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

[LaneGirl]

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.

Which all could have happened if he left the party on his own and gotten lost, disoriented, hallucinating etc under the influence of something correct?

I'm sure with no shoes and no shirt he had scratches or somthing. I just meant no obvious signs of "foul play" to LE. Doesn't mean autopsy couldn't find something I just meant initial look from LE.

I'm not dismissing prank although I do think if that was the case someone would speak up since it was innocent and not nefarious. idk

 

[HRP]

Which all could have happened if he left the party on his own and gotten lost, disoriented, hallucinating etc under the influence of something correct?

I'm sure with no shoes and no shirt he had scratches or somthing. I just meant no obvious signs of "foul play" to LE. Doesn't mean autopsy couldn't find something I just meant initial look from LE.

I'm not dismissing prank although I do think if that was the case someone would speak up since it was innocent and not nefarious. idk

Michael called/texted for a ride at 12:30AM and one would ask, would Michael call for a ride home if he was stoned/high/intoxicated/hallucinating? Would he want to be home and seen in that condition?

And if he were that high, why did his friends let him walk out the door in a storm, in the dark, stoned & with a "dead phone"? They were 21, Michael was 20. They claimed he was coherent. Was he?

Sure, I agree, if Michael was stumbling drunk or high, or given something before he left (after 12:30AM call), and shown the door to walk home and Michael became more and more disorientated as the drug took affect--well, now...

That is not a prank. That's something entirely evil.

IMO, an innocent prank gone wrong seems less "evil" than an intentional "set them up to fail" scenario.

The thing that sticks out is why would an intelligent athletic engineer student find himself having to cross a swamp to begin with--to me, any one with any bit of awareness would stay away from a swamp area during the dark--and it was dark, chilly out, raining, windy, and he had a dead phone (according to his friend). But he crossed the swamp (once, at least (they surmise twice. imo, I think once from the golf course side of Mine Brook). Why in the world would he point himself into the swamp without needing too (which he would need to if he was pranked and let out at the golf course on the Bellingham side of Mine Brook).

 

[Steleheart]

Which all could have happened if he left the party on his own and gotten lost, disoriented, hallucinating etc under the influence of something correct?

I'm sure with no shoes and no shirt he had scratches or somthing. I just meant no obvious signs of "foul play" to LE. Doesn't mean autopsy couldn't find something I just meant initial look from LE.

I'm not dismissing prank although I do think if that was the case someone would speak up since it was innocent and not nefarious. idk

The ME found no signs of Trauma;

"The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner has not issued a final report, but preliminary results indicate that there is no signs of trauma or foul play. The cause of death is still unknown."
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/authorities_confirm_death_of_2.html

ETA: Trauma is major injury not superficial wounds.

 

[LaneGirl]

Michael called/texted for a ride at 12:30AM and one would ask, would Michael call for a ride home if he was stoned/high/intoxicated/hallucinating? Would he want to be home and seen in that condition?

And if he were that high, why did his friends let him walk out the door in a storm, in the dark, stoned & with a "dead phone"? They were 21, Michael was 20. They claimed he was coherent. Was he?

Sure, I agree, if Michael was stumbling drunk or high, or given something before he left (after 12:30AM call), and shown the door to walk home and Michael became more and more disorientated as the drug took affect--well, now...

That is not a prank. That's something entirely evil.

IMO, an innocent prank gone wrong seems less "evil" than an intentional "set them up to fail" scenario.

The thing that sticks out is why would an intelligent athletic engineer student find himself having to cross a swamp to begin with--to me, any one with any bit of awareness would stay away from a swamp area during the dark--and it was dark, chilly out, raining, windy, and he had a dead phone (according to his friend). But he crossed the swamp (once, at least (they surmise twice. imo, I think once from the golf course side of Mine Brook). Why in the world would he point himself into the swamp without needing too (which he would need to if he was pranked and let out at the golf course on the Bellingham side of Mine Brook).

So for the prank theory...

He was let out at the golf course not under any "strong" influence of drugs or alcohol and told to "make it home" yet he's also intelligent and athletic. What went wrong? Could not the same that that went wrong under the prank theory also go wrong to someone who'd only taken the trail once? It was dark. If we are going to continue with how intelligent he was (not disputing it but its brought up why he wouldn't leave of his own accord) why wouldn't he follow the golf course up to the club house and then make his way home via roads or finding a house/phone?

A personal n=1, I hike the same trails in a national park and I've gotten lost in daylight. I saw the marsh photograph and behind it is what looks like forest. Easy to get lost there if its dark and you aren't familiar it would seem to me.

As for the fact that others let him out the door drunk, perhaps the others were also drunk and not in the best shape to make this kind of judgment call? Clearly they made a poor judgement call dumping a person off and told him to make it home also under the prank theory, correct?

Again not dismissing your theory just playing devils advocate.

 

[MissSuzie]

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.

Oh, from this comment, it seemed to me like the 12:30 text to his brothers and the 1:08 ping were being conflated which is what I found confusing. It seems now that it was being suggested that he may have been trying "again" to contact his brothers; I hadn't inferred that when first reading it.

 

[HRP]

So for the prank theory...

He was let out at the golf course not under any "strong" influence of drink or alcohol and told to "make it home" yet he's also intelligent and athletic. What went wrong? Could not the same that that went wrong under the prank theory also go wrong to someone who'd only taken the trail once? It was dark. If we are going to continue with how intelligent he was (not disputing it but its brought up why he wouldn't leave of his own accord) why wouldn't he follow the golf course up to the club house and then make his way home via roads or finding a house/phone?

A personal n=, I hike the same trails in a national park and I've gotten lost in daylight. I saw the marsh photograph and behind it is what looks like forest. Easy to get lost there if its dark and you aren't familiar it would seem to me.

As for the fact that others let him out the door drunk, perhaps the others were also drunk and not in the best shape to make this kind of judgment call? Clearly they made a poor judgement call dumping a person off and told him to make it home also under the prank theory, correct?

Again not dismissing your theory just playing devils advocate.

The prank theory does not exclude the possibility of him having had a drink or more, him being under the influence of any drug (although I doubt he would do this, but may have been slipped something).

The term used by his friends is that he was "coherent" which is subjective, no doubt.

As I stated earlier, he may have been alert or even not awake when dropped off at that huge golf course at Maplegate Club House.

Did he trek from Maple Street (if dropped off there) through the golf course into the swamp, or was he driven into Maplegate Clubhouse and dropped of at the far end of the golf course which is along the Mine Brook? I think the latter.

I think he was dropped off there as a prank with either having to find his way through the golf course to Maple Street and then find a way to contact someone from there in Bellingham...or by crossing the Mine Brook one time and get to the other side into his home town, Franklin.

If he were completely sober, totally aware, and fit, he'd still have a hard time in that swamp, imo. If drunk, then I think he'd never make it to where he did, quite frankly, I think he'd have drowned in the middle of the brook or along it (if high/stoned/drunk enough to just wander into the swamp to begin with).

As I commented earlier, it appears that pranks gone wrong are deemed "no foul play".

But if 21-year-olds send a drunk/stoned 20-year-old out into the dark stormy night heading for a swamp area (they say they knew about)--I find that as utterly cruel, imo. Even if they are stoned out of their minds, drunk as skunks--to send someone off into the dark, rainy, windy night knowing they were going into a "discombobulated" trail is not a prank, that's mean--and did they WARN Michael it was a "discombobulated" path (because they sure knew this enough to tell reporters about it).

 

[ArtChick83]

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/

I just read that whole article, but I don't think it answers my question. I said that the parents shouldn't be held responsible if they didn't furnish the alcohol. I don't see anywhere in that article that says they would be held responsible for simply owning the home. It doesn't seem right. Am I missing something?

 

[Blythe]

So my thought is that this death never should have happened. College students ought to be more vigilant and aware than this. It is not OK to suggest otherwise.

Friends don't let friends die unavoidably. Someone has to be sober. Someone has to care.

 

[LaneGirl]

As I commented earlier, it appears that pranks gone wrong are deemed "no foul play".

Just so I'm clear (sometimes I'm not) here is my definitions of foul play...


The term foul play can mean unfair game - a prank would include this but I use it more towards organized sports
or
commonly used by LE - violent crime.

When I said LE indicated no "foul play" they made those comments after finding his body. They didn't observe anything that would indicate he'd been physically harmed such as strangulation/gunshot/knife/beating or any markings on his body caused by another person.

ETA - LE also uses the term when they can't determine that anything is amiss in a case. Meaning SO FAR nothing indicated that someone else caused the harm.

 

[LvsAMystry]

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.

I'm sorry but I just don't see it. I have nothing to go on but gut but I believe in it. I'm not saying it's completely imopossible but it would be last or close to last on my list. I just don't see a party of 30 plus college age friends bothering with something like that, and even if they did I also don't see all 30 plus college age friends participating and/or agreeing to such a prank that it wouldn't have been disclosed right away.

For me, it's two possibilities. 1. It is just what it appears to be, that he tried to take a shortcut home with devastating results (with or without substance interference as well), or 2. Something occurred at the party, perhaps illicit drug ingestion, with tragic consequences that caused all to panic and stage the lost scenario. The 2nd appears to be a possibility to me due to how quickly his clothing items were found and the eventual finding of him so close, which contradicts his having even been in the swamp. But I can also use my own argument against your prank theory against my theory number 2 - it'd be a hard task to get 30 plus to remain quiet as to events.

 

[LaneGirl]

I'm sorry but I just don't see it. I have nothing to go on but gut but I believe in it. I'm not saying it's completely imopossible but it would be last or close to last on my list. I just don't see a party of 30 plus college age friends bothering with something like that, and even if they did I also don't see all 30 plus college age friends participating and/or agreeing to such a prank that it wouldn't have been disclosed right away.

For me, it's two possibilities. 1. It is just what it appears to be, that he tried to take a shortcut home with devastating results (with or without substance interference as well), or 2. Something occurred at the party, perhaps illicit drug ingestion, with tragic consequences that caused all to panic and stage the lost scenario. The 2nd appears to be a possibility to me due to how quickly his clothing items were found and the eventual finding of him so close, which contradicts his having even been in the swamp. But I can also use my own argument against your prank theory against my theory number 2 - it'd be a hard task to get 30 plus to remain quiet as to events.

This is my problem too. Especially if he was as well liked as MSM is portraying. I'd even think as few as 5 wouldn't all keep quiet if this was a prank gone wrong. Just my opinion though.

 

[LaneGirl]

I just read that whole article, but I don't think it answers my question. I said that the parents shouldn't be held responsible if they didn't furnish the alcohol. I don't see anywhere in that article that says they would be held responsible for simply owning the home. It doesn't seem right. Am I missing something?

What's the legal drinking age there? I thought MD was 21?

 

[dancemom]

The big question for me in this case is cause of death. Had he been found in the water, I could understand how intoxication and hypothermia contributed. But it's hard for me to put together a reasonable scenario given where his body was found. I have a hard time believing that he died of an overdose unless his friends from the party are lying about his condition. And I would be surprised if he developed fatal hypothermia in the 3-4 hours between leaving the party and daylight, if he was indeed a healthy, athletic young man with no medical conditions. Are the medical examiner's findings likely to be made public when complete?

 

[bluesneakers]

The big question for me in this case is cause of death. Had he been found in the water, I could understand how intoxication and hypothermia contributed. But it's hard for me to put together a reasonable scenario given where his body was found. I have a hard time believing that he died of an overdose unless his friends from the party are lying about his condition. And I would be surprised if he developed fatal hypothermia in the 3-4 hours between leaving the party and daylight, if he was indeed a healthy, athletic young man with no medical conditions. Are the medical examiner's findings likely to be made public when complete?

In my experience yes, but it takes months.

 

[bluesneakers]

What's the legal drinking age there? I thought MD was 21?

All of USA is 21.

 

[Justmexyz]

I'm sorry but I just don't see it. I have nothing to go on but gut but I believe in it. I'm not saying it's completely imopossible but it would be last or close to last on my list. I just don't see a party of 30 plus college age friends bothering with something like that, and even if they did I also don't see all 30 plus college age friends participating and/or agreeing to such a prank that it wouldn't have been disclosed right away.

For me, it's two possibilities. 1. It is just what it appears to be, that he tried to take a shortcut home with devastating results (with or without substance interference as well), or 2. Something occurred at the party, perhaps illicit drug ingestion, with tragic consequences that caused all to panic and stage the lost scenario. The 2nd appears to be a possibility to me due to how quickly his clothing items were found and the eventual finding of him so close, which contradicts his having even been in the swamp. But I can also use my own argument against your prank theory against my theory number 2 - it'd be a hard task to get 30 plus to remain quiet as to events.

Your second suggestion seems to be the most logical. He died in the home and was placed in the woods.

 

[Curiosity7]

In my experience yes, but it takes months.

Medical Examiner findings are not public, from what I know.
If Michael's parents opt to share with the public to put to rest the speculations, we may learn what they show.
This has been my experience.

Sharing - not meant to be argumentative.

 

[ArtChick83]

What's the legal drinking age there? I thought MD was 21?

Michael was 20 but some of the friends st the party were 21.

 

[JuniorSleuthy]

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

Look at the situation--raining outside, Michael was only wearing a shirt and had no flashlight. I read that one kid previously stated Michael charged his phone before leaving--how can that be true if his phone died at 0108 hrs? If it was a prank, they knew the odds against Michael and were willing to risk his life by bullying him into it.

 

[msphilosopher]

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.

Ah there lines the confusion, I was under the impression that from where his shoe was found on the golf course that the closest route out of the woods was the streets near Catherine st. not the house party. If the closest way was the house party, then yes I'd say that makes sense in terms of going back and getting cleaned up.

Thanks for answering my questions about the kids lying. I was having a hard time believing that while everyone was out looking for him Mother's day morning that no one would say he got pranked in a attempt to find him quicker... but if they were intentionally lying or not mentioning the prank then I would it would make sense as to why we have heard from very few kids who was at the party. I thought it was strange we hadn't heard from more kids that were at the party.... maybe that's why?

Yes, I was aware the ping data was not 100% accurate... I did say that in my original post but it is still a short turn around time. The events of the prank would have to have happened pretty quickly after the 12:30 AM text.