Young Hikers Missing in Joshua Tree Since Thursday [7/27/17]

[Sean]

However, I don't think it's disrespectful or outrageous to suggest a crime may be the explanation. It may actually be more logical.

How would you like it if, without any evidence whatsoever, people started arbitrarily suggesting that you (or your son) were a murderer? In practically every post you make now you suggest that Orbeso might have killed Nguyen, when all evidence points to a nice young man with no criminal history who tried to do something special for his friend's birthday.

I also dismiss as arbitrary the insulting speculations that they were on drugs or faked their disappearance.

And I think it is highly unlikely that they were kidnapped (though I don't consider that general notion to be disrespectful). Orbeso's phone pinged a tower from inside the park at 4pm the day of their hike, which suggests they were still moving but probably lost, and somehow they picked up a cell signal without realizing it or using it to their advantage. Assuming they made it back to civilization and then got kidnapped also assumes that the first person they contacted was a ruthless villain prowling for random kidnapping opportunities. Ridiculous.

[RichardK]

It seems doubtful to me that two people would both have succumbed to heat and/or accident in that period of time.

Recall the French couple who died in White Sands two years ago. Both husband and wife died concurrently in the same afternoon. Both of our hikers are about the same age, same build, and likely ate and drank about the same amounts. Why wouldn't heat and dehydration hit both more or less equally? By the way, if the case were actually murder-suicide, the bodies are still out there because the car was still at the trail head. Lost or murdered, SAR couldn't find them. SAR couldn't find Bill Ewasko either and neither could OtherHand, Adam Marsland, and a bunch of other searchers. After 7 years of looking, everyone has given up. JT can swallow people.

[Ed]

Richard,

I could point out that Nguyen and Orbeso were considerably younger, probably more accustomed to heat, not in a soft-sand environment, etc. But there is no point to it. There is no single piece of evidence that is conclusive, in any direction. You object to even considering the possibility that there is a dark side to this. But I believe you have also suggested that there will be a thorough investigation by the authorities of possible criminal behavior. Unfortunately, without the bodies it is very unlikely to be conclusive.

[cynthia23]

It's not correct there's 'no evidence' there was foul play. Of course there is--an extensive and lengthy SAR search has been unable to find two bodies. This statistically strange anomaly can't be ignored. Crime is one possible explanation, brought up by many others, not just me. I don't understand why discussing all of these possibilities would offend anyone here. I in no way rule out a 'natural' explanation for the missing bodies. And if, God forbid, a family member went missing in this bizarre way, I would want clarity above all.

[Wildhorse]

I think of the Maze area trails as sometimes hard to follow, while the terrain itself is easy to navigate and not very dangerous. I can see how one could be confused there, but I think it would be hard to avoid being found dead or alive there by a huge SAR effort. Wonderland of Rocks is a totally different thing. Lots of hidden places there. Same at Munsen Canyon. SAR would be much more difficult.

[Sean]

This statistically strange anomaly can't be ignored.

A raw stat does not constitute actual evidence. 84% of the world's population is religious. That doesn't mean there is evidence that I am religious. I am not.

Besides, you are not even basing your speculations on stats. Ask yourself: what percentage of JTree visitors fall victim to violent crime? And what percentage are kidnapped or murdered?

Or even: what percentage of people not found by SAR were later determined to be victims of foul play?

You have no stats. Only feelings.

Crime is one possible explanation, brought up by many others, not just me.

Also not evidence of foul play. And certainly not evidence of a specific type of foul play, like murder. Okay so you're not alone in your speculations. Does that make it evidence? Does that make it respectful to the parties involved?

You say "of course there is evidence of foul play." But I don't see any. And apparently the many government agencies working on this case don't see any. So, if it's so obvious, where is it?

[Ed]

Sean,

You use the word 'evidence' as though it meant 'proof'. They are not the same thing. I would be very surprised if there is no law-enforcement investigation, which indicates they see 'evidence' but not 'proof' of a possible crime. That is why you have investigations. But, as I have said before, it is likely to be inconclusive if the bodies are not found.

[Sean]

Sean,

You use the word 'evidence' as though it meant 'proof'.

Yes. They are synonymous words. Shall I quote from a dictionary? Proof is evidence of a particular conclusion. There is direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. I don't believe you or Cynthia have either kind to support your speculation of foul play. Circumstantial evidence might be a criminal record, a history of domestic violence, known criminals seen in the area, blood spatter or drag marks left by the car, etc.

Do you have anything like this?

[Ed]

Yes. They are synonymous words. Shall I quote from a dictionary? Proof is evidence of a particular conclusion.

There are other definitions, which equate proof, but not evidence, with a high degree of certainty. I think that is the normal way the words are employed.

I have a simple question for you, Sean. And for RichardK. If you were law enforcement, knowing what you know now and nothing else, would you begin an investigation?

[Sean]

If you were law enforcement, knowing what you know now and nothing else, would you begin an investigation?

A criminal investigation? No. But I would have begun a missing persons investigation the moment these two were reported missing from their motel room. And that is exactly what was done in this case by the real investigators. They investigated the couple's whereabouts, found evidence that they went missing in JTree. Then they found evidence that the couple got lost in the park during a hike. They found no evidence of foul play. So what crime should they investigate, and based on what evidence?

SAR usually finds people. Okay. But sometimes they don't. Based on this fact, how should investigators proceed? By assuming a kidnapping and pursuing search warrants or surveillance for every known kidnapper in a hundred-mile radius? Or by putting that available energy into a more sophisticated approach to finding their bodies within the Park? Investigators must follow the evidence. If there was any evidence that these two left the Park, then I'm sure the investigation would focus elsewhere.