by cynthia23 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 11:34 am
To be very plain and so there is no confusion as to what I mean, when I say 'staged disappearance' theory, what I mean is the THEORY that Orbeso murdered Nguyen, (because she'd broken up with him and was dating someone else) , committing the crime either somewhere in the Maze area or elsewhere in the park, hid her body in a deep crevice, and then staged it to look like they'd both perished on a hike near the Maze, while he slipped away, presumably into Joshua Tree. While this could be done and would explain problematic things (the oddity of both becoming incapacitated, the oddity of SAR being unable to find two bodies in a fairly limited area, and the peculiar drive up the week before to look at the town of Joshua Tree) the theory also has big problems.
Myth points out the obvious one--it's very difficult to disappear in modern day society. To do so requires a fair amount of money and a lot of smarts, and it's not clear that Orbeso had either. He was a young guy who still lived at home with his parents, went part time to Cal State Fullerton, worked as a security guard, and perhaps didn't even have his own car. Even had he been able to catch a bus to Palm Springs, unclear what he could do next without significant reserves of cash, which he'd need if the plan was to go to Mexico. Also, to be running around all day in JT in summer, killing people, concealing bodies, and then hiking out xc, would require a desert-hardened, physically very tough person, and no indication Orbeso was that either. Overall, really hard to see how he could carry off such a scheme, thus far successfully--although there is such a thing as dumb luck. But basically it seems to me if he'd done this, he'd have been caught by now. So--even if 'murder followed by staged disappearance plan' was in play, my inclination would be to argue it was basically a fantasy, and once reality set in (i.e. he'd committed the murder) he succumbed to despair, and walked off to his death.
But even this theory is seeming dubious to me. At a gut level, foul play theories are beginning to all seem too complicated to me, too artificial if you will. Human beings do have an innate need to explain away or look for patterns where there really aren't any--i.e. resist the notion of random bad events. In the absence of those facts, I think I'm leaning more toward the 'fallen into a crevice" notion that Myth suggested. I was reading yesterday about the JTNP father and son who got separated while hiking, and how four days later SAR found the dad--somehow, amazingly, still alive--wedged inside a crevice. Weird stuff happens. Once, while washing dishes--one of our safer activities, you'd think!--my slippery hands dropped a big chopping knife, and it just happens to fall into the garbage disposal, which I'd just turned on, and the garbage disposal forcefully shot the knife back out at me. It landed on the edge of the counter, with the very tip of the blade pushing directly into the skin of my abdomen. If I'd happened to be leaning forward a few inches more or the spin on the disposal been a little different, it would have come to rest somewhere inside my gut.
My point is, stuff happens. Add to that a few poor decisions--hiking in JT in summer, maybe while stoned--and it's quite believable some freakish event befell them. Granted-- I'm still troubled by the trip the week before to the town of Joshua Tree, the girl's six a.m. phone call to the new boyfriend, the location of the ping, and, of course, by the failure to find two people who should have been very findable. But in the absence of any startling new info, I think I'm more inclined now toward the natural-event explanation.
Whatever the explanation, I hope the authorities are vigorously seeking it. This silence troubles me--bureaucratic inertia could take over.
Q: How many therapists does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change ...