Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even assuming it was a murder suicide to end their suffering, he still could have killed her whether or not she agreed to the pact. Especially if she was injured and unable to fight him. Even her own family seems to assume she went along with the pact and they mutually agreed to end their suffering (her uncle has said “they” wanted to end their suffering). It’s probably easier to think this way, without evidence supporting either way I’d probably want to think that also if I were them. But maybe it wasn’t a mutual decision. Maybe he made the decision for them. Maybe he asked her and she said no and he did it anyway, or maybe he never asked her at all. Clearly, they weren’t going to be found in time, because it took 11 weeks to find their bodies. If she was injured and unable to really move or care for herself, and considering they had no water left, it was probably unlikely they would’ve been able to keep walking and trying to get help. Maybe he just made the decision himself, and she was clinging to hope. In the end, the result would have been the same but I’d at least hope someone wouldn’t kill me in that scenario without me agreeing to it.
We can't assume that. If they'd survived to the next morning, through the cool of the night, they could have heard the search helicopter flying around. They might have heard S & R personnel shouting their names. At last one of them could have staggered out from under the tree, and tried to wave, or stumble back toward the trail, in an attempt to be seen, or to shout out.
It's clear with that article recently linked, that search personnel had been told Orbeso had gone out to the park area to check out the trail with a friend, because the search authorities believed that statement from one of his family members enough to want to follow up with the friend. The earliest report of that said the friend wasn't reachable, being out of the country, but obviously, they kept trying to reach him, and succeeded.
I'm sure Orbeso's family never imagined that he was only going out there to scope out eateries, and not the trail. They clearly believed him, when he told them he was going to check out the park or trail, and conveyed that to search coordinators, who felt it to be important enough that they might get a lead to where the two might be found, by contacting the friend. It's also clear that when he returned from this so-called reconnaissance, he never told the family member he'd spoken to about it, that he did not, in fact, go to the park.
For that matter, it seems strange that he bothered to drive all the way out there, only to cruise through the nearest town to look at restaurants, after telling a family member he was going to look at the trail. Unless he went out there at the wrong time of day, too hot to get out of the car and walk around, it's just one more thing about the story that raises more questions than it answers.
Do they know or think they know when they died? Like, do they think it was the day they went missing, or maybe a few days later? That would make a difference to me to determine whether the official story is what truly happened. I've tried to look it up but a recent NYT article says determining exact day of death has, understandably, been difficult. So are investigators working with some specific timeline they think is correct? Depending on the areas the search parties were in during those initial crucial days, that could be telling because if they were in the area the bodies were found calling their names and flying helicopters, and got no response, that would indicate they were already dead, so soon after they went missing.
If he killed her then himself the day they went missing or the next, I would find that odd. If they think it had been days and days, maybe longer, I would find the compassionate mercy killing theory more plausible, especially given her apparent injury. But if just a couple days, I'm not sure. People have a will to live. You can live days without water and even longer without food. People in their type of scenario usually die from exposure to the elements or of dehydration or starvation. Most people who are missing, lost in some national or state park or anywhere else in the middle of nowhere, then found dead usually haven't committed suicide. So I think that's strange if he did it soon after they got lost. That's more suspicious to me.
In reality, no one will ever know the truth, and I think both theories here - that he planned it and killed her intentionally, or that it was a mercy killing - are plausible. It's impossible to say that either theory isn't what happened at this point, and probably always will be.
I think the family is choosing the believe the nicer possible version of events, however. And I can't blame them for that. Even if he did intentionally kill her in cold blood or whatever people are speculating... it kind of doesn't matter. They're both dead. He can't be prosecuted, and HIS family has been through enough as well. At this point, whatever the truth is, the story that's out there is the better one.
And if he DID decide to kill her to put her out of her misery, then himself, without her approval... that wasn't for him to decide... still murder unless she agreed. But again, as the family who do you get mad at? Like I said, I get why they're adhering to the version of events they are. It sounds the nicest, and they need that.
Do they know or think they know when they died? Like, do they think it was the day they went missing, or maybe a few days later? That would make a difference to me to determine whether the official story is what truly happened. I've tried to look it up but a recent NYT article says determining exact day of death has, understandably, been difficult. So are investigators working with some specific timeline they think is correct? Depending on the areas the search parties were in during those initial crucial days, that could be telling because if they were in the area the bodies were found calling their names and flying helicopters, and got no response, that would indicate they were already dead, so soon after they went missing.
If he killed her then himself the day they went missing or the next, I would find that odd. If they think it had been days and days, maybe longer, I would find the compassionate mercy killing theory more plausible, especially given her apparent injury. But if just a couple days, I'm not sure. People have a will to live. You can live days without water and even longer without food. People in their type of scenario usually die from exposure to the elements or of dehydration or starvation. Most people who are missing, lost in some national or state park or anywhere else in the middle of nowhere, then found dead usually haven't committed suicide. So I think that's strange if he did it soon after they got lost. That's more suspicious to me.
In reality, no one will ever know the truth, and I think both theories here - that he planned it and killed her intentionally, or that it was a mercy killing - are plausible. It's impossible to say that either theory isn't what happened at this point, and probably always will be.
I think the family is choosing the believe the nicer possible version of events, however. And I can't blame them for that. Even if he did intentionally kill her in cold blood or whatever people are speculating... it kind of doesn't matter. They're both dead. He can't be prosecuted, and HIS family has been through enough as well. At this point, whatever the truth is, the story that's out there is the better one.
And if he DID decide to kill her to put her out of her misery, then himself, without her approval... that wasn't for him to decide... still murder unless she agreed. But again, as the family who do you get mad at? Like I said, I get why they're adhering to the version of events they are. It sounds the nicest, and they need that.
I agree in their shock and grief it's just easier to accept the story they're handed. Especially like you said, who would be prosecuted? So, it's understandable they would numbly just accept or go along with the official story rather than putting themselves through the heartbreaking task of trying to probe beneath the surface
being out there two weeks prior does raise questions. otherwise the police investigators wouldn't have tried to ask the friend about their prior visit.
They only asked because they thought it might help narrow down the search area if he had mentioned where they were planning to hike, or if they had hiked any trails a few weeks prior. It wasn't because it raised any concerns that he had previously been in the area.
Quote:
also, i find it weird (just weird. not saying it makes him a murderer.) that joseph went on a 2 1/2 hour drive there and possibly a longer drive back home (i went to joshua tree earlier this year, it took us 4 hours to get home because of traffic. traffic is frequently crazy coming back to orange county from that direction. ask anyone who lives around here. i live right near westminster, if we left at the same time to go to joshua tree and/or go back home, we'd get there at the same time.) just to drive around 29 palms on highway 62 checking out restaurants and shops. there is not much out there. really, there is not much out there at all. checking yelp or just doing internet searches for restaurants and shops would make more sense. i'm not saying that makes him a murderer scoping out the area before committing the crime, but it does seem strange. but people do strange things. it is possible, of course, that these two guys went all the way out there just looking at restaurants and shops.
You've never taken a weekend trip anywhere? It's actually not that strange to do, a lot of people go out of town for a few days. I've even just taken day trips somewhere that was a few hours away, especially in the summer. But for a little bit of a longer trip, yeah I might stay an extra day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
I'm sure Orbeso's family never imagined that he was only going out there to scope out eateries, and not the trail. They clearly believed him, when he told them he was going to check out the park or trail, and conveyed that to search coordinators, who felt it to be important enough that they might get a lead to where the two might be found, by contacting the friend. It's also clear that when he returned from this so-called reconnaissance, he never told the family member he'd spoken to about it, that he did not, in fact, go to the park.
For that matter, it seems strange that he bothered to drive all the way out there, only to cruise through the nearest town to look at restaurants, after telling a family member he was going to look at the trail. Unless he went out there at the wrong time of day, too hot to get out of the car and walk around, it's just one more thing about the story that raises more questions than it answers.
Where are you getting your information from?? The only thing I've read is that his dad said he was in the area two weeks prior, but that he did not go hiking. Where are you getting that he told family members that he was hiking, and then lied to them?
And as I said before, going out of town for a few days is not a strange thing to do, plenty of people do it every weekend. It seems like some posters need to get out and travel more if they think going on a trip for a few days to eat at different restaurants and look at some shops raises a red flag.
I agree in their shock and grief it's just easier to accept the story they're handed. Especially like you said, who would be prosecuted? So, it's understandable they would numbly just accept or go along with the official story rather than putting themselves through the heartbreaking task of trying to probe beneath the surface
The police don't just make up stories to appease the grieving families. If they think he lured her out to the desert to murder her, that is what they would say. Otherwise, why not just say every murder/suicide was a mercy killing? It's not like there is ever anyone to prosecute in any of those cases.
The police don't just make up stories to appease the grieving families. If they think he lured her out to the desert to murder her, that is what they would say. Otherwise, why not just say every murder/suicide was a mercy killing? It's not like there is ever anyone to prosecute in any of those cases.
And as I said before, going out of town for a few days is not a strange thing to do, plenty of people do it every weekend. It seems like some posters need to get out and travel more if they think going on a trip for a few days to eat at different restaurants and look at some shops raises a red flag.
if i go hiking and end up dead in a remote area of the desert with the guy who killed me and who also kills himself, and it is found out that he went out there two weeks prior with a friend, yeah...i hope people will look into that.
you have absolutely no idea why the investigators wanted to speak to the friend in japan. but obviously they had questions. as they should. i have no idea what questions the investigators asked the friend. do you?
obviously there is nothing wrong with going out of town for a few days. more exaggerating...
two people are dead. you can't not look into his prior visit two weeks prior. if no one ended up dead, there would be no question about taking a weekend trip with a friend and then going out there again two weeks later with an ex girlfriend who is still a friend.
unless she ends up shot to death with that same exboyfriend guy who was there two weeks ago with a friend...
could be nothing. maybe the two friends were going to go hiking and it was just too hot so they decided to just eat and look around town. maybe joseph had no intention at all of murder. but we don't know!!! no one can get inside somebody else's head. we will never know really what happened. even if more evidence is uncovered, we will still not know for sure what happened out there.
i have said over and over in this thread that it could be an innocent mercy killing scenario, but obviously i do not know. i'm just speculating with all the information being put out there for the public.
edited: also, drugs were found in the airbnb with their belongings. drugs could definitely be a contributing factor to all of this. could be. not saying "is". could be. just sayin'...
Last edited by beachie123; 11-04-2017 at 08:43 PM..
you have absolutely no idea why the investigators wanted to speak to the friend in japan. but obviously they had questions. as they should. i have no idea what questions the investigators asked the friend. do you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
