Well, then they should have been seen in the actual campground in Spread Creek - where many people had cameras.
Snipped ALOT for brevity, but have reposted below. My responses in italics and red.
Well, then they should have been seen in the actual campground in Spread Creek - where many people had cameras.
Perhaps they were - we don't know what has not been made public.
Yet, the van was only seen about a mile away from the nearest neighbors. Gabby, who doesn't like outdoors, doesn't walk a mile to try and meet total strangers. They are in an illegal campsite and not near any other campers. The Bethunes would have been in that other campground as well.
I'm sorry - and I'm not being crass - but who tours in a van if they don't like the outdoors? The Bethunes passed the van in probably a minute - does not mean that someone else did not turn up after and/or they could have walked to mean G and B.
So there was no way to "leave Gabby". in safe hands that were a mile away. And in the legal campground, everyone can see and hear everyone else.
No - they met up near where she was found
Why did Brian make the turn onto that spur road, and park at a place that is not available for camping - but instead, for target practice and archery? Did either of them know they were camping illegally? They. sure did know that Dyrt.com said to camp in a designated space (or to join up with someone already on such a space).
No idea - is it relevant somehow? Trying to understand your thought process here.
Since there were never any other campers near Gabby, I don't think your theory works. There wasn't even a parking space for another set of campers.
They could have parked nearby?
Why does he not look right next to where their own (stolen) tent must have been? Because I do believe the reports that say there was evidence of them camping at Spread Creek. Did he leave Gabby without a tent, without a tarp, with nothing to sit on? Why didn't he get his flashlight and signal around and call for her? Then, wouldn't he have headed to the other campers (about a mile away) to see if she was there? Why would he just take off if he thought Gabby was socializing (and take her phone, van, and, apparently, all her things?)
No - he left her with the tent and just took the tarp. By the time he returned to the van and started looking and it was getting dark. He was not quite sure where the tent was. Or he thought she had left him? In this scenario - whoever killed Gabby has the tent, tent contents and phone - but wallet was left in van.
Or do you thi
snk he offloaded her stuff right there, so she could find it later, took off and ravens got to it? I find that very improbable and I believe she would have been found sooner had he placed her phone and other things where she could find it. Did she have her wallet? Why isn't he willing to tell that? Why hasn't she used her own credit cards - did he take those cards out of her wallet BEFORE she went to socialize? Why?
See above - wallet in van - but I get your point. No Gabby should equal no wallet and if wallet in van, somethig has happened to Gabby.
I am for Occam's razor. He had her wallet and her phone, he had her credit cards and probably her Apple Wallet too.
How do you explain him walking to Colter Creek (he doesn't take off right away, the van is still there) and then hitchhiking back?
I did explain that in my theory - under hiking
Why not just open his eyes and see Gabby (who would have been quite visible) by walking a hundred yards or so and flashing a light - or waiting until broad daylight?
Because he thought she had left him
Wouldn't a. person alert authorities if their fiancée. appeared to have been kidnapped?
Not Kidnapped - she went of her own accord with others (but see comments in relation to wallet).
