Found Deceased MA - Michael Doherty, 20, Franklin, 14 May 2017

[Justmexyz]

I replied to your comments previously in the thread. Yes the parents are held responsible whether they are have knowledge or not. It occurred at their home.

 

[creepcrusher]

Parents and liability of underage drinking. This link provides information on the possible liabilities of the owners of the home where the party took place. https://www.cohenjaffe.com/resources/tips-parents-college-students-avoid-liability/

 

[msphilosopher]

I disagree that a prank means the person being pranked is a willing and knowing participant.

If you reread where I introduced the prank/dare scenario on this thread, it pretty much explains how it makes reasonable sense that Michael may have been pranked--with him not knowing this was going to happen. That's the definition of a prank--the person has no idea they are, for example:

Getting a ride home, but then finding out they were tossed out from the car on Maple Street to find their way back to the party house.

Think about it. Michael was very intelligent. Those who like to use the "simplest explanation is usually the explanation" as reasoning may need to look at the "simplest explanation" for why a very bright young man would end up, "fighting" (as reported) to get to that specific destination.

The easiest path from Maple Street is to cross the brook ONCE and then follow it to the party house.

As for the shoes--I read each post from start to finish on this thread. My very first post on this thread was to ask why there was much said (in comments here on this thread) about his "clean" shoe/s. I could not find any reports on this. I only found that one or more of the shoes (depending on reports) did not appear "washed up" (as I explained earlier in my comments).

Also to the person who said there is a way to see the "trail" via maps. There is no clear view of the "trail". Thank you for the link, but I had looked at these as well. The "depression" is assumed a trail, but there is no ground view of any path/trail.

I would suggest, for those who are truly interested, to wonder about those who know the grounds of Maplegate Country Club (golf course). There is a possibility that if Michael was pranked (dropped off and then either woke up there or was awake and told "just do it" find your way back), that the person(s) who drove him there had knowledge of the golf course layout (or a membership or guest privileges).

Edited to add:

The 1:08AM ping happened from Michael's phone but it has not, in any way, been conclusively determined exactly from where in the "marsh area" his ping precisely originated. It has only been determined to come from the "marsh area".

No where, in any report, is it positively determined and stated as fact that that 1:08AM ping came from the Oak Extension "trail entrance".

They took that 1:08AM ping location (from that "marsh area") and expanded out in a mile circle to search.

They assumed he went from Oak Extension in Franklin INTO Bellingham. The brook is between Franklin and Bellingham with the Bellingham side being the Maplegate Country Club golf course. They focused their search on the assumption Michael went into Bellingham.

Meanwhile, Michael is not there, apparently, and is near the party house in Franklin.

HRP - I bolded a statement in the quoted post above. I am aware a prank is NOT by choice in terms of getting pranked but it IS a choice to take the challenge to go back to the house party as bolded in your above statement.

My point was IF he was pranked, he didn't have to go back to the house party. If he got pranked and had any sense of where he was and according to your theory he did since he had the enough sense to go the right direction back towards the party. I'm saying choosing to go back to the house party as he found himself pranked in the woods was A CHOICE. He if had enough sense to go back the house party, he could have enough sense to say "screw it" and head the opposite direct towards his home.

IF he was pranked and had the right sense of direction to the house party, I don't think he would have gone back.... He wanted to leave at 12:30 AM. So even if he found himself pranked, I think he would have headed home IMO

-------
1:08 AM ping - The community tied a white ribbon to a tree near the entrance of the trial where they believe is NEAR where his phone was last pinged. But you're right not necessarily accurate as I did state in my post.<modsnip>

12:30 AM Text - This shows his intent to leave. Whether he got pranked after this time or not, he wanted to leave so it is my belief that even if he did get pranked, he would have gone home. Or at least be found closer to his home rather than the house party.

I have not eliminated the prank theory, I believe it's possible. I am simply stating the reasons IMO that go against the prank theory.

HRP - Do you think the kids would hide this information of a prank gone wrong?

 

[JuniorSleuthy]

HRP - I bolded a statement in the quoted post above. I am aware a prank is NOT by choice in terms of getting pranked but it IS a choice to take the challenge to go back to the house party as bolded in your above statement.

My point was IF he was pranked, he didn't have to go back to the house party. If he got pranked and had any sense of where he was and according to your theory he did since he had the enough sense to go the right direction back towards the party. I'm saying choosing to go back to the house party as he found himself pranked in the woods was A CHOICE. He if had enough sense to go back the house party, he could have enough sense to say "screw it" and head the opposite direct towards his home.

IF he was pranked and had the right sense of direction to the house party, I don't think he would have gone back.... He wanted to leave at 12:30 AM. So even if he found himself pranked, I think he would have headed home IMO

-------
1:08 AM ping - The community tied a white ribbon to a tree near the entrance of the trial where they believe is NEAR where his phone was last pinged. But you're right not necessarily accurate as I did state in my post.<modsnip>

12:30 AM Text - This shows his intent to leave. Whether he got pranked after this time or not, he wanted to leave so it is my belief that even if he did get pranked, he would have gone home. Or at least be found closer to his home rather than the house party.

I have not eliminated the prank theory, I believe it's possible. I am simply stating the reasons IMO that go against the prank theory.

HRP - Do you think the kids would hide this information of a prank gone wrong?

Yes, some kids would hide facts if he/they caused another person to die!

Did you not think that drugs Michael has never taken is involved in this situation? Judging from the type of person Michael appears to be, he would that have intentionally taken those drugs.

 

[msphilosopher]

Yes, some kids would hide facts if he/they caused another person to die!

Did you not think that drugs Michael has never taken is involved in this situation? Judging from the type of person Michael appears to be, he would that have intentionally taken those drugs.

You're implying the kids knew he was dead prior to the search.

What I'm saying is once they found out he didn't make it home, wouldn't they come forward and say that he was pranked? The first thought wouldn't be death but maybe injured or passed out from drinking?

 

[Jessicaleanne1992]

I haven't been able to check on this case for a few days. Have autopsy results been released or anything? Will they? Hopefully if drugs caused his demise they would be able to find out during his autopsy.

 

[JuniorSleuthy]

You're implying the kids knew he was dead prior to the search.

What I'm saying is once they found out he didn't make it home, wouldn't they come forward and say that he was pranked? The first thought wouldn't be death but maybe injured or passed out from drinking?

Imply -- "(of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence". It is possible....

No, they would not necessarily tell the truth if they caused his death.

 

[msphilosopher]

Imply -- "(of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence". It is possible....

No, they would not necessarily tell the truth if they caused his death.

They didn't know they caused his death if this was a genuine prank?

 

[Steleheart]

I haven't been able to check on this case for a few days. Have autopsy results been released or anything? Will they? Hopefully if drugs caused his demise they would be able to find out during his autopsy.

I have seen that tox results usually take 6- 8 weeks. And when "no foul play is suspected" we can expect a longer time frame and possibly never made public.+

JMO

 

[abricru]

Times are much different from back in the 70s. Parents were not as aware of the drugs as they are now. The laws for minors drinking and driving while drunk are much stricter. And parents serving minors or accidents occurring from drinking or drugs from a particular home or bar are held legally responsible. And kids are more educated about alcohol and drugs..and driving while intoxicated...why do you think ubers have become so popular? You cannot compare your experiences to now. And yes this family on Phyllis lane should be held responsible.

That's one thing I can certainly agree with. Nowadays people are so much more aware of the dangers of alcohol and drugs. When I was growing up, the drinking age was 18. I didn't want to say this in my comment, but drinking and driving was pretty much the norm with a lot of people (including me, sad to say.) Same goes for drugs.

One thing I can't explain is why he decided to take that way home in the first place. Maybe he was more intoxicated than his friends let on.

Also I wonder how long the poor boy stumbled around like that. I guess we have no way of knowing. Must stop dwelling on that thought. Too upsetting. I just feel so sorry for him

PS; I wonder how he got to the party? Did he walk, or ride with friends?

 

[abricru]

Yes, I don't even know why it's called "Impractical Jokers. It's more like America's Funniest Videos, but most of the time people end up getting hurt, and the stupid host and panel laugh their *advertiser censored**es off. EDIT: so sorry I was thinking of Ridiculousness.

 

[HRP]

HRP - I bolded a statement in the quoted post above. I am aware a prank is NOT by choice in terms of getting pranked but it IS a choice to take the challenge to go back to the house party as bolded in your above statement.

My point was IF he was pranked, he didn't have to go back to the house party. If he got pranked and had any sense of where he was and according to your theory he did since he had the enough sense to go the right direction back towards the party. I'm saying choosing to go back to the house party as he found himself pranked in the woods was A CHOICE. He if had enough sense to go back the house party, he could have enough sense to say "screw it" and head the opposite direct towards his home.

IF he was pranked and had the right sense of direction to the house party, I don't think he would have gone back.... He wanted to leave at 12:30 AM. So even if he found himself pranked, I think he would have headed home IMO

-------
1:08 AM ping - The community tied a white ribbon to a tree near the entrance of the trial where they believe is NEAR where his phone was last pinged. But you're right not necessarily accurate as I did state in my post.<modsnip>

12:30 AM Text - This shows his intent to leave. Whether he got pranked after this time or not, he wanted to leave so it is my belief that even if he did get pranked, he would have gone home. Or at least be found closer to his home rather than the house party.

I have not eliminated the prank theory, I believe it's possible. I am simply stating the reasons IMO that go against the prank theory.

HRP - Do you think the kids would hide this information of a prank gone wrong?

I don't think a young man who was pranked, a young man who is bright and, being an engineer student, would take the longest path back to safety in the dark, in a Nor'Easter storm, swamp, mud, marsh, snapping turtles, leeches, muskrats, slippery rocks, tangled mud weed, and green slime covered tree debris.

He'd take the shortest route back to safety and to the party house to clean up and maybe knock some heads around for being pranked. I say this too because, as I mentioned before in an earlier comment, perhaps the person(s) who pranked Michael had a good understanding of the layout of Maplegate Country Club's golf course. The tracking dogs tracked Michael's scent to Maple Street from the edge of Mine Brook. The area between Maple Street and Mine Brook is the golf course. Tracking dogs can track the scent of a person even if they are in a car being driven to a location. Perhaps Michael was driven into the golf course area and dropped off at the end of the course (which is near Mine Brook).

Now why would Michael, once realizing he had to cross a swamp (from the Bellingham side/Maplegate Country Club side) decide to trek it all the way to Catherine when he could cross over the brook and follow it (on the Franklin side of the brook) and get cleaned up (and some aid from cuts, etc) and some clean clothes to get home for Mother's Day celebration with some explanation why he was late home (and not looking like he was tossed into a swamp).

Think about it--he "played by the rules" as his 21-year-old friends said. His friend looked for him 8 times in the same location wondering why he wasn't there.

Michael may have tried from the marsh area to get ahold of his brothers early on into this "nightmare" (as one of his 21 year old friends called it) and that may have been the 1:08AM ping from the marsh area.

As for being pranked (and not wanting to upset my parents by my condition), and only speaking from my experience when I was pranked--I had gotten injured by this prank and I actually had my friends drive to a neighbor's house (who was a doctor) so he could patch me up so I'd be "presentable" to my parents who would have been upset for the situation I had been placed into.
---
As for the 1:08AM time of which you speak, I think you need to reread this comment (link below). You see, I was addressing another poster who brought up a reporter tweet error by the tweet stating a "fact" from a "belief" of the entrance point.

<modsnip>

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Franklin-14-May-2017&p=13403750#post13403750

Edited to answer your question: HRP - Do you think the kids would hide this information of a prank gone wrong?

Yes. It would also be why the phrase "no foul play" has been hammered, it appears, in every report---even from early on. A prank gone wrong, from what I have found (I gave an example in an earlier comment) seems to be stated as "no foul play".

If Michael was pranked it may even be buried. The thing is, if there is an understanding this was a botched up prank, legally what can be done by the State? It would be up to the parents, I would assume. Unless there is some pranking gone wrong law that was broken. It wasn't a hazing issue. I think it's up to Michael's parents to pursue legal retribution or some kind of justice. If they don't want to, then what can be done? Drinking underage may cause some issues because Michael was under age. If they find drugs in his system, then who put them there--they'd say he took them himself (which I do not believe he'd do).

The parents of the girl (who was pranked and drowned in a swamp) pursued wrongful death suits against the parents and the kids involved and it was settled out of court. I had a link to this but it was deleted by the mod, so I won't put it up again.

 

[MissSuzie]

Michael may have tried from the marsh area to get ahold of his brothers early on into this "nightmare" (as one of his 21 year old friends called it) and that may have been the 1:08AM ping from the marsh area.
.

Given the dearth of information (confirmed facts) that are known to the public in this case, I don't have an opinion on the 'prank' hypothesis, other than that it is well considered and that it seems as plausible as some other scenarios. However, the above part of it confused me. Many accounts have given the time of the text to his brothers as 12:30, and no other text or call to them near 1:08 has been reported (that I'm aware of) nor did the parents, in their media statement, mention a follow-up to the 12:30 text. Does a ping require that a call or text be sent, or received, or can a ping not also just be the phone establishing connectivity to a network. With little power left in phone, it may have been shut off to conserve what little power was left and then he turned it on in marsh area when feeling desperate and with hopes that either he could still send a text or see on a map the area where he was.

 

[HRP]

Given the dearth of information (confirmed facts) that are known to the public in this case, I don't have an opinion on the 'prank' hypothesis, other than that it is well considered and that it seems as plausible as some other scenarios. However, the above part of it confused me. Many accounts have given the time of the text to his brothers as 12:30, and no other text or call to them near 1:08 has been reported (that I'm aware of) nor did the parents, in their media statement, mention a follow-up to the 12:30 text. Does a ping require that a call or text be sent, or received, or can a ping not also just be the phone establishing connectivity to a network. With little power left in phone, it may have been shut off to conserve what little power was left and then he turned it on in marsh area when feeling desperate and with hopes that either he could still send a text or see on a map the area where he was.

Your comment indicates no confusion, imo. Also note, neither does my comment (note the bolded underlined):

Originally Posted by HRP
Michael may have tried from the marsh area to get ahold of his brothers early on into this "nightmare" (as one of his 21 year old friends called it) and that may have been the 1:08AM ping from the marsh area.

 

[DatelineFan]

I don't know what happened to Michael, but I really don't think a prank is involved.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[HRP]

I don't know what happened to Michael, but I really don't think a prank is involved.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Why do you rule this possibility out, may I ask? Do you think he crossed the brook/swamp area once and walked through the golf course to Maple Street in Bellingham and then turned around and walked from Maple Street through the golf course to trek again across the swamp/brook to walk in the marsh area back to the party house area? What are your theories or thoughts on what happened.

 

[DatelineFan]

Why do you rule this possibility out, may I ask? Do you think he crossed the brook/swamp area once and walked through the golf course to Maple Street in Bellingham and then turned around and walked from Maple Street through the golf course to trek again across the swamp/brook to walk in the marsh area back to the party house area? What are your theories or thoughts on what happened.

I don't have a solid theory. Certainly no theory of mine seems more plausible than a prank. So I can't say I completely rule it out. To be honest with you, I'm thinking about my college partying days. We certainly teased each other and did some silly things, but no real pranks. That's my source.

I can be very succinct in my posts, so sometimes I might come off as rude or dismissive. I didn't mean to sound that way. I guess a prank just doesn't resonate with me. But like I said, I don't have a solid theory. None of this makes sense to me unless he was on drugs or self harm was involved. And I don't have evidence of those possibilities either.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[LaneGirl]

Why do you rule this possibility out, may I ask? Do you think he crossed the brook/swamp area once and walked through the golf course to Maple Street in Bellingham and then turned around and walked from Maple Street through the golf course to trek again across the swamp/brook to walk in the marsh area back to the party house area? What are your theories or thoughts on what happened.

Not the person you were addressing but some alternate theories...

Drugs
Inebriated
Hypothermia
Any three of these alone or any combination could cause him to be disoriented, confused, hallucinating and lost.

If it was a prank, those dismissing alternate theories I mentioned above, wouldn't he make it back to the house or home once he was tired or realized it was a prank? What specifically went wrong in the prank that stopped him? LE have said no signs of foul play so he wasn't restrained that they could observe.

 

[HRP]

I don't have a solid theory. Certainly no theory of mine seems more plausible than a prank. So I can't say I completely rule it out. To be honest with you, I'm thinking about my college partying days. We certainly teased each other and did some silly things, but no real pranks. That's my source.

I can be very succinct in my posts, so sometimes I might come off as rude or dismissive. I didn't mean to sound that way. I guess a prank just doesn't resonate with me. But like I said, I don't have a solid theory. None of this makes sense to me unless he was on drugs or self harm was involved. And I don't have evidence of those possibilities either.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

I didn't think your comment was rude or dismissive, not at all. Tone can only be created by the reader, so I took it as an opportunity to ask you for your thoughts with an inquisitive outlook.

IMO, An innocent prank gone wrong seems the most logical explanation for where Michael ended up being found--and I like to see Michael as a bright, strong, determined young man who almost made it to safety.

The thing that bothers me--if a prank gone wrong--is if it was a prank, and Michael was supposed to be in a certain area (where perhaps his friend looked 8 times to see if he were there)--did the search teams know where Michael was supposed to be too? And if his friends searched that morning, May 14th, at 10:30AM, did they search that area 8 times? (Meaning Michael was heading back to them and not into Bellingham). Did they tell this, if so?

So many unanswered questions. All of which may never be fully disclosed. It may be hushed and kept quiet, if an innocent prank gone wrong because if the families are friends, and their boys were, then why disrupt their lives with wrongful death lawsuits (if applicable).

All speculation...of course.

 

[HRP]

Not the person you were addressing but some alternate theories...

Drugs
Inebriated
Hypothermia
Any three of these alone or any combination could cause him to be disoriented, confused, hallucinating and lost.

If it was a prank, those dismissing alternate theories I mentioned above, wouldn't he make it back to the house or home once he was tired or realized it was a prank? What specifically went wrong in the prank that stopped him? LE have said no signs of foul play so he wasn't restrained that they could observe.

What went wrong with the prank is that he crossed among snapping turtles, swamp weed, slippery rocks, icy cold water, and walked in mud which suctions your feet and legs tight until you pull them out.

He may have died from all of which you listed, in combination, or from simply hypothermia.

But it would seem very likely--he had some kind of injuries, too. They may not have defined them as "trauma"--but if you ever walked in a swamp area around here during the day on a sunny day--you lose your footing, after you lose your shoes from the mud suction, and snapping turtles are vicious if you disturb them.