LOST HIKER IN Spaulding mountain area maine.

[skiguy]

The coronor's report was supposed to satisfy us, but certainly has not done that. I wonder/hope her family knows more. If they believe that report, they have their eyes closed.

IMO it is very easy in this case to suspect foul play. It is certainly possible but I find it interesting that there has been very little discussion about some sort of unforeseen health event that may have occurred. A possible CVA event even if minor could have caused her to become disoriented and wander off the trail. Certainly possible considering her age and the high level of activity she was maintaining. We will probably never know but I have a hard time believing she was caught up in some sort of military exercise or an ET event.

 

[skiguy]

Was told about this over the w/e. David Paulides, the author of the 5 volume 'Missing 411' books, was on Coast to Coast on Nov 12. He took issue with the coroner's report, etc.

I found a YouTube link. Here's an url for the broadcast. C2c has its own subscription for re-broadcast, so it can be difficult to find others. Paulides begins at the 38:15 mark, and Largay is discussed from 1:42:30 to 1:47:25 - more or less.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kprVUeusMl4

David Paulides ought to get his facts straight before blabbing off. There are quite a few erroneous facts he cites. Too bad people get paid for this kind of rubbage.

 

[erugs]

IMO it is very easy in this case to suspect foul play. It is certainly possible but I find it interesting that there has been very little discussion about some sort of unforeseen health event that may have occurred. A possible CVA event even if minor could have caused her to become disoriented and wander off the trail. Certainly possible considering her age and the high level of activity she was maintaining. We will probably never know but I have a hard time believing she was caught up in some sort of military exercise or an ET event.

As my recently departed mom said before she died, "A bunch of "ifs" is only a maybe." I think that words such as "could" and "might" and "maybe" and others, fall into the same innocuous category. Are we satisfied? No. Is her family satisfied? I hope so.

 

[Tom_Murphy]

As my recently departed mom said before she died, "A bunch of "ifs" is only a maybe." I think that words such as "could" and "might" and "maybe" and others, fall into the same innocuous category. Are we satisfied? No. Is her family satisfied? I hope so.

Unless she left a note, there will always be some amount of uncertainty about what happened.

A common misconception on Whiteblaze.net seems to be that because she had hiked a fair amount of the AT, she was experienced at navigating off trail.

I think the most likely causes were either a medical event that disrupted her judgment or she lost the trail and then got hurt [immobilzed].

 

[Ignomer]

I'd bet that if the SERE facility was involved in the disappearance of a hiker the body wouldn't turn up. I looked at a map on the Maine Warden Facebook page a while back (linked earlier in this thread, but no longer accessible), and it looked to me like she may have headed off the trail upstream past two feeder streams, then crossed the brook and headed back towards the trail. My guess is there was a twisted ankle or something similar, she hunkered down and waited for rescuers that unfortunately didn't find her. Any notes she may have left would most likely have been destroyed or scattered by the elements.

 

[erugs]

We're still guessing. Was her camera found, or a cell phone? What was the state of her belongings? Did they look like they have been ravaged? Did it look as though she may have set up her tent? Were her remains really found in a sleeping bag?

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

We're still guessing. Was her camera found, or a cell phone? What was the state of her belongings? Did they look like they have been ravaged? Did it look as though she may have set up her tent? Were her remains really found in a sleeping bag?

Excellent questions.

 

[TJsName]

I worry that some people can fall victim to the confirmation bias and personal incredulity here. There needs to be evidence of foul play to support the claim. That is the standard we rely on. A lack of evidence that disproves foul play is NOT a reasonable standard. What we should keep in mind here is:

1.) Most/none of us are coroners
2.) Most/none of us have access to the same information that the coroner had
3.) To believe that the coroner had evidence to suggest foul play but ignored it (or couldn't interpret it correctly) is an attack on the coroner's credibility
4.) To believe that only the coroner was involved in the determination ignores the larger investigation as a whole, which goes into the report
5.) Just because something can't be disproved does not mean it was likely to have happened. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. If you make a claim here, try to back it up with evidence. Don't wait for someone to disprove your theory. This isn't Clue.
6.) Very few things in life are 100% certain. We make decisions every day based on the best possible information, but they are still guesses. Don't expect absolutes in a world that offers very few.

 

[Snowflea]

Well, I certainly make no claims but am left with the same questions as Ellen and others. I guess the biggest question I have is why she was found so far off the AT. Speaking from my own experience, AT thru-hikers rarely stray from the white blazes, even for relatively short side trails to viewpoints. We will probably never know.

 

[sierra]

According to the report they did find a cell phone. It's not impossible to take one wrong turn and find yourself lost, or to have a sudden medical emergency that renders you helpless considering your way out in the forest. From what I have read, the family has accepted the report and the final determination that no foul play occurred. Sometimes the lack of 100% facts, lend to conspiracy theory's, when in fact there are none. I think finding her remains in itself is a blessing for the family and if it was me, I'd move on.

 

[hikerbrian]

I also think it's a little unfair to suggest that S&R, the Maine Warden Service, and the coroners office would be interested in "just closing the case" for the sake of closing the case, rather than putting in the necessary work to reach a reasonably definitive conclusion, or, alternatively, to rule the cause of death as "inconclusive." Though I don't know any of them personally, I expect all involved would want to get it right. This was a search operation that lasted a year, and I suspect the outcome was meaningful to everyone. It's not like they all are going to get promotions now just because they successfully closed the case.

Unless you're a very good navigator, once you lose a trail it's easy to wander a long ways in the wrong direction. In fact, considering that wandering back towards the trail is at best 50% probability, what happenned here isn't surprising. Of course we can't know if some medical event ultimately led to her demise, but there would most likely have been evidence if such a thing had happened (sprained ankle: boot removed, first aid kit deployed, some kind of wrap, etc; stroke, heart attack or other sudden death: no evidence of preparation for a long time in that space, i.e., sleeping bag and tent would not be deployed, rather the victim would be on the ground almost exactly as they had been hiking with pack on back, etc; mild stroke or mild heart attack that impaired judgement: was there other evidence of impaired judgement, for example the tent was set up wrong, stove out but not set up properly, pants put on backwards, etc). With foul play, there almost certainly would have been evidence of a struggle or evidence of trauma. I'm certain the Chief Medical Examiner has thought through all of these possibilities and many, many more. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, so for him to rule rather definitively that exposure was the cause of death is evidence enough for me to mourn her passing and move on.

 

[rup]

Like the Ginsu Knife commercial: wait - there's more:

http://chrisbusby.bangordailynews.com/2015/12/10/politics/largay-case-inspires-sere-ial/

http://thebollard.com/2015/12/03/m-i-a-on-the-a-t-survival/

 

[Grey J]

I worry that some people can fall victim to the confirmation bias and personal incredulity here. There needs to be evidence of foul play to support the claim. That is the standard we rely on. A lack of evidence that disproves foul play is NOT a reasonable standard. What we should keep in mind here is:

1.) Most/none of us are coroners
2.) Most/none of us have access to the same information that the coroner had
3.) To believe that the coroner had evidence to suggest foul play but ignored it (or couldn't interpret it correctly) is an attack on the coroner's credibility
4.) To believe that only the coroner was involved in the determination ignores the larger investigation as a whole, which goes into the report
5.) Just because something can't be disproved does not mean it was likely to have happened. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. If you make a claim here, try to back it up with evidence. Don't wait for someone to disprove your theory. This isn't Clue.
6.) Very few things in life are 100% certain. We make decisions every day based on the best possible information, but they are still guesses. Don't expect absolutes in a world that offers very few.

These are all excellent points, however (re: #5) just because something can't be proved (foul play) doesn't mean it didn't happen. I don't know what happened but like many others posting here I don't think the story as told and the coroner's conclusions make sense. Hence the extended discussion and speculation.

 

[Stan]

I'm always fond of the statement, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't measn they're not out to get you."

I don't follow witchhunts, they're often little more than a source of publicity and perhaps income for the hunters as much as a quest for the truth.

In this case I agree, there are questions that seem to have been inadequately answered but I also consider 1) any private wishes of the family, 2) the fact that I'm not aware of all the answers already given and that a statement taken out of context can be quite misleading, 3) a criticism or Monday morning quarterbacking should not be an indictment, and 4) I've no reason not to trust the Maine Wardens, they're a bunch of pretty fair straight shooters, literally and figuratively.

 

[TJsName]

I'm always fond of the statement, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't measn they're not out to get you."

There is a funny scene in Bowfinger in which a character says, "It seems the paranoid are sometimes actually being followed."

As to what that quote gets at is probability and paranoid people probably aren't being followed - they are mentally ill. Just to be clear, I don't think it is paranoid/unreasonable to ask questions about the case to get a clearer explanation from those involved. The authorities involved have made a claim that is fair to challenge. If they present evidence that is consistent with their conclusions, then one can accept it, or double-down that a cover-up runs even deeper. I suspect that many people are aware of conspiracies/cover-ups, or general miscarriages of justice that have occurred, and the role that investigative journalism plays in spotlighting them.

I suspect that this resonates with us in a 'could this happen to me' kind of scenario, and I imagine that many of us feel strongly that the answer to that is 'no, it couldn't happen to me without some outside factor'. It might be easier to believe that some negative force was at place, and that people don't just get lost and die in the woods. Such a belief might give us a greater sense of dominion over nature, but that line of thinking isn't grounded in anything outside of one's own ego.

As for that article - I do take issue with the emphasis on how close she was to the trail. To me it implies that anyone who is lost must have walked in a straight line right from a trail. Without strong navigational skills*, someone could wander around for hours without really going anywhere, and not see the trail when it's 50 feet away. One of the things I've noticed about thru hiking is that the hikers don't always get a sense of the topography around the trail. The most popular book focuses on distance and elevation profiles. If we go off-trail on a day-hike, I suspect that we have a better sense of the surrounding areas than most thru hikers, if for no other reason than it's easier for us to do the research. I imagine being lost in a area that one is very unfamiliar* with would be much scarier.

* Generic statements - not specific to this incident

 

[rup]

This guy won't quit:

http://thebollard.com/2016/01/07/m-i-a-on-the-a-t-evasion/

 

[John H Swanson]

This guy won't quit:

http://thebollard.com/2016/01/07/m-i-a-on-the-a-t-evasion/

The article said: "The map we published last month shows that the site of the remains was a short distance from an old boot-shaped logging trail, also called a tote road."

Most bushwhackers know that you can be quite close to something in dense growth spruce forest and not see it.

The article said: "Though it’s overgrown compared to the Railroad Road — the tote road she would have crossed shortly before encountering the boot-shaped trail — it is significant and recognizable enough to warrant being marked on a map."

My comment: The author is most definitely not familiar with the age of the topo maps and the variation of trails shown vs current conditions. I can not confirm if this trail is clear or even noticeable, and I doubt the author knows first hand either. It might be, or might not. And if she followed this trail and became tired, I would guess she would stop and camp right on the trail or within a few feet. The location where she was found was off the trail.

The article said: "Wardens have thus far resisted even acknowledging that this boot-shaped tote road is the path closest to where Largay’s remains were found. But if they were aware of this old logging trail — and, again, it’s right there on a publicly available topographic map — why wasn’t it searched within a day or two of the Wednesday, July 24 report that she’d gone missing after traveling that section of the A.T.?"

I remember seeing the posted consolidated searcher tracks and they showed one passing close to the location where she was found. Not sure of the date/time of that track but it was clear to me that they where in the area. And for me it would have been frustrating to see how close they were to here and missed her

The article said: "Did an entire week or more pass before authorities searched that boot-shaped tote road? The wardens’ comments thus far seem to indicate that was the case. If it was sometime in August before that area was searched, what could possibly account for the delay? The terrain in this area is not challenging; it would require no special skills to search there."

If the road is open, then this could be a valid point. My first response would have been to check the obvious old trails heading off the AT. Again, someone could have walked that old trail and not seen her

 

[TCD]

As I said earlier, it does seem that someone has an axe to grind.

I'm not familiar with that area, but John makes a good point about maps. Many "trails" that appear on topo maps are not detectable at all in the woods; and also there are many trails in the woods that do not appear on any maps. An "armchair map reader" can reach a lot of wrong conclusions about what's really out there on the ground.

Also, a good point about being close to something and not seeing it in dense woods. I've done a bit of wilderness SAR (mostly grid search line stuff). We teach that to get really good search coverage when looking for clues such as dropped items, you should be able to see the feet of the next searcher in line. But that's rarely practiced thoroughly; in dense woods that requires searchers to be quite close together, and greatly reduces how much area a team can cover. So there's usually a compromise with search coverage and search efficiency. So it's easy for a search team to miss something in dense woods. No scale on that map, but the "location found" dot looks to be at least a couple hundred feet off that "trail" on the map. At a couple hundred feet in dense spruce, even a blaze orange tent would not be detectable.

 

[John H Swanson]

As I said earlier, it does seem that someone has an axe to grind.

I'm not familiar with that area, but John makes a good point about maps. Many "trails" that appear on topo maps are not detectable at all in the woods; and also there are many trails in the woods that do not appear on any maps. An "armchair map reader" can reach a lot of wrong conclusions about what's really out there on the ground.

Also, a good point about being close to something and not seeing it in dense woods. I've done a bit of wilderness SAR (mostly grid search line stuff). We teach that to get really good search coverage when looking for clues such as dropped items, you should be able to see the feet of the next searcher in line. But that's rarely practiced thoroughly; in dense woods that requires searchers to be quite close together, and greatly reduces how much area a team can cover. So there's usually a compromise with search coverage and search efficiency. So it's easy for a search team to miss something in dense woods. No scale on that map, but the "location found" dot looks to be at least a couple hundred feet off that "trail" on the map. At a couple hundred feet in dense spruce, even a blaze orange tent would not be detectable.

A couple of other observations ... comparing the topo and satellite images one can see the trail/logging road in the satellite images so I'm guessing it is walkable. Also the map shown in their article shows where they found her and it has a UTM grid. I scaled it off my monitor and it looks like she was found about 80m off the trail/logging road. 250ft in Maine forest - who can fault them for not finding her unless she was calling out.

 

[sdways01]

A couple of other observations ... comparing the topo and satellite images one can see the trail/logging road in the satellite images so I'm guessing it is walkable. Also the map shown in their article shows where they found her and it has a UTM grid. I scaled it off my monitor and it looks like she was found about 80m off the trail/logging road. 250ft in Maine forest - who can fault them for not finding her unless she was calling out.

The topo lines on the image included in the article would also show a significant elevation difference between the path/trail and where she was. That would also add to the difficulty in spotting her.