, Sas, that you would also think that wasinexcusable on LE’s part, if that’s the case???

 

[human]

What I recall is that the FBI did NOTsay that Jared’s clothing had been repeatedly tested prior to 2012. What Irecall being stated at the press conference after Heinrich’s guilty plea wassomething to the effect that “Thanks to advances in DNA testing, we were ableto test Jared’s sweatshirt in 2012.” (not a direct quote, just a paraphrase by me). Maybe you could locate a transcript of thepress conference so we can see what was said about the DNA testing of Jared’ssweatshirt??
It certainly may have been the case that,by 2012, the DNA in Jared’s sweatshirt had deteriorated to such a degree fromsitting on a shelf for 23 years that only advances in DNA testing that hadoccurred since 1989 allowed the deteriorated DNA in Jared’s sweatshirt to betested in 2012. But, that doesn’t explain why Jared’s sweatshirt wasn’t tested forDNA in 1989 – when the DNA on the sweatshirt was fresher and, presumably, moreabundant than it was in 2012. It also doesn’t explain why other forensic testsweren’t performed on the sweatshirt in 1989 (if that’s the case).

If Jared’s sweatshirt and Heinrich’s hairsample from early 1990 were not tested for 23 (or more!) years, that is, in myopinion, inexcusable. I presume, Sas, that you would also think that wasinexcusable on LE’s part, if that’s the case???

I have posted info about DNA testing before on here. DNA in crimes was brand new in 89. There are a lot of issues with the early use of DNA in crime solving.

 

[DEVGRU]

I have posted info about DNA testing before on here. DNA in crimes was brand new in 89. There are a lot of issues with the early use of DNA in crime solving.

DNA testing was not "brand new" in 1989; it had been commonly used in criminal cases since 1986-87 - and was commonly used by the BCA in criminal cases at least as of 1988.

 

[human]

Here is info on DNA testing in criminal cases. It was hardly common in 89 and there were chalkenges to its use. There is an explantion of advances as well.

http://www.forensicmag.com/article/...rime-solving-judicial-and-legislative-history

 

[DEVGRU]

Here is info on DNA testing in criminal cases. It was hardly common in 89 and there were chalkenges to its use. There is an explantion of advances as well.

http://www.forensicmag.com/article/...rime-solving-judicial-and-legislative-history

You’re obviously missing the point. The issue we’re discussing here is not what a DNA test of Jared’s sweatshirt would have shown or whether it would have proven Heinrich’s guilt or whether such a test could have been challenged. The issue is simply whether LE should have submitted the sweatshirt for DNA (or other) testing in 1989, instead of holding onto the sweatshirt for 23 years (if that’swhat happened).

As of 1989, DNA testing reliability had gained widespread acceptance among the scientific community and in courts throughout the United States. Also, as of 1989 it was common for the Minnesota BCA in criminal cases to submit items such as blood-stained clothing to an out-of-state DNA lab (the BCA didn’t have its own DNA lab at that time) for DNA testing purposes. In fact, in footnote 8 of the article you referenced in your post, the Minnesota case of State v. Schwartz is cited [cited as State v. Schwartz, 447 N.W.2d 422 (Minn.1989)], and that case exemplifies my point here: that DNA testing results were widely accepted in1989 and that Jared’s sweatshirt should have been submitted to a DNA testing lab in 1989, not 2012.

In Schwartz, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided that the specific DNA test in that case was not admissible because the testing laboratory had not followed the necessary steps for reliability to prevent thepossibility of a mistake in the results. However, the court noted the widespread acceptance of DNA test results in stating the following:

While we agree with the trial court that forensic DNA typing has gained general acceptance in the scientific community, we hold that admissibility of specific test results in a particular case hinges on the laboratory's compliance with appropriate standards and controls, and the availability of their testing data and results.[4]We answer the certified question accordingly. Because the laboratory in this case did not comportwith these guidelines, the test results lack foundational adequacy and, without more, are thus inadmissible.[5]


447 N.W.2d, at 428.

It may well have been the case that whatever DNA lab had received Jared’s sweatshirt for testing might also have screwed up the testing procedure. But, again, that’s not the point here. Perhaps a DNA test (along with a DNA swab from Heinrich or a sample of Heinrich’s hair, which LE should have obtained in January 1989) would at least have pointed LE more at Heinrich as Jared’s abductor than the evidence that already existed in Jared’s case, even if the DNA test might have been challenged later at Heinrich’s trial. Having those DNA test results in the winter or spring of 1989 might haveprompted LE to question Heinrich or even to arrest him for Jared’s abduction-inthe winter or spring of 1989 instead of in 1990. A search warrant of Heinrich’s car and premises at that time may even have turned up evidence that wasn’tthere when Heinrich’s father’s residence was searched in 1990 (such as Jared’s jeans and/or underwear?). Thus, shouldn’t LE have weighed the “positives” that could have resulted from a possible DNA test of Jared’s sweatshirt against whatever “negatives” existed?? (I can’t really think of any negatives to a DNA test except, perhaps, the cost of having a lab conduct the test. If that’s the case (and please remember I’m saying “If,” since I don’t know for sure), shouldn’t LE be admitting – or, at least, telling Jared and his family – that “cost considerations”were the reasons Jared’s sweatshirt was not submitted for DNA testing in 1989???)

 

[human]

I don't know. What does this mean?

The first DNA-based conviction in the United States occurred shortly after in 1987 when the Circuit Court in Orange County, Florida, convicted Tommy Lee Andrews of rape after DNA tests matched his DNA from a blood sample with that of semen traces found in a rape victim.1 The first state high court to rule in favor of admitting DNA evidence came two years later in West Virginia.2

 

[human]

There are a lot of discussions re,the type of testing that could be done. Could what they had on the sweatshirt been tested at the time with the tests that were available at the time? Was it tested?

 

[kemo]

I'm a little confused by all of this.

In 1989 I thought it was routine to take a "swab" of biological fluids in all rape cases and save them for future comparisons. Forensic DNA technology was a available but there was no data bases available for comparison and the sequencing was very expensive so they would probably not do it unless it was considered warranted. Is it possible that because Jared was a boy, there was no swab? At that time, it was probably considered a "minor" child molestation case, at least in Stearns County.

DNA that came from sources other than biological fluids has always been a lot more difficult to collect and sequence and its use in court has only recently been accepted. It may be perfectly reasonable that testing Jared's cloths didn't happen until fairly recently.

This all raises the question of the exact sequence of events that led to Heinrich's arrest.
I thought he had been arrested in a child *advertiser censored* case that was unrelated to the Jared or Jacob investigation. This led to the collection oh his DNA. According to the podcast, a search warrant was served pertaining to Jacob's case and the child *advertiser censored* was found. There was the implication that the basis for the search warrant was the "match" between Heinrich's DNA and the sample from Jared's shirt. This would mean they had Heinrich's DNA all along. (How did they get it?). It also suggests that it was the publicity about the Paynesville cases that prompted the FBI to "reopen" the investigation. (Or was this just a "coincidence") What is the story here?

 

[human]

Way back at some point they took a hair sample from him. My memory on this is faint. Was it when he was first arrested?

 

[human]

Here is my take on it. Eloc found some notes that a PI had taken years ago about Duane Hart. Hart thought it was Heinrich that took Jacob.

Eloc gave the notes to an FBI guy-- forget his name. He found them interesting. Then what? Hope Eloc will fill in the blanks.

 

[cGorg]

I'm a little confused by all of this.

In 1989 I thought it was routine to take a "swab" of biological fluids in all rape cases and save them for future comparisons. Forensic DNA technology was a available but there was no data bases available for comparison and the sequencing was very expensive so they would probably not do it unless it was considered warranted. Is it possible that because Jared was a boy, there was no swab? At that time, it was probably considered a "minor" child molestation case, at least in Stearns County.

DNA that came from sources other than biological fluids has always been a lot more difficult to collect and sequence and its use in court has only recently been accepted. It may be perfectly reasonable that testing Jared's cloths didn't happen until fairly recently.

This all raises the question of the exact sequence of events that led to Heinrich's arrest.
I thought he had been arrested in a child *advertiser censored* case that was unrelated to the Jared or Jacob investigation. This led to the collection oh his DNA. According to the podcast, a search warrant was served pertaining to Jacob's case and the child *advertiser censored* was found. There was the implication that the basis for the search warrant was the "match" between Heinrich's DNA and the sample from Jared's shirt. This would mean they had Heinrich's DNA all along. (How did they get it?). It also suggests that it was the publicity about the Paynesville cases that prompted the FBI to "reopen" the investigation. (Or was this just a "coincidence") What is the story here?

A most excellent post......

 

[cGorg]

It doesn't matter anymore....the details of the case. That is to say..... that.....Jacob Erwin Wetterling died October 22, 1989. And so respectfully and most honorably so....it is time to let him go.

 

[human]

It doesn't matter anymore....the details of the case. That is to say..... that.....Jacob Erwin Wetterling died October 22, 1989. And so respectfully and most honorably so....it is time to let him go.

He physically died but his spirit lives on. Now there are the 11 positive traits to strive for. There is other work to be done .

For 27 years some of us have prayed, cried, hoped, searched for Jacob.

I want to know things about this situation that impacted so many lives tremendously. From the outpouring of so many intense comments on different websites, it is amazing how many of us were intensely affected.

Forget. No never

 

[ELOCsoul]

What information do you have that Jared's sweatshirt and other clothing were "routinely submitted to testing until technology caught up with it"? I thought that Jared's sweatshirt sat on a shelf in the SCSO's and/or BCA's office until it was subjected to DNA testing in 2012. ELOCsoul, can you help out with this?

The language in Shane Ball's court filing says that LE FINALLY were able to get DNA from Jared's clothing in 2012. That's significant because it shows there was still belief by at least one investigative agency that the cases were linked. Remember that Sanner had broken that link in naming DR a suspect in 2010. He actually broke that link in 2004.

 

[tgemelke]

The language in Shane Ball's court filing says that LE FINALLY were able to get DNA from Jared's clothing in 2012. That's significant because it shows there was still belief by at least one investigative agency that the cases were linked. Remember that Sanner had broken that link in naming DR a suspect in 2010. He actually broke that link in 2004.

I will never understand why that link was broken. From the very beginning, I always thought Jared's case was the best lead for the Wetterling case. Sanner did an interview for KARE 11 back in 2004, and while he said he could not rule out a connection between the two cases, he seemed to view a connection as a possibility rather than a probability. If you ask me, moving away from the Jared connection and subscribing to the "on foot" theory was the biggest misstep in the investigation and delayed its resolution by several years.

The FBI pursued the Jared connection heavily in 1989-1990 and even arrested Heinrich for assaulting Jared in 1990. FBI agent Al Garber said the Stearns County Sheriff's Dept. was very upset that the FBI arrested Heinrich when they did. The infighting between the various investigative agencies was another intriguing subplot to this case, and also another reason why it took so long to solve.