Hikers Missing In Joshua Tree Park Amid Soaring Temperatures

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by mondayafternoons

Well... I talked to my daughter in depth about this, wanting to hear her thoughts because she's around the same age as the couple who died in the murder suicide hiking trip. I had kind of at face value went with he polices conclusion but my daughter brought up some really thought provoking questions-- why would he bring a gun on a birthday hike- it's not like they were going to be camping out there, it was a half day hike... I know police said probably for protection just in case--

Also the body language in death-- the sympathetic bandaging of her head wound ( and btw question of did she really fall and hit her head? She did receive the head injury while it was just the two of them and shortly before he shot her/ them) the sympathetic posturing of draping a shirt over for shade and embracing--im not a psychologist but he didn't hate her-- he loved her so much he had trouble letting go, although he went along with being her friend--

It also has bothered me since I learned she previously invited a new crush along butbwhen he couldn't go she asked Joseph-- if he was aware of that, well... that's pretty damm hurtful and rejecting, like a consolation prize?

The combination of the fact he was asked by her because the guy she really wanted to couldn't go, thatbhe brought a gun along, that sometime during the hike she received a head injury, and also my daughter felt really strongly and I don't know why this didn't occur to my brain before but giving up on life after less than one day? Yes I know the heat and all of that was very harsh... yet other cases of lost hikers seem like even older adults don't just give up and off hemselves after that short a time.. the French hikers who got lost, the mom and dad both collapsed and died - before they ever gave up.. and the ER doctor I don't recall how long she was lost but she didn't just instantly kill herself- well she didn't kill herself at all. It sounded like the girls aunt talked about how she had a lot of exciting plans for her life- doesn't seem like the type who would say okay just kill me after less than one day out there... but like we all know, the only two who know are dead so...

I didn't know there was a conclusive statement that they were out there less than a day. When do they figure the shooting occurred? I did read somewhere, in investigating the case, that authorities experienced in lost hiker cases in the area said that typically, people will last out the night. They wait until nightfall, when it's cooler, hoping to be found the next day. If they'd done that, it's possible they'd have been found. They'd have heard a helicopter flying around, might have heard a search party shouting for them.

And I still don't believe they could have accidentally gone so far off the trail into that area of big boulders that were difficult to navigate, where there's clearly no trail, no man-made cairns marking a trail, nothing. When you see that type of terrain, it should be clear to you that the way back is not in that direction.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by Sundaydrive00

Pretty much everything. It explains where all these random ideas are coming from, since they're not getting it from the case details. Saying that he was obsessed with his ex, plotted to kill her for years, was scoping out Joshua Tree for months... that's all stuff I would expect from those "true crime" dramas.



No it's not. I can see where you might think that if you are watching crime stories all day, everyday. But for those of us who get out and actually see the world, it's not an evil place. Are there bad people? Yes, but certainly not the majority of people.

If you follow true crime stories, you understand true crime better.

I'm really fascinated by missing persons stories, and like others who follow missing persons stories, I'm really good at guessing early on exactly what happened. Because crimes follow patterns.

So early on, when it came to light they had been in a relationship prior, I believed (as others did) that he intended to take her out there and harm her. And looky there. Sure enough. She was shot to death. At that point, sorry, I'm struggling with the mercy killing since I've already guessed the most likely thing is he intended to harm her in the first place.

As others who follow missing cases, we are nearly always right in our assessments, causing friends to say wow how did you guess that? Because you just plug things into a formula.

And this formula said they were on a fun hike together and got lost, OR he took her out there to kill her. Don't know fully which is which.

Had they been found deceased from dehydration, and it seemed they weren't good orienteers, I'd switch to it's likely he didn't intend to harm her. (When you find out that he had scouted the trail a few weeks prior . . . um . . )

But yeah.

[Sundaydrive00]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

If you follow true crime stories, you understand true crime better.

Not everything in life is a "true crime" story. And no, watching true crime stories does not make you better than the investigators of this case, who have said it was a mercy killing.

When you find out that he had scouted the trail a few weeks prior . . . um . . )

Everyone keeps claiming this is proof he murdered her, but no one is able to provide a link to the source of this information.

[mondayafternoons]

Clara c,

Initially I jumped on the bandwagon taking at face value what was touted in the media from the police investigation. Yesterday me and my dd ( same age as the hikers)had a day to hang out together and I was really curious to see what she thought re the case. She took a course last year that was just something she wanted to take for her own interest-- it was taught at a UC school through their extension program. It was taught by a county coroner and she found it fascinating-- it was taught with the objective being mainly how coroners come to certain conclusions- "the body speaks to you"... coupled in with forensic psychology. One thing among many the instructor touched on was about certain psychological aspects they look at in questionable deaths such as a murder or murder suicide..

One of her first thoughts was about the sympathetic posturing in the hikers death-- and how in her course the instructor touched on how she recalled him talking some about the psychology behind that-- for example someone who kills a person they love/loved, may still feel a lot of love and tenderness towards the person they killed- and so will also feel sorrow/ guilt and therefore the sympathetic type of tending to gestures/ posturing. Okay I hope I won't get mocked for this because I understand this was a movie I'm going to reference here and it was a fictional movie, but in the Hitchcock movie Psycho, after Bates killed his mother he kept her body there, placed in bed and would "tend" to her out of those feelings albeit sick, of attachment and love. Yes-- I know it was a movie and that he was "psycho" however the psychology behind it is real.

The other thoughts like I posted above my dd had right off the bat was "wait, mom-- why did he bring a gun on a birthday hike? They weren't planning on camping there.." She found the assumption he brought it for protection just in case not to gel- even more so because he was an ex and not only was he an ex, he was an ex who wanted to be back together with her and was invited after the guy she wanted to go with couldn't go.

Also felt it didn't gel that a young woman who seemed to be excited about her plans for her life would want to be shot rather than like other hikers in that situation fighting to make it-- if I'm not mistaken I recalled reading the investigation showed they were only out there 7-8 hours when he shot them.? Oh yea- and she also somehow ended up with a head injury after embarking with him..one of those factors, two of them maybe but all those together seem to paint a picture that's not an innocent case of them getting lost.

[Suburban_Guy]

Good analysis mondayafternoons.

Indeed, taken together, the circumstantial evidence just doesn't add up to an 'innocent' mercy killing/suicide.

The posing in an embrace as well as the other posing is very much something that has a sinister tone to it. And the head injury is highly suspicious as well.

But don't worry, we have a few determined posters on this thread that seems to chime in right on cue every time someone dare suggest it was a spurned ex killing the ex then killing themselves.

[Sundaydrive00]

Originally Posted by mondayafternoons

The other thoughts like I posted above my dd had right off the bat was "wait, mom-- why did he bring a gun on a birthday hike? They weren't planning on camping there.." She found the assumption he brought it for protection just in case not to gel

I'm not sure what camping has to do with a gun. Plenty of people take a gun hiking with them as protection against predators. Something like a rattlesnake is not going to leave you alone because you're on a "birthday hike".

if I'm not mistaken I recalled reading the investigation showed they were only out there 7-8 hours when he shot them.?

You are mistaken. Their bodies were out there for 3 months. Its doubtful that they would be able to get a time of death, especially not one that accurate. The only thing we know in regards to time is that his phone ping was 9 hours after they arrived at the park. Who knows what the extent of her head injury was. It was bad enough that she had to wrap a shirt around her head. Combine that with the heat, and rationing of the food and water, she could have deteriorated pretty quickly. Maybe they lasted the night... Maybe a few days. We don't know.

It seems like you gave your daughter a lot of misinformation in regards to this case. Its not really a surprise that she came to the conclusion that she did.

[Sundaydrive00]

Originally Posted by Suburban_Guy

The posing in an embrace as well as the other posing is very much something that has a sinister tone to it

Hugging is now considered a sinister act?!

Again, I just feel sorry for those who see evil in everything.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Sundaydrive00

I'm not sure what camping has to do with a gun. Plenty of people take a gun hiking with them as protection against predators. Something like a rattlesnake is not going to leave you alone because you're on a "birthday hike".
.

Actually, yes they will. Pit vipers, and snakes in general, aren't aggressive toward humans at all. Unless you mess with it, you're going to be left alone.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Actually, yes they will. Pit vipers, and snakes in general, aren't aggressive toward humans at all. Unless you mess with it, you're going to be left alone.

There is zero chance of protecting yourself by shooting a rattlesnake. More likely you will get hit by a ricochet when shooting right at the ground like an idiot. Now a walking stick - that is useful against snakes.

Guns are pretty much useful for humans, other animals, not so much, especially handguns.

[Sundaydrive00]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Actually, yes they will. Pit vipers, and snakes in general, aren't aggressive toward humans at all. Unless you mess with it, you're going to be left alone.

That was just one example. Obviously rattle snakes are not the only danger when hiking in the desert.