Found Deceased CA - Audrey Moran, 26, & Jonathan Reynoso, 28, Riverside County, 10 May 2017 #1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.

Of course they are victims.
I saw no where in their post of victim shaming as you indicated. Jon and/or Audrey could have gotten themselves unknowingly into a sticky situation, that has been theorized here throughout. It's not to say they they are "Bad People" but good people do take risks if faced with dire needs. They also at times mix with darker elements. We really don't know what JR was doing after his roommate saw him or where he was. Everyone has stated that JR knew no one from Brawley and had no reason to go there, yet there it is, the Elephant in the room. If he didn't in fact go there, then someone is lying. Or has the info wrong which is entirely possible. When people start doing things uncharacteristic of themselves, something is awry.

Other than the mention of a possible, unconfirmed trip to Brawley, what is there to indicate that either JDR or AM did anything that was out of the ordinary?

Correlation does not imply causation. Just because two things are mentioned in correlation to one another, does not mean that there is, in fact, any relationship. Just because something bad happens to someone, and there is uncertainty as to where they were just prior, does not mean that where they were just prior to going missing, has any direct causation to that disappearance. Maybe it does. But until we know more, we are out of luck really making any kind of valuable determination.

And by the way, Brawley is actually not that well known for drugs or gang activity (according to a number of Google searches), El Centro (and actually Coachella, as well) get that glory. Brawley has a sugar plant and a couple of medical facilities--and a very small population. Maybe JDR had a friend who went there for a check-up. Maybe JDR was being respectful of his friend's privacy, and kept it quiet because the friend didn't want anyone to know about it for some reason.

You can speculate ad nauseam on this stuff, which is why it is so important to attach any theory to some degree of known, reliable and verified information. Otherwise, we are simply just making stuff up. And I don't see how this helps anyone.

Point to one fact known on this case, that in any manner indicates the JDR and AM were doing anything other than simply getting together, and I'll follow you there. Otherwise, we just have to wait until real information becomes available.

And in a case like this, where we know that family and friends are scouring social media to find answers, lets keep them in mind as well. I think we need to be mindful that there are people for whom this case is a source of great pain. It's one thing if you know for a fact that something nefarious occurred. It's an entirely other thing to make something like that up, based on nothing but unfounded speculation.
 
Other than the mention of a possible, unconfirmed trip to Brawley, what is there to indicate that either JDR or AM did anything that was out of the ordinary?

Correlation does not imply causation. Just because two things are mentioned in correlation to one another, does not mean that there is, in fact, any relationship. Just because something bad happens to someone, and there is uncertainty as to where they were just prior, does not mean that where they were just prior to going missing, has any direct causation to that disappearance. Maybe it does. But until we know more, we are out of luck really making any kind of valuable determination.

And by the way, Brawley is actually not that well known for drugs or gang activity (according to a number of Google searches), El Centro gets that glory. Brawley has a sugar plant and a couple of medical facilities--and a very small population. Maybe JDR had a friend who went there for a check-up. Maybe JDR was being respectful of his friend's privacy, and kept it quiet because the friend didn't want anyone to know about it for some reason.

You can speculate ad nauseam on this stuff, which is why it is so important to attach any theory to some degree of known, reliable and verified information. Otherwise, we are simply just making stuff up. And I don't see how this helps anyone.

Point to one fact known on this case, that in any manner indicates the JDR and AM were doing anything other than simply getting together, and I'll follow you there. Otherwise, we just have to wait until real information becomes available.

And in a case like this, where we know that family and friends are scouring social media to find answers, lets keep them in mind as well. I think we need to be mindful that there are people for whom this case is a source of great pain. It's one thing if you know for a fact that something nefarious occurred. It's an entirely other thing to make something like that up, based on nothing but unfounded speculation.

Well that is what we do here, isn't it? Speculate? It's all "Just my opinion". No one stated in recent posts about Brawley being connected to drugs or gangs so I'm unclear why you're inserting that. But to counter your point, there have been posters here who know that town quite well who have stated there is a lot of those very activities going on there. But there is a lot of the same in the Coachella area as well. No one is instigating JR (or AM) had any affiliation.

JMO
 
Well that is what we do here, isn't it? Speculate? It's all "Just my opinion". No one stated in recent posts about Brawley being connected to drugs or gangs so I'm unclear why you're inserting that. But to counter your point, there have been posters here who know that town quite well who have stated there is a lot of those very activities going on there. But there is a lot of the same in the Coachella area as well. No one is instigating JR (or AM) had any affiliation.

JMO

Really? That's what "we" do here? Unfounded speculation?

Without basing any of our assertions on reliable facts?

Why?

Who is that supposed to help? And actually that's not what Websleuth's rules imply.

I believe we are required to support any assertions we make with facts to back them up, on this forum. And supply links as well...
 
If you put forward a theory that has no factual support for it, what is the difference between that and just making stuff up?

We are not going to solve these cases. LE will. And LE knows so much more than we do, and may know more than even family and friends of the victims know. All we can really do on these forums is keep the known FACTS, in front of the public. And hope that in doing this, someone out there will either be moved to call in a lead, or someone who saw something they didn't realize was important, will suddenly question what they saw, and phone that lead in--to LE. Not to us. We may never know what impact we have.

But in order to be helpful to these cases, I truly believe, that the FACTS, are what have to be highlighted. If an assertion or theory is grounded firmly in known facts, then even if the assertion is wrong, the FACTS still get play. They get exposure.

I have never deluded myself into thinking that I am going to solve any of these cases. But I do believe that by discussing FACTS, someone who needs to see those facts to help here, might just see them.

Therefore, in my view, any extreme divergence from the facts, isn't likely to help. In fact, it might hurt the case. And certainly any speculation that is vicious or unnecessarily disparaging of the victims or their loved ones, can only hurt.
 
First post, so please be gentle. I've been following since day one. One of the primary observations I've made is how many people here have said what "bright, beautiful, good" people this couple seems to be. In reality, there have only been a handful of first hand contributors here who knew Jon and none who knew Audrey to my best recollection. My first question is- how do any of those descriptors help solve the case? Second- if you don't know them, how do you know they're "good" people? And what defines "good" anyway? Third- all of the people who keep calling Audrey beautiful, is she more deserving of being found than other missing persons because of her looks?

In all of my observations on this thread over the last two months I feel like I've come across so many of these descriptions and wondered how they are pertinent to the case. I think it's important to remember that while everyone is innocent until proven guilty, everyone makes mistakes and criminals come in all shapes and sizes and from all walks of life.
Couldn't of said it better!

Sent from my SM-J700T1 using Tapatalk
 
Really? That's what "we" do here? Unfounded speculation?

Without basing any of our assertions on reliable facts?

Why?

Who is that supposed to help? And actually that's not what Websleuth's rules imply.

I believe we are required to support any assertions we make with facts to back them up, on this forum. And supply links as well...
As of now him going to brawley is published in various media forms so i believe we can talk about that and theorize our opinions as to why..

Sent from my SM-J700T1 using Tapatalk
 
As of now him going to brawley is published in various media forms so i believe we can talk about that and theorize our opinions as to why..

Sent from my SM-J700T1 using Tapatalk

It's also reported as unconfirmed.
 
If you put forward a theory that has no factual support for it, what is the difference between that and just making stuff up?

We are not going to solve these cases. LE will. And LE knows so much more than we do, and may know more than even family and friends of the victims know. All we can really do on these forums is keep the known FACTS, in front of the public. And hope that in doing this, someone out there will either be moved to call in a lead, or someone who saw something they didn't realize was important, will suddenly question what they saw, and phone that lead in--to LE. Not to us. We may never know what impact we have.

But in order to be helpful to these cases, I truly believe, that the FACTS, are what have to be highlighted. If an assertion or theory is grounded firmly in known facts, then even if the assertion is wrong, the FACTS still get play. They get exposure.

I have never deluded myself into thinking that I am going to solve any of these cases. But I do believe that by discussing FACTS, someone who needs to see those facts to help here, might just see them.

Therefore, in my view, any extreme divergence from the facts, isn't likely to help. In fact, it might hurt the case. And certainly any speculation that is vicious or unnecessarily disparaging of the victims or their loved ones, can only hurt.
Well we low brawley is a fact because that is what Audrey n the missing victim told her sister. Do we know what was involved out there no. But throwing ideas good or bad might just help. What if someone did see something nefarious but thought well audrey n jr wouldn't be involved it that they're too good of people and didn't give a second thought. It's a great idea to throw all aspects out there...

Sent from my SM-J700T1 using Tapatalk
 
Well we low brawley is a fact because that is what Audrey n the missing victim told her sister. Do we know what was involved out there no. But throwing ideas good or bad might just help. What if someone did see something nefarious but thought well audrey n jr wouldn't be involved it that they're too good of people and didn't give a second thought. It's a great idea to throw all aspects out there...

Sent from my SM-J700T1 using Tapatalk

Did you hear Audrey tell her sister that? Because if you didn't then it is not a fact.
 
Did you hear Audrey tell her sister that? Because if you didn't then it is not a fact.
I don't think any of us personally heard anything the victims have said as most of us aren't personally related. So NO.... but it has been posted as stated earlier in various media outlets and therefore we are able to speak on it here as if it were...

Sent from my SM-J700T1 using Tapatalk
 
She's a millennial, so it's not out that she'd text and drive. I see it ALL the time. In fact I don't think I've ever been on the road and not seen at least one person on their phone.

I'm curious about how many pings and in which direction they think she went based on that. They only officially report her last ping. I'm pretty sure reports are that they believe they did in fact meet up so I wonder how they came to that conclusion? Though I guess just the fact that they're both gone would lead them to that?

Ditto, most ppl view texting and driving like speeding and most ppl just do it, I even do it at lights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It's also reported as unconfirmed.

Yes we know that has not been established, that he may or may not have gone. It's perfectly fine to speculate about that. We have no confirmation that they are alive (or dead) either, yet we speculate on that as well.
 
Okay, I will when I get back to my computer.

Offdutycriminologist, to get away from the back and fourth I see happening I'd really like to get your input on what you think may have happened. I'm not being a jerk, I'm actually just hoping you can provide another angle.

I believe it's a good caught up in bad... I'd like to get your input.
 
Offdutycriminologist, to get away from the back and fourth I see happening I'd really like to get your input on what you think may have happened. I'm not being a jerk, I'm actually just hoping you can provide another angle.

I believe it's a good caught up in bad... I'd like to get your input.
Me, too

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Me, too

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Thank you for the welcome, all. I will try to get something together from my computer tomorrow. I need to remain a bit vague for professional purposes and to protect the integrity of an active investigation. For tonight I will leave you all with this. If the last year has taught us anything, it should be that the media is rarely trustworthy. I'm not talking about fake news. What I mean in the context of this case is that a journalist may read a social media comment (banned here for good reason) and then turn it into a full fledged story which is then taken as fact. When you boil this case down to actual facts, very little is known. As in- basically, a car registered to Audrey's father was found abandoned in Beaumont that her parents reported she had been driving and we have seen photo evidence of that. Almost all else is pure speculation. More to come.
 
Thank you for the welcome, all. I will try to get something together from my computer tomorrow. I need to remain a bit vague for professional purposes and to protect the integrity of an active investigation. For tonight I will leave you all with this. If the last year has taught us anything, it should be that the media is rarely trustworthy. I'm not talking about fake news. What I mean in the context of this case is that a journalist may read a social media comment (banned here for good reason) and then turn it into a full fledged story which is then taken as fact. When you boil this case down to actual facts, very little is known. As in- basically, a car registered to Audrey's father was found abandoned in Beaumont that her parents reported she had been driving and we have seen photo evidence of that. Almost all else is pure speculation. More to come.

Wait, you're saying there is photographic evidence of her driving the car in Beaumont, or just driving it?
 
Wait, you're saying there is photographic evidence of her driving the car in Beaumont, or just driving it?

No what I'm saying is that there is photographic evidence of a vehicle registered to Audrey's father abandoned on the side of the road in Beaumont.
 
Thank you for the welcome, all. I will try to get something together from my computer tomorrow. I need to remain a bit vague for professional purposes and to protect the integrity of an active investigation. For tonight I will leave you all with this. If the last year has taught us anything, it should be that the media is rarely trustworthy. I'm not talking about fake news. What I mean in the context of this case is that a journalist may read a social media comment (banned here for good reason) and then turn it into a full fledged story which is then taken as fact. When you boil this case down to actual facts, very little is known. As in- basically, a car registered to Audrey's father was found abandoned in Beaumont that her parents reported she had been driving and we have seen photo evidence of that. Almost all else is pure speculation. More to come.

I'm incredibly intrigued.... looking forward to more
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
2,771
Total visitors
2,921

Forum statistics

Threads
603,655
Messages
18,160,396
Members
231,810
Latest member
uhohspaghettiO
Back
Top