by Timothy Charles Holmseth on September 29, 2018 at 9:19 P.M. CST

Our belief that the item found at the first burial site on 08-31-16 was a 'shirt' involved confusion created by the inconsistencies between court transcripts from Daniel Heinrich's confession, and search warrant findings. The warrant says a red nylon jacket was found at the first burial site, but, Heinrich told the Judge he placed the jacket in a bag and moved it across the road.

It appears Heinrich mixed up the script he was supposed to follow.

You are now going to see in the court transcripts, that Daniel Heinrich began to describe to the Judge what is actually shown in the 08-31-16 crime scene photographs when he said he saw the jacket sticking out of the ground. That's exactly what the 08-31-16 photos show! SEE PHOTO BELOW

In his testimony, it appears Heinrich was describing the scene as it was first planned to appear (jacket sticking out of the ground). In fact - search warrants for the August 31, 2016 search reveal a red nylon jacket was recovered at the site.

But - something apparently went awry and Heinrich had to change his story and say he moved the jacket to the second site (which is not what the photos show).

It will also be noted that Heinrich claimed he dug the hole for the burial in the 08-31-16 photos with a Bobcat. He said he returned a year later and he didn't have to dig because they had already resurfaced, which is not possible.

Also -there is no evidence of a skull.


THE DEFENDANT: I didn’t drive. I walked back again. I walked back. It was late at night again, probably around midnight, with a flashlight. I noticed — I shined the area and noticed that the grave was partially uncovered. You could see his red jacket.

MR. SCHLEICHER: Above the ground?

THE DEFENDANT: Above the ground.

MR. SCHLEICHER: Did you see anything else in the area that caught your attention that would have been by the grave site? Vegetation or —

THE DEFENDANT: Nothing, none at that time — well, yes, there was a tree growing in that — excuse me. There was a small tree growing in that area or a bush. I don’t know. A tree or a bush.

MR. SCHLEICHER: All right. Did that cause you concern, that you could see the jacket?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it did.

MR. SCHLEICHER: What did you do?

THE DEFENDANT: I, I, I can’t remember. I had a bag with me, a garbage bag. I placed as many – his jacket, his bones, his skull into that bag to move. I figure I’ve got to move it.

MR. SCHLEICHER: You had a shovel with you?

THE DEFENDANT: I had an army entrenching tool with me.

MR. SCHLEICHER: So you dug up as many of the remains as you could gather?

THE DEFENDANT: I never dug any. It was already that uncovered.


THE DEFENDANT: I never dug up anything. I gathered up as much as I could and put it into the bag and transported it across the highway there to his final resting spot.

MR. SCHLEICHER: All right. You walked over across the highway to a location of a rural farm in rural Paynesville, is that right?

THE DEFENDANT: That’s correct.

MR. SCHLEICHER: Fairly close to the original place where you had buried Jacob Wetterling the year before?

THE DEFENDANT: That’s correct.

MR. SCHLEICHER: What did you do when you transferred the remains to this farm property?

THE DEFENDANT: I found a spot. I dug a hole with the trenching tool about two feet deep. I took his jacket out of the bag. I can’t remember what other clothing. Just the jacket I remember, and I put the bones in that hole and then his jacket on top and covered it up and left.


This is a developing story and we will continue to examine the documents.

Go Back