Found Deceased CA - Blaze Bernstein, 19, Lake Forest, 2 Jan 2018 #2

[DakotaMayi]

I wish we knew what was in that darn last text that caused the parents to conclude he had been involved in foul play. This was their words in very first brief interview right after he went missing on my local Socal news broadcast.

Me too.

I don't know if anyone else follows but this reminds me of the Macin Smith case. The family will not reveal what Macin wrote in a note but it's the one thing made LE state that it wasn't definite he had committed suicide. I am desperate to know what is in that note, albeit I respect the privacy decision for them to not release it.

 

[JerseyGirl]

I wish we knew what was in that darn last text that caused the parents to conclude he had been involved in foul play. This was their words in very first brief interview right after he went missing on my local Socal news broadcast.

I think the parents initially were just jumping to conclusions. Since that first blurb to the OCR, the police and the parents have backed away from that statement.

 

[GlowingShadow]

Question, do they know who the third person is that met him at the park and are not releasing who it is? OR is the third person a mystery person that they do not know who he was meeting?

They didn't release any info on this. The only info available is that he went there to meet a third person, but this is based on some media reports. No identity revealed. I guess in case the driver's story is true, then the third person is the suspect/person of interest, because in that case (s)he might be the last person in contact with him. So, this might be a reason for the big secrecy for now.

 

[T_mar]

Why give your friend your parents address to drive you to a park only to runaway? That doesn't make sense.

I don't think BB ever went to the park or dogs would have picked up his scent. I think it was a ruse by the friend to throw LE off his trail.

Anyway, I Googled and Googled to find out if Borrego Park has surveillance cams but I came up with nothing. I also googled to find out if restrooms are locked after hours, couldn't find that either even on the official park website. Would a guy use a bush or tree if it's closed? If he went in the stalls wouldn't friends DNA be somewhere in the bathroom? I read on Yelp the bathroom is only one small stall. I wonder if LE dusted stall for fingerprints? I don't think they ever mentioned friends car make and model either.

Only thing I could find was since the mountain lion maulings and other lion sightings in Whiting Ranch they installed surveillance cameras on the trails. I do remember when a mountain biker was mauled, killed by lion while repairing his bike chain on one of the trails. Worse part is the lion ate him. I will never forget it because it took a lot of courage for me to go hiking there again.

Like I said before I don't believe he ever was at that park. I think the OCSD should hold a presser to update the public since so many peeps are following the case.

http://ktla.com/2014/02/12/after-mo...ning-issued-at-o-c-site-of-2004-fatal-attack/

I believe at one point during the last thread a local in the neighborhood said the bathrooms are kept unlocked.
Yes, I’m starting to believe this too. But then why would they do such a grand search in that area? Just based on what a “friend” (that parents didn’t know or that didn’t know where he lived) says??
im starting to wonder if the friend he has “known for awhile” as his parents said. Was someone he was pretty close with after all. And he has reasons for the OCSD to believe they had a good relationship.

Sorry for any misprints, new phone I’m still figuring out

 

[msphilosopher]

Thanks guys for clarifying.

IF there is a third person, then I'd say the identity of that person can be found either in his texts or social media DMs... Instagram, snap chat, FB messenger, dating apps, etc.

IF there's a third person then there's a digital footprint somewhere.

 

[Bopking]

I don't think BB had contact lenses, otherwise why would his mother make this statement? If she was escorting him to dentist appointments, I would assume she would know if he had contacts and had visited an eye doctor:

"He left our house that night with no wallet, no money, no identification, no credit cards, no keys, no eyeglasses - this is someone that needs to wear eyeglasses," Jeanne said.

http://abc7.com/family-launches-search-for-pa-college-student-missing-in-oc/2869043/

The fact that he left without his keys makes me think he was not planning on returning. I know there is keyless entry but if that is what they use then why would she mention he left the keys?

 

[msphilosopher]

The fact that he left without his keys makes me think he was not planning on returning. I know there is keyless entry but if that is what they use then why would she mention he left the keys?

Or he was not planning on returning via the door. I had friends in colleague that still had to sneak out when they went back home on break to live with their parents....

 

[Oyecomova]

First time posting on WS! It has seemed to that just because he left his wallet at home, it doesnt mean he has no money. When my husband is making a quick trip from the housr, he doesnt take his wallet, but he puts his cash in his pocket.

 

[luckylis]

This case reminds me way too much of Macin Smith, Bryce L., and many other young adult males that go missing. Supposedly from good families, smart kids, etc. (these were not at risk youth per say). Something mentally happens during this age group it seems. My theory is he left on his own and too embarrassed to come back, as others have also theorized.

I also think the driver friend is being transparent, and its the parents that are not (for whatever reasons) and those reasons are pointing OCSD in a direction away from the friend.

If/when BB resurfaces, the "why he ran away" will be hush hush, the FB page will be shut down and the public will never know.

 

[cluciano63]

I believe the driver/friend as of now...it just seems like too silly a story to make-up. The answers are in the social media conversations that can’t be accessed. Jmo

 

[prue]

3rd hand info from family spokesperson. Stick w what LE has stated: Friend left vehicle to use restroom and when He returned Blaze was gone. Also note that BB DISABLED THE PHONES GPS. This is what LE has stated several times, it's also been written in several local papers namely the LA Times and the OC Register.
sigh

Hi, I'm another newby that has been reading along. The lack of disclosure on many fronts unfortunately leads to much speculation. What we do know is he contacted a school friend, which since he left without informing his family, is information that did not come from him. It had to come from his family members and LE discovering this information after he was found missing, so I'd say it's likely correct.

It has been reported that he was "upset" and that he "ran" into or towards the wilderness area and that he was meeting a third party. There have also been contradictory reports to this.

I'd like to point out that if he was using a social media app like grindr to hook up with a new or former hookup up that these apps track and broadcast your location information in real time. What if a former or new hookup was attempting to compromise him or set him up for harm and the meeting went south and he consciously turned off the gps in an effort to mask his location from that person?

With the little information given it does seem to me that he was possibly drawn out to the location rather than setting up a complex hook up involving a driver in a very scary (at night) isolated location for a brief encounter. It just makes more sense.

I also have a question for those of you familiar with the area. From his drop off location would using the trail possibly be a "shortcut" to any homes adjacent to the trail or to swing back to the shopping center? In other words, if he was meeting with someone who 'couldn't be seen' or was wanting to mask that he was going to a home close by would getting dropped there and using the trail accomplish this?

 

[4SAM]

Hi, I'm another newby that has been reading along. The lack of disclosure on many fronts unfortunately leads to much speculation. What we do know is he contacted a school friend, which since he left without informing his family, is information that did not come from him. It had to come from his family members and LE discovering this information after he was found missing, so I'd say it's likely correct.

It has been reported that he was "upset" and that he "ran" into or towards the wilderness area and that he was meeting a third party. There have also been contradictory reports to this.

I'd like to point out that if he was using a social media app like grindr to hook up with a new or former hookup up that these apps track and broadcast your location information in real time. What if a former or new hookup was attempting to compromise him or set him up for harm and the meeting went south and he consciously turned off the gps in an effort to mask his location from that person?

With the little information given it does seem to me that he was possibly drawn out to the location rather than setting up a complex hook up involving a driver in a very scary (at night) isolated location for a brief encounter. It just makes more sense.

I also have a question for those of you familiar with the area. From his drop off location would using the trail possibly be a "shortcut" to any homes adjacent to the trail or to swing back to the shopping center? In other words, if he was meeting with someone who 'couldn't be seen' or was wanting to mask that he was going to a home close by would getting dropped there and using the trail accomplish this?

Good Question

 

[Mudcat]

Exactly. By then he knew where he picked Blaze up from, he knew his address. It's not nice to wake someone up at 4 AM, but in this situation it could have been crucial. Even if he was thinking about waking up his parents and shied away from the idea, there still was another option: 911.

I've never been able to reconcile why the high school friend went back to the park at 4AM. I mean if the park is in such close proximity to BB's home, wouldn't the logical assumption be that perhaps after the two separated (by however means), that BB just walked back up to his home?

 

[moon12]

Hi, I'm another newby that has been reading along. The lack of disclosure on many fronts unfortunately leads to much speculation. What we do know is he contacted a school friend, which since he left without informing his family, is information that did not come from him. It had to come from his family members and LE discovering this information after he was found missing, so I'd say it's likely correct.

It has been reported that he was "upset" and that he "ran" into or towards the wilderness area and that he was meeting a third party. There have also been contradictory reports to this.

I'd like to point out that if he was using a social media app like grindr to hook up with a new or former hookup up that these apps track and broadcast your location information in real time. What if a former or new hookup was attempting to compromise him or set him up for harm and the meeting went south and he consciously turned off the gps in an effort to mask his location from that person?

With the little information given it does seem to me that he was possibly drawn out to the location rather than setting up a complex hook up involving a driver in a very scary (at night) isolated location for a brief encounter. It just makes more sense.

I also have a question for those of you familiar with the area. From his drop off location would using the trail possibly be a "shortcut" to any homes adjacent to the trail or to swing back to the shopping center? In other words, if he was meeting with someone who 'couldn't be seen' or was wanting to mask that he was going to a home close by would getting dropped there and using the trail accomplish this?

That's a very interesting point about turning off location services so that someone on Grindr/whatever app could not locate you. I know that with Tinder, the closest it says a person is to you is "less than 500 feet", but Grindr is much more exact ("34 feet away", etc.) So if you were running away from someone in a park at night and did not want the person to be able to track you using the app, it would make sense to turn off your phone's location services.

 

[whitelilac]

If he was planning to run away, presumably with the help of the third mysterious friend, why involve the driver friend anyway ? It was a 5 minute walk from his home to the park.

And if he was never in the park anyway (no scents etc), he could have been picked up by the third friend elsewhere and no one would have known.

Could the driver have been in on Blaze's plan to take off, and made up the story about the park, and taken him to the unknown third friend someplace else? Maybe, but the driver would have known he'd be under scrutiny by LE.....would he have agreed to that as a friend, even though he didn't't seem that close (didn't even know where Blaze lived?)

Thinking aloud.....have no idea what happened.

 

[Whiteorchids]

I think the parents initially were just jumping to conclusions. Since that first blurb to the OCR, the police and the parents have backed away from that statement.

I thought that too but now when I hear "no foul play" from LE I take it with a grain of salt. I have followed so many cases here on websleuths where LE said no foul play but only later to find out later it was foul play and someone was murdered. I think they say that until they have a better grip on the case and evidence. They want to put minds at ease as not too get people worried and upset. We have a missing young man and it's been 7 days he has no wallet, ID money, credit cards, glasses, medication and maybe no contact lenses on his person and this is out of character. It appears a few different versions of how it went down told by a friend. No confirmation on anything other than he's missing. Being married to a retired police officer he thinks at this point the friend is probably at least a person of interest since he was last one to be with him. LE has to try to corroborate what the friend says as truth. Friend did not willingly come forward on his own volition that Blaze was missing he was found through Snapchat. We just don't know what LE has at this point as they are holding info close to the vest and don't want to cause anyone involved to run scared knowing they are a possibly being looked at as a person of interest or suspect. Legally they try to be careful announcing a suspect or person too soon while investigating. They may have other persons of interest in this case as well it doesn't have to be only one. This is a new case. The detectives sometimes have more than one case but we want info right now. It doesn't work that way. LE tries to be very thorough, cautious and careful before releasing certain info so that it doesn't jeopardize the case if it goes to trial such as a rush to judgement.

 

[Mudcat]

Another thought I had about the "friend" and the secrecy around his identity is that he may be a minor. Which could be another reason, depending on what had occurred at the park, for BB to leave and maybe for him to be a little worried about resurfacing (if he is intentionally missing) given his age?

Though I have to say intentionally missing is low on my list of what I think may have occurred here.

Great point! Had BB (now as an adult) had an intended hook-up with a minor, he could be subject to a criminal charge. Why not just return home where his intended act/consummated or otherwise would not be made known and made public from his disappearance.

But it still doesn't explain why he went missing in the first place.

All conjecture and MOO - Praying for this young man's safe return.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

I’m new to WS but have been following this very puzzling case and have read most all entries. I haven’t yet posted but this popped into my head and ticks a lot of boxes regarding the hidden identity of the driver:

What if the driver, a “friend from high school”, is/was actually a TEACHER there? This would be cause for protecting identity, especially if this person is actually not a suspect, but regardless at this point either way. I don’t think I’ve seen this idea presented yet. Thoughts fellow sleuthers?

The idea that the driver may have been a teacher has occurred to me, too...

And as you stated...

This could add to the existing complications of being revealed to the public..

:thinking:

 

[msphilosopher]

I thought that too but now when I hear "no foul play" from LE I take it with a grain of salt. I have followed so many cases here on websleuths where LE said no foul play but only later to find out later it was foul play and someone was murdered. I think they say that until they have a better grip on the case and evidence. They want to put minds at ease as not too get people worried and upset. We have a missing young man and it's been 7 days he has no wallet, ID money, credit cards, glasses, medication and maybe no contact lenses on his person and this is out of character. It appears a few different versions of how it went down told by a friend. No confirmation on anything other than he's missing. Being married to a retired police officer he thinks at this point the friend is probably at least a person of interest since he was last one to be with him. LE has to try to corroborate what the friend says as truth. Friend did not willingly come forward on his own volition that Blaze was missing he was found through Snapchat. We just don't know what LE has at this point as they are holding info close to the vest and don't want to cause anyone involved to run scared knowing they are a possibly being looked at as a person of interest or suspect. Legally they try to be careful announcing a suspect or person too soon while investigating. They may have other persons of interest in this case as well it doesn't have to be only one. This is a new case. The detectives sometimes have more than one case but we want info right now. It doesn't work that way. LE tries to be very thorough, cautious and careful before releasing certain info so that it doesn't jeopardize the case if it goes to trial such as a rush to judgement.

Agreed. They could say "no foul play" in order to not scare people away who are close to the case. Allows LE time to get more evidence / info before people lawyer up.

OR there literally could be NO evidence of foul play, even though it's a possibly.

 

[Whiteorchids]

The idea that the driver may have been a teacher has occurred to me, too...

And as you stated...

This could add to the existing complications of being revealed to the public..

:thinking:

I think nothing is being released by LE because they don't have enough concrete information that can be released and also they may very well have information that wont be released if this is becomes a criminal case. That's saved for trials.