CA CA - Stacy Arras, 14, Yosemite National Park, 17 Jul 1981

Discussion in '1980's Missing' started by DayLea, Apr 20, 2015.

  1. beubeubeu

    beubeubeu Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    261
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Is it really more common for people to get lost out in the woods and stay lost - without a trace, no belonging found, no remains found (while there was a big search for them and people relatively quickly learned that person got lost in the area) - than to became a victims of foul play?
    Animals don't care about leaving evidence behind, scavengers don't care about anything.

    It's one thing to be out in the wilderness alone and get lost, while significant amount of time passes before people realize that someone is missing and they don't have a good idea where and when they were before they got lost. Different story when people are relatively nearby, notice that disappearance quite quickly - of course, there is still an insane amount of risk of not finding that person safe and well (especially with wilder areas), but not finding anything, ever?
    I'm not saying that's impossible. We all know that it is.
    I'm saying that foul play isn't unlikely nor significantly less likely cause of such disappearance. There are many monsters out there and Big Foot ain't one of them.
     
    Marg from Oz and MaryG12 like this.


  2. Alleykins

    Alleykins Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,539
    Likes Received:
    7,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL, no one here is saying Big Foot is responsible for anyone's disappearance.
     
    Marg from Oz, Trident and Suglo like this.
  3. Ozoner

    Ozoner Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,422
    Likes Received:
    11,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Foul play is significantly less likely. In fact, the chances of it being foul play are infinitesimal. People can get very lost very quickly and be out of earshot within 2 or 3 minutes.
    And yes, it's quite common not to find anything, ever.
     
    Marg from Oz, Tower, Stella and 5 others like this.
  4. Alleykins

    Alleykins Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,539
    Likes Received:
    7,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL, no one here is saying Big Foot is responsible for anyone's disappearance.
     
    Marg from Oz likes this.
  5. Alleykins

    Alleykins Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,539
    Likes Received:
    7,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed, Ozoner.
     
  6. beubeubeu

    beubeubeu Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    261
    Trophy Points:
    63
    For murder victims it's not infitesimal to not find anything, ever.
     
    Marg from Oz likes this.
  7. BethAnn777

    BethAnn777 Not well-known, just the way I like it.

    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Totally had to google infitesimal. I’m assuming you meant to type infinitesimal which I leaned means extremely small or approaching zero. So are you saying that for murder victims it’s not an extremely small chance to not ever find anything? Sorry to be dense, but is this a double negative which really means there is a high likelihood of finding something?
     
    Marg from Oz and Ozoner like this.
  8. beubeubeu

    beubeubeu Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    261
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes.
    Thinking generally, about all murder victims, despite of circumstances of their murders: there is a high chance of finding something related to a murder victim.
    Same with people going missing in the wilderness: if their disappearance is discovered relatively quickly and searching starts within hours, and if they are not found alive or injured there is a high chance of finding their remains (possibly possessions).

    Are most people who disappeared in the wilderness AND were searched for almost immediately after their disappearance - but despite of that were NOT found alive... never found? No remains, no possesions, no tracks, really?
     
    Marg from Oz likes this.
  9. Alleykins

    Alleykins Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,539
    Likes Received:
    7,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Truly. Some people go missing in the wilderness and no trace of them or their gear is ever found. Not their remains, piece of clothing, or personal item. Which is why it's puzzling.
    Thomas Messick 2015 New York comes to mind, but there are others, too.
     
  10. annpats

    annpats Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,070
    Likes Received:
    7,752
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Two thousand pages long!?! :eek:
    That's a lot of pages for a missing persons case in a national park with only a few witnesses. I wonder what else is in there? Obviously as the government won't release it, we'll never find out. But now I'm even more curious.....
     
  11. beubeubeu

    beubeubeu Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    261
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I'm well aware that some do. But is it a majority of outcomes with these kind of cases with search parties?
    As far as I know, even though the sheer amount of such cases is high and terrifying, it's not a majority. Most people are found.
    And most of those who are found just went lost, no foul play or ill intentions were involved.

    But is that enough to assume that the percentage of those never found and totally lost with all their belongings looks simmilar: majority got lost and succumbed to the einvironment and minority were kidnapped or/and murdered?
    We can make such assumptions and it will be quite reasonable, but we can't really know that.

    In Stacy's case it's not only that. There is also insane attitude towards her case. Why such secretiveness? Why her case can't be look at? Why wasn't she on missing persons database? Were they absolutely sure that she's not missing anymore but deceased ot there? Even if that would be like 1 or 0,5% of a chance that she was kidnapped, she should be on that list just in case. Many people who disappeared in - as far as we know - simmilar circumstances - were added.
    Was her case neglected?

    It happens as well, unfortunately, that it's "just a missing persons case" and files are witheld because those who hold them have their "reasons" to do so (while these "reasons" are caused by some knowledge which people who saw these files have, so they know that revealing them will almost surely will not help in solving that case in any way but might be potentially harmful or endangering someone).
    It could be like that here.
    It could be as well that's just somebodys ego is causing that.
    But it's also possible that her case files contain something shocking, or highly imply somebodys involvement in her disappearance and that's why they won't ever be revealed.

    If her case files were accessible I would be more likely to assume that she got lost out there, wander too far, got injured, fell somewhere where she can't be found.
    But her files are not available to look at - which is certainly not enough to imply that foul play was involved.
    But for me, it's enough to not easily disregard such theories and see them as like 5% or less that could be the case just because it's easy to get lost and just because many people did disappeared in such conditions.
     
  12. Alleykins

    Alleykins Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,539
    Likes Received:
    7,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You'd have to ask the National Park Service why all the secretiveness surrounding Stacy's disappearance, and the hundreds of others similar to hers over the decades. They were in charge of her investigation, not the local authorities. As far as I know, there are no statistics as to how many people go missing and are found/not found in our National Parks because NPS doesn't release that information. If that's changed recently, I'll stand corrected.
     
    Marg from Oz, MaryG12 and Wild Rose like this.
  13. Stella

    Stella Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    539
    Likes Received:
    557
    Trophy Points:
    93
    The lake that she was originally photographing was in plain view of the camp so I doubt she drowned there. No one heard a scream for help. Could she swim? The older man and the guide had their eyes on her up until she passed into the trees. I put no importance on the dropped camera lens cover. It could've come off if she tripped or brushed against a tree. Back then, I don't think lens caps were attached to the camera, they just snapped off and on. If it happened during a struggle with a serial killer or animal attack, I think the entire camera would've been dropped.
     
    Marg from Oz likes this.
  14. Stella

    Stella Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    539
    Likes Received:
    557
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I don't believe it was a serial killer; going 50 miles into a national forest to find a victim seems like a bit too much trouble. Squatters are shooed off during the camping season by the proprietors of Sierra Sunrise Camp. What I don't understand is why the government is actually breaking the law by denying David Paulides or anyone else Stacy's files under FOIA. Paulides says that after trying twice, he would now have to sue in court and he doesn't have the money for it. ******** anyone? I don't know if Agent Yu is denying him because of security reasons or if he's just messing with him for the warped fun of it.
     
    Marg from Oz, Ozoner and Wild Rose like this.
  15. Stella

    Stella Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    539
    Likes Received:
    557
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Sorry, I must've mentioned an organization I shouldn't have. I was referring to a fundraising effort so never mind. I did want to bring up one more thing. From different articles/documentaries, it says Stacy was going through a rough patch at home and at school; she had also had a falling out with her boyfriend. I can't speak for guys but girls of 14 feel things deeply and with unbelievable emotion. Her prom photo was taken on July 16; my granddaughter looked at it and said it looked like she had a baby bump. On the day of her disappearance, 9 days later, the photo of her on the horse seems to show a thickening around the waist, what isn't cover by a blanket or sweater. Was she pregnant? Maybe she just couldn't bring herself to tell her parents and maybe that's why her boyfriend fell out with her. This could be a suicide.
     
    Marg from Oz likes this.
  16. beubeubeu

    beubeubeu Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    261
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I can't ask them anything since I'm not even US citizen but I would assume that's only pragmatic.
    NPS are way better prepared and experienced with their area than LE, who usually deals with issues in urban areas.
    It wouldn't be good to make hovewer good LE in charge of investigating NP disappearance if NPS are better qualified to do so.
    They might really not have any official, 100% accurate and well archived statistics of missing people just because hovewer many years ago they were simply not required to do so and without any unification of the procedures that would end up with huge mess here and there - after all looking for missing people isn't their domain nor main interest.

    Some people might look at it as plain waste of resources to try to investigate wildeness disappearances as incidents potentially involving foul play because anyone may have fully justifiable educated guess that way too much money might go into investigating cases of unfortunate people succumbing to environments, attacked by wild animals etc.
    But wherever they are cracks in the system, cracks in coverage and assumptions of no-foul play involving explanations of disappearances... years came by and suddenly we learn that predators relied on these cracks to prey on people which they may harm not making themselves noticeable.

    For me it's a bit simmilar issue to that caused by no cooperation between different jurisdictons in older days: usually local LE's were right assuming that they will deal with it the best themselves. Because then (in most cases) indeed dealed with them best or at least better than outsiders, not adjusted to their reality. In the same time some of the cases were totally impossible to solve or deal with locally, and neither they were that easy to be recognized as such in the beginning, when crucial time was passing.

    They will have to change their ways to keep people safe sooner or later.
    Who would seriously believe that with hundreds of confirmed serial killers running around through decades there were not douzens of these operating in wilderness?
    How many these called "angel of deaths" are and were there, out in the World? Sick and old people die way more often than young and not hospitalized. People do realize how "easy" is to die being old and/or sick, so it's not suspicious... so, these predators were able to steal much more lifes than those leaving behind bloody, raped corpses. National Parks are pristine and wild so it's relatively easy and understandable that some people might get lost and disappear forever over there but serial killers wouldn't seek for prey there because of what?
     
    Marg from Oz likes this.
  17. beubeubeu

    beubeubeu Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    261
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Rarely anyone hears any screams for help from drowning people, especially if they never expected to fell in the water. I guess that someone already checked that out and tried to scream while standing in last spot Stacy was known to be in with other person at that camping spot listening. I doubt that any single scream could be heard with wind, people chatting around, doing stuff and aware that there are other people around. Nobody is on high guard all the time.

    About the lense cover... I would bet that if it wasn't her first time taking pictures or having that camera that her friends and family would know if she used to accidentally drop, lose or put that lense cover wherever.
    But same thing with camera - if she used to keep it in hand we could likely disregard any struggle on the spot theory, but if she used to wear it on her neck then even if some kind of struggle happened, she wouldn't lose it.

    Most likely is I guess that where lens cover was found, she either noticed something that she wanted to take a pic of (so she took the cover off the camera lense, maybe not very carefully put it in her pocket and just dropped it there), or she was already carrying it in pocket and slipped, moved abruptly, bent to tie her shoelace and lost it.

    It very much depend on the person. With bit sloppy, forgetful and easily distracted person lost lense cover means nothing, but with someone who has strong habit to always, literally always put it in safe place, zippered pocket or camera case... bit a different story there.
     
    Marg from Oz and ekardh like this.
  18. Alleykins

    Alleykins Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,539
    Likes Received:
    7,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was going to say, drowning is called the silent killer.
    https://pulse.seattlechildrens.org/doctor-explains-the-truth-about-drowning-its-a-silent-killer/
     
    Marg from Oz and weepingangel like this.
  19. beubeubeu

    beubeubeu Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    261
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Going hovewer many miles to find anything is a lot of trouble, and kinda ridiculous mission if you don't know the surroundings well. Serial killers do their serial killings where they feel confident and comfortable, squatters rarely feel really comfortable wherever they squat.
    I mean... not necessarily someone who worked or lived there at least half of their life, but with serial killer theory I would think more about someone who frequents wilderness a lot, and was there at least few times before, very observant, well adjusted to outdooors and wild areas... or someone who targeted and followed her before she got separated.

    I wouldn't bet much on old man being very observant, at least few moments after you sit to take rest, while you were not expected to became so tired or unwell to do so, you are more focused on catching breath and calming yourself down. He wasn't on high alert, becasue why would he be? They just had a hiking trip, they werent trapped in Vietnamese jungle controlled by Vietcong during war time. He might not even remember when he actually followed her walking and when he got distracted by birds, trees or whatever.

    As for the reasoning behind their refusal it made me curious, because I don't know - is there a way for LE or NPS to easily let a person know that they can't or are strongly discouraged to share somebody's files because of some security reasons that person, who's asking for these files is unaware of without really making them aware of it, to not compromise security?
    If not, maybe that's their protocol - to rely on all the obstacles anyone has to go through to get these files, counting on that they won't have enough patience or money to finish it?

    I watched David Paulides videos and it left me with three possibilities:
    1. NPS obnoxiously covers for serial killer
    2. Someone there is unqualified, unadjusted and dumb
    3. Releasing Stacy's files may compromise security with way and reason impossible for me to have grasp on

    First is I would say rather insane, and third I found most likely.
    Second option just don't get.

    If they are not actively investigating Stacy's disappearance than other people looking at it won't bring any harm to the case.
    And even if they see Paulides as conspiracy theory, big foot, ufo and whatever kind of freak... how on Earth that kind of publicity would harm National Park interest? Only thing that that might do is... increase people interest in visiting the park!
    Serial killer on the loose out there - hell yeah that might scare people off and make them rethink their plans of exploring beauty of National Parks.
    But big foot, ufo and other supernatural stuff? Most people don't care and won't care about these kind of news, they would disregard those and it will have zero effect on their willingness to visit National Park. Those who care about it and believe in it, are curious about it or simply like the idea of it possibly being true would be hella more interested in visiting such places so... what's in there that might be problematic for NPS?
     
    Marg from Oz likes this.
  20. Stella

    Stella Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    539
    Likes Received:
    557
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Drowning reactions vary. You have those who scream, those who struggle/fight and those whose voice freezes up. Having been around pools and lakes most of my life, I've seen it all. Life guards know to look for silent strugglers who are drowning when those around them in the pool have no idea it's happening.
     
    Marg from Oz likes this.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice