My take

Apr 26, 2013

Posted by joy.the.curious on Apr 26, 2013 in Jacob | 16 comments

Since 2010, I’ve spent a lot of time reviewing the details of Jacob’s abduction. I’ve also spent a fair amount of time talking to Dan Rassier, a “person of interest,” and the lead witness in this case.

Now, here’s my take.

It’s pretty simple, really. Either Dan Rassier is lying, or he’s telling the truth. There you have it.

Look at it this way. If Dan Rassier is lying, then law enforcement has done everything right. They’ve treated him like a suspect from the very beginning. They’ve questioned him, searched his car, searched his home and property, given him a lie detector test, hypnotized him, collected DNA, shook him down, shook his family down, confiscated his personal property, leaked his name to the press, exposed him to public scrutiny, threatened his career, and in general, made his life miserable… for the past 10 years in particular.

However, if he’s telling the truth, then what has law enforcement done with the eyewitness testimony he has given? He saw two cars that day. His theory is that whoever was driving the first car was also driving the second car. Dan says the driver of the first car was “driving like his life depended on it.” He came whipping down the long driveway, probably assuming it was a back “getaway” road, then had to do a quick u-turn and exit when he realized it was a dead end. It’s Dan’s assumption that the person driving that car had already planned an abduction earlier in the day, but something went wrong. They sped off, trying to make a quick getaway, but returned later… this time IN A DIFFERENT CAR… looking for another target. He parked halfway up Rassiers’ driveway so he couldn’t be seen from either the road or the house. He put Jacob in the car, then sped off, turning around and exiting the farmyard in the exact same way he had earlier in the day. Someone was peering out the car window in the passenger seat next to him. Dan assumes it was either a female accomplice or Jacob himself.

HOWEVER… Dan is willing to admit that he may be wrong about the person he saw staring out the window. He’s not sure if this is an image he got in his head while being hypnotized, or if it’s a real memory.

BUT… for the sake of argument, Dan is willing to dismiss his entire eyewitness account of the second car, if police were just willing to concentrate their efforts on finding the owner of the first car. It was broad daylight… he knows what he saw. It was a weird situation and very memorable. Who owned (or had access to) a car like that in 1989? It was someone who was a very good driver… it took some talent to whip a u-turn like that at such a high speed in a narrow space. And… is it possible that same person may have had access to a smaller dark car?

My thought process…

Assume for a moment that Dan DID take Jacob. The police dogs tracked Jacob’s scent to the middle of the driveway, but no further. If Dan had walked Jacob ANYWHERE onto his property… into the house, into an outbuilding, into an underground bunker… those dogs would have picked up the scent. (And really… how could a busy schoolteacher who teaches music lessons on the side and belongs to a weekend polka band find the time to build an underground bunker?)

Next… assume Dan was the one who put Jacob into a car and drove off with him somewhere. Maybe he exited his property from the back somehow. Maybe he drove out of the driveway with his lights off. Regardless… how did he get back in time, undetected, to make a 911 call from his house? Remember, he was SEEN by Sheriff’s Deputy Bruce Bechtold later that evening.

Next… assume Dan wasn’t involved directly in Jacob’s abduction, but was some sort of accomplice. Why would he agree to help kidnap a child on his own property? Why would he want to call that kind of negative attention to himself and his family?

Finally… assume Dan is smarter than the average bear and came up with a plan so ingenious we can’t even imagine it. He was questioned the morning after the abduction. He took a lie detector test six days later. He agreed to be HYPNOTIZED a few weeks after that. He submitted DNA. He has never hired a lawyer. And he agreed to tell his story and answer questions on my blog, knowing full well that every word he says is probably being scrutinized and dissected by law enforcement. I’m no psychology major, but to me, these are either the actions of someone who is pathologically overconfident… or just plain innocent.

Simple logic.

So, why won’t police clear him? They’ve cleared a bazillion other people in this case… why not Dan Rassier?

I think it’s because he continues to confound them. He’s introverted, focused, driven. A self-professed pack rat. A little quirky. Single. And… his own worst enemy when it comes to sharing his thoughts about this case. In fact, he’s sure that’s why his family’s farm was searched in 2010.

2010 search of Rassier property. Photo credit: Stearns County Sheriff’s Department

What I have found is that Dan Rassier wants nothing more than for law enforcement to solve this 23 year old mystery. However, he feels he has given them valuable leads that have never been taken seriously. And he has lost faith that they will ever be the ones to solve it.

If law enforcement has chosen to believe that Dan Rassier is lying, then I guess I will take the position that he’s telling the truth.

So, if you’re with me, let’s re-focus our efforts on a late 70s, amber-colored Monte Carlo-type sedan (with or without a white vinyl top), owned by a skilled driver who was capable of performing stunt-like u-turns at a high rate of speed.

That’s my take.

Next time

More answers to your comments, plus an analysis of a 1995 report from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that examines the motivations, personalities, and lifestyles of pedophiles who abduct children

16 Comments

Patrick | April 27, 2013 at 12:24 am
I’m with you! I’ve said for as long as you’ve been writing Dan had nothing to do with this and I’m glad your on board!
Lotus | April 27, 2013 at 11:57 am
My theory is (if indeed the monte carlo belonged to the kidnapper) the kidnapper was at the St. Cloud hockey rink that day looking for a potential new victim and he saw Jacob and “took a liking to him” and decided to follow the Wetterling’s back to their home in his monte carlo. I’m guessing the kidnapper wanted to play it safe and put plenty of space between his car and the Wetterling’s car and once he saw that the Wetterling’s were turning their car down a dead end road he decided to duck into the Rassier driveway and wait. Once the kidnapper felt it was safe enough, he decided to drive down to the street that the Wetterling’s had turned onto to see which house they had parked their car in front of (it would be interesting to know at what time the Wetterling’s got home from the hockey rink and what time Dan saw the monte carlo turn around in his driveway. Maybe the timing syncs up? ) Also, about the dogs losing Jacob’s scent on the driveway. From what I understand the ground had been too dry for the dogs to follow Jacob’s scent any further.
ELOCsoul | April 27, 2013 at 12:46 pm
Very interesting theory Lotus. Would indeed be helpful knowing what time the Wetterlings arrived home from the rink, or any other time they had left the house that day.
ELOCsoul | April 27, 2013 at 1:28 pm
There are two key details about the abduction that I think are essential in determining whether Jacob was “targeted” specifically, and possibly eliminating (in my mind) Dan Rassier as a suspect.
1. We know there was the “threat” of a gun during Jacob’s abduction. However, I’ve read mixed information as to whether it was a rifle or a handgun. In fact, I’ve read an article quoting Patty that it was one or the other, and handgun or a rifle. But we all know now that reporters don’t always get the words right. Does Patty know for certain which type of gun was used? And, furthermore, were Trevor and Aaron sure it was a gun – or could it have simply been something “shiny” that looked like a gun?
2. There have been several versions told detailing how Jacob was “selected” by the kidnapper. A definite, specific step by step accounting of how he was chosen is the most critical factor in this case in my opinion. I believe it was Trevor that the abductor first asked for his age? Did he order Trevor to the woods immediately after learning his age?? Or, did the kidnapper release both Trevor and Aaron only after asking all the boys’ ages? Also, once the kidnapper knew Aaron’s age, did he only look at Aaron’s face? Or did he look at both Aaron and Jacob’s face? The order in which all of this happened, especially the specific points at which each boy was ordered to run to the woods, would be very telling as to whether Jacob was selected from among the 3 boys, or whether he had been targeted all along.
I know, I know – a lot of folks have said that if the abductor were after Jacob specifically, that he would have simply asked the boys their names. However, that would have been a sure tipoff to law enforcement that Jacob had been stalked and targeted. The abductor in that case would want to choose another method of identifying which of the boys was Jacob, a method that would be more difficult to interpret as a case of a targeted kidnapping. If the abductor eliminated Trevor based on age only, and if he didn’t look at Jacob’s face before releasing Aaron – that almost certainly suggests that Jacob was targeted specifically.
Another question, more out of curiosity – exactly what direction were Aaron and Trevor ordered to run?
Lotus | April 27, 2013 at 3:14 pm
I think the kidnapper knew that Jacob had to be 11-12 years old based on the fact that Jacob was at the ice rink trying out for the local Peewee league hockey team, (a level in minor ice hockey for ages 11-12). Trevor was skating at the rink too and I’m guessing the kidnapper figured that they were brothers and that Trevor was the younger of the two (that’s why the kidnapper asked Trevor his age first then let him go). I think the presence of Aaron that night confused the kidnapper because it was so dark out and they both answered that they were 11 years old, so the kidnapper had to hurry up and decide which one of the two was his intended “target”.
Camille Grace | April 27, 2013 at 5:02 pm
I seem to remember Jacob’s father saying that there were only a handful of spectators at the ice rink during the hockey try-outs that day. I wonder if anyone else who was there that day remembers who ELSE was there watching the try-outs? This would include parents of other children trying out, siblings, etc.
Nick | April 27, 2013 at 8:17 pm
I think a real key to the case is the assault on Jared that has such stong similarities to Jacob’s abduction. Have you considered interviewing him? If your theory is correct, the kidnapper would have had to have access not only to the 2 cars you mentioned but also to one described by Jared all within a 10 month time period, assuming it is the same perpetrator. This could narrow down the possibilities.
Wisdom | April 29, 2013 at 1:09 pm
I’m not saying I don’t believe the story of two cars turning around in his driveway but I seriously doubt the driver of the second car was the same as the first like he believes simply because it would be too risky for someone to see them up on the farm property while turning around even if it were dark outside and they would’ve picked up on that the first time. There still could be a second car but I’m guessing we are talking two different people then in my opinion.
odyssey1492 | April 30, 2013 at 8:13 am
This doesn’t make any sense. If the perp drove all the way up the driveway earlier in the day, he would know a house was at the end of the driveway. I doubt he would take the chance of driving all the way up the driveway to turn around after abducting Jacob. This perp was careful; the crime was executed in a very particular fashion. I have a hard time believing that after executing the crime the way he did the perp would then drive within the view of the Rassier home to turn around.
I think it is far more likely that Dan Rassier saw Kevin turning around in his driveway that night with Kevin’s girlfriend in the passenger seat. I know Kevin’s car was larger than what Dan described. But eyewitnesses make mistakes and remember things incorrectly. I have no difficulty believing that Dan remembers the car being smaller than it actually was.
Joy — why hasn’t Kevin’s girlfriend come forward to tell her story? It seems that she should do so. She may remember something that Kevin does not.
Patrick | April 30, 2013 at 8:04 pm
I don’t think Jacob was stalked because why would you ask for his age if you had been following him? As far as his dad’s feeling of insecurity, I don’t know how someone could stalk him at a hockey tryout. Jacob was a Goalie and Goalies are covered head to toe in equipment. At a hockey tryout in Minnesota, there would be 5 to 6 goalies, and I’m guessing you’d only be able to tell one from another based on number or equipment. You can’t see their face.
jewels | May 11, 2013 at 3:35 pm
Patrick is right,that all goalies and other players too, look alike on the ice. At hockey tryouts, there would be no numbers or team roster to identify kids. Team rosters and Jerseys are not issued until players makes the team. No way for a stalker to glean info like Jacob’s brother was skating that day too. All those kids are so well covered, it is near impossible to recognize a player off the ice, unless they have some really distinguishing feature, such as long bright red hair that sticks out of the helmet. I can believe dad had a premonition of sorts, but I am not convinced it is because the kidnapper was there singling out Jacob at tryouts.
I also don’t believe a kidnapper could have followed the Wetterlings home, down rural roads in a monte carlo, and not be noticed.
What could have possibly happened to cause the kidnapper to panic so much that he drove down Rassiers drive like his life depended on it, yet there were no reports made involving that car?
Rassier’s theory makes no sense to me, either.
I have been surprised reading the versions of the driveway not looking like a driveway, and having been used by lovers and partying teens. It seems contradictory to Rassier being alarmed enough to alert the police over a car turning around. His concern would have made more sense if it was the same car. Also puzzling that not a single one of those cars using the driveway, ever once unknowingly or out of curiosity ventured down the drive to the house and turned around. Not until October 22, 1989, when not one, not two, but THREE different cars did just that all on one day.
Also agree it seems silly that a kidnapper would need to flee for their life in the afternoon but come back late in the evening to sit and wait in case Jacob happened to walk by Rassiers driveway. Why would he risk driving all the way down to turn around by the house that he would KNOW was there AFTER he had Jacob in the car? Since no other cars drove down to the house, not even teens under the influence, we know there had to be plenty of room to turn around in the driveway.
Is it just me or does it seem an odd coincidence that Kevins car was similar in color and shape to the speeding car described by rassier? Not accusing Kevin of anything, but more thinking rassier saw kevin and has mixed the memories up in his mind.
joy.the.curious | May 12, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Dear jewels,
A few quick answers/corrections for you:
“I have been surprised reading the versions of the driveway not looking like a driveway, and having been used by lovers and partying teens. It seems contradictory to Rassier being alarmed enough to alert the police over a car turning around. His concern would have made more sense if it was the same car. Also puzzling that not a single one of those cars using the driveway, ever once unknowingly or out of curiosity ventured down the drive to the house and turned around. Not until October 22, 1989, when not one, not two, but THREE different cars did just that all on one day.”
Dan Rassier didn’t call 911 because of the car he saw turning around in his driveway; he called 911 after waking up to the dog barking and seeing that there were a bunch of people with flashlights down by his wood pile. And… you’re right… not one, not two, but THREE different cars came down his driveway all on one day. He’s the first to admit this is strange, and definitely not typical. (Of course he didn’t know about the third car – Kevin’s – because he didn’t see it, but for over 23 years, he’s been trying to convince police that the first car he witnessed during the afternoon – the tan/amber Monte Carlo – has to be significant to this case. He never mentioned it before this because he assumed it was a critical piece of eyewitness testimony that police could use to solve the case. But, he’s decided to go public with it now, figuring 23 years was plenty long enough for them to investigate it. Now, he’s just hoping the public can help instead.)
Believe me, after hearing about this first car, I too, was convinced it must have been Kevin driving it. It was one of the first questions I asked Kevin. I figured he had just been horsing around earlier in the day, trying to impress his girlfriend. But he told me no, it wasn’t him. He and his girlfriend weren’t even down there that day.
“Also agree it seems silly that a kidnapper would need to flee for their life in the afternoon but come back late in the evening to sit and wait in case Jacob happened to walk by Rassiers driveway.”
Agreed. I don’t think this is how it happened at all. I’m still convinced that whoever took Jacob saw those boys going **TO** the Tom Thumb (way down by Rassiers’ place), and waited for them to come back. I’m also convinced they had a car. To make Dan’s eyewitness testimonies jive with my theory, I think there was someone on foot somewhere between Wetterlings’ house and Rassiers’ driveway on the night Jacob was abducted. I think he overheard the boys’ plans to go to the Tom Thumb, then took action. He would have known he had about a half hour before they returned (10 minutes to get there, 10 minutes to pick out a movie, and 10 minutes to get back). He got into his small, dark, compact car, pulled into Rassiers’ driveway to turn around so he’d be facing the road in order to make a quick getaway (circling away from the yard light so he wouldn’t be seen), then stashed the car halfway up Rassiers’ driveway so it couldn’t be seen from the road. I don’t think he was worried about being seen, because I think this person knew the Rassiers were gone on a European vacation at the time. Maybe he found out from family, friends, neighbors, or even a blip in the church bulletin. Who knows? At any rate, the house would have been dark when he pulled into the driveway, since Dan had turned the light off when Smokey start to bark and he he heard a car pulling up the road/driveway.
The big question is… if Dan did indeed see someone staring out the window of the car, who could that person have been? Not Jacob, in my opinion. If my theory is correct, then Jacob had not been abducted yet. But, what it if WAS a woman? What kind of woman would be an accessory in a child abduction? Again, we have to assume that Dan’s memory is accurate here, which he admits may not be the case. He’s not sure if this vision of a woman/child staring out the passenger window is a result of being hypnotized, or if this is truly an accurate memory. The police are convinced the car he saw was Kevin’s, and the woman he saw staring out the passenger window was Kevin’s girlfriend. But, Dan is not convinced. The timing was wrong, and so was the size/shape/color of the car.
So, for the sake of argument, let’s roll with this for a moment.
I think most people have always assumed that Jacob was taken for sex or money. But, what if it really was a couple who took him? In that case, maybe the motive was different. Maybe they were trying to replace a child they had lost. Could that be possible?
In Elizabeth Smart’s case, she was taken by a couple – Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee. Brian David Mitchell was clearly a control freak with many screws loose. But, my question is, what kind of person was Wanda Barzee? What kind of woman agrees to be an accomplice in a child abduction?
In a 2009 article from CBS News, Smart said that within hours of the abduction, Mitchell took her as a polygamous wife and then raped her. Smart said Barzee washed the teen’s feet and dressed her in robes before the ceremony.
The article goes on to say that Wanda Barzee begged Elizabeth Smart to forgive her after 15 months of court-ordered treatments with anti-psychotic medications had restored her competency.
So, if Dan Rassier’s memory is correct and he did indeed see a woman peering out the passenger window of a small, dark, compact car… who was that woman? Who was that couple?
Is it possible we’ve all been barking up the wrong tree for over 23 years?
Mary Rosier | May 15, 2013 at 4:12 pm
I would like to know HOW MANY PEOPLE were in the Thom Thumb Store when Jacob and the boys were picking out their movie? Could there have been a young man (about 25 yrs old?) IN THE STORE that was with the OLD MAN who was sitting outside in the car or truck, staring into the store? This may have been a crime of “opportunity” rather than a “planned abduction”. If it was planned, perhaps the boys knew the abductor who made it a common habit of watching the kids practice all kinds of sports? He may even have chatted with them at the hockey rink…..”what are you kids going to do tonight?” They may have said they were having a sleep over and wanted to rent a movie. ???? Either way, we still need to find Jacob.
Matt Kowalski | November 4, 2015 at 1:11 am
I thought they found the owner and the driver and cleared them?
Matt Kowalski | November 4, 2015 at 1:18 am
What about the guy they found now this Danny character?
Bob Devine | September 5, 2016 at 12:51 pm
Now that Danny Heinrich has confessed enough to lead the police to location of Jacob’s body will you circle back to tie the different pieces of evidence together? Would you consider even trying to interview Mr Heinrich? This case does speak well for what seems to very poor handling of evidence. Not a great confidence builder for public/police relations. It would be a good step to see the law enforcement demonstate some humilty in this matter by offering a very public apology for how they treated Dan Rassier in this case. That too is part of the healing process that needs to happen if the police are serious about establishing strong support from the community. Building strong public support is certainly central to a healthy and thriving community.

My take

Next time

16 Comments

Discussion about this post