LE can ask anyone to take the test, but they can't force anyone to take it. The choice is up to the person asked.
Found Deceased CA - Audrey Moran, 26, & Jonathan Reynoso, 28, Riverside County, 10 May 2017 #1
- Thread starter LisaWL7TR
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
LE can ask anyone to take the test, but they can't force anyone to take it. The choice is up to the person asked.
All "correct" except that May 10, 2017 was a Wednesday not a Thursday...
Desert Cruiser
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2017
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 451
It would be kind of interesting if someone refused, I'm sure LE knows this path well.....
Desert Cruiser
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2017
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 451
Wanted to delete duplicate post edit/delete button?
BritYoung 802
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2017
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 11
I haven't seen it reported as a fact (directly from LE) that Jonathan's phone died/was powered off. Indio PD only mentioned Audrey's phone from what I can find.
cvaldez1975
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 15,687
- Reaction score
- 43,861
It's not that you wouldn't be taken seriously. We are all here to share theories. You can become a VI with your credentials, but as far as theories, you can share now. You don't have insider knowledge to this particular case, so you wouldn't be sharing personal detail and experience without links to back it up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hi
So mum didn't receive a text ? Or the sister received a text or was there a call or no communications at all ?
Or did she receive a text/ call from a different phone ?
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If we are going strictly by police reports, there are only two that I could find. The first from Indio Police Department--
http://www.cactushugs.com/indio-police-seeks-publics-help-locating-missing-couple/
and the second, and most recent from Riverside Sheriff / Coroner or homicide Department--
http://www.riversidesheriff.org/press/chu17-0512.asp
Personally, I feel there is additional information that can be relied on, but this would certainly seem to be a good starting place and perhaps a refresher on the basics of the case.
(The Riverside report does point to JDR as being seen at his home in Palm Desert, and though they don't say in THIS particular report, it's pretty clear from other information we have that it is JDR's roommate who saw him there.)
Neither of these reports, however, cover pings, or pizza, or phones out of tower reach (or off), or even Brawley, for that matter.
And if you read the Indio report, even though it's from LE, there is a lot of information that seems a little uncertain, even there.
One thing that I've seen happen is that LE can also get it wrong. Look at the McStay case, you had everyone from San Diego Sheriff's Department to the FBI claiming the family went to Mexico voluntarily, when they were actually buried in the desert in Victorville the whole time.
http://www.cactushugs.com/indio-police-seeks-publics-help-locating-missing-couple/
and the second, and most recent from Riverside Sheriff / Coroner or homicide Department--
http://www.riversidesheriff.org/press/chu17-0512.asp
Personally, I feel there is additional information that can be relied on, but this would certainly seem to be a good starting place and perhaps a refresher on the basics of the case.
(The Riverside report does point to JDR as being seen at his home in Palm Desert, and though they don't say in THIS particular report, it's pretty clear from other information we have that it is JDR's roommate who saw him there.)
Neither of these reports, however, cover pings, or pizza, or phones out of tower reach (or off), or even Brawley, for that matter.
And if you read the Indio report, even though it's from LE, there is a lot of information that seems a little uncertain, even there.
One thing that I've seen happen is that LE can also get it wrong. Look at the McStay case, you had everyone from San Diego Sheriff's Department to the FBI claiming the family went to Mexico voluntarily, when they were actually buried in the desert in Victorville the whole time.
According to AM's mother there was some type of contact after 8pm on May 10. Whether it was a text or a call or both is unclear. Earlier reports have the text with the pic of J & A as being received by the sister. It's a bit of a mystery, and news reports are inconsistent on this.
At some point, someone in AM's family received a text with a pic of J & A that was taken at some time, but not on May 10. But it was received after 8 on May 10.
I'll never understand why the doling out of info. on missing person's cases is always so cryptic. But across the board, every case I've tried to follow, same thing. There is always a ton of information that varies from news report to news report, and that info can change, dramatically over time. So I agree with OffDuty on this point, that going back to the data that is incontrovertible, like where the SUV was found, can be useful. It grounds the theories in the only hard facts we get to know, at this point.
One thing that really sticks with me is that if neither A or J's phones ping in Beaumont, does this mean they were kept somewhere and moved with the vehicle later (the dogs picking up on their scent at the place the vehicle is abandoned on I-10); or are A&J never in that vehicle after they are abducted?
I just don't see this as a voluntary disappearance.
One thing that really sticks with me is that if neither A or J's phones ping in Beaumont, does this mean they were kept somewhere and moved with the vehicle later (the dogs picking up on their scent at the place the vehicle is abandoned on I-10); or are A&J never in that vehicle after they are abducted?
I just don't see this as a voluntary disappearance.
offdutycriminologist
Verified Investigator/Criminologist
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2017
- Messages
- 109
- Reaction score
- 8
One of the things I always think when I work on a case is "what's the most logical conclusion?" In this case we have an abandoned vehicle registered to the Moran family, we have two phones that are no longer sending or receiving data (by data I mean calls/texts/information). Many people have said many things, but that's all hearsay. I don't like to make assumptions. Looking at the objective data, there is very little to go on. Two young people are missing, Audrey has a lot of people who seem to be able to establish a timeline. Jon does not. I don't even figure Brawley into the equation at this point.
That's all true. But even you have "guessed" at things--or as I prefer to call it, applied basic "deductive reasoning", like with your assertion regarding the debit/credit card being used by JDR for the pizza. That was a good example of deductive reasoning.
As long as there is some basis in verifiable facts, and we are being careful to respect the victims, or possible victims, and their families, applying deductive reasoning, and utilizing conditional statements as another tool, seems really all we can do. Ever. In cases like this.
But I do believe it is important to always have some grounding in and reliance on verifiable facts in whatever theory is put forward.
And to keep in mind, NOT EVERY missing person incident, involving young people, is a drug deal gone wrong. This disappearance could be diabolical in nature, or it could be as simple as someone thought JDR gave them a look they didn't like. People have been harmed for much less.
Force Ten
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2012
- Messages
- 3,192
- Reaction score
- 11,015
And I knew that, I don't know why I typed Thursday.
Just to be clear on what I mean by deductive reasoning, because it sounds all sciencey, but in fact people engage in deductive reasoning all the time without knowing it. And I'm throwing that term around for a reason.
Deductive reasoning can be a very effective tool, if you are dealing with imperfect data. Because it allows you to step outside of what you know, to develop a theory or hypothesis, without departing so much from the facts, that you have lost all sense of them.
So OffDuty made the claim that JDR used a credit card, because this seems like the most likely way his mother would have known about the purchase. That's deductive reasoning.
If A = B and B = C, then A = C.
But A has to be a fact that you can verify.
The fact in the above example is that JDR's mother knows or believes she knows that JDR ordered pizza. B if she knows this, she must have some direct knowledge, the most likely direct knowledge for her to have is a debit/or credit card bill that she was able to view after a month when it came to JDR's place in the mail (because JDR is an adult, even his mother would not necessarily be allowed access to info had by way of a search warrant at this time). Therefore, IF (conditional clause) JDR's mother knows this info by way of a credit/debit card bill, C JDR must have paid by credit card,
This theory is still hypothetical and could be wrong--there are many other ways she might have known what she claims to know, but the chances of it being right are greater than if you simply guess. Guessing works too sometimes, I know. It's just less likely to work.
And then you have to test the hypothetical and see if there is any other data to support it. Or see if another theory seems more likely.
This method, as opposed to coming up with theories that have no factual basis to them at all, makes the most sense to me. Otherwise we are dealing with fiction, and how do you even begin to prove a fiction, in a case like this?
All we have are possibilities, probabilities, improbabilities, and impossibilities.
We have very little that's certain.
Deductive reasoning can be a very effective tool, if you are dealing with imperfect data. Because it allows you to step outside of what you know, to develop a theory or hypothesis, without departing so much from the facts, that you have lost all sense of them.
So OffDuty made the claim that JDR used a credit card, because this seems like the most likely way his mother would have known about the purchase. That's deductive reasoning.
If A = B and B = C, then A = C.
But A has to be a fact that you can verify.
The fact in the above example is that JDR's mother knows or believes she knows that JDR ordered pizza. B if she knows this, she must have some direct knowledge, the most likely direct knowledge for her to have is a debit/or credit card bill that she was able to view after a month when it came to JDR's place in the mail (because JDR is an adult, even his mother would not necessarily be allowed access to info had by way of a search warrant at this time). Therefore, IF (conditional clause) JDR's mother knows this info by way of a credit/debit card bill, C JDR must have paid by credit card,
This theory is still hypothetical and could be wrong--there are many other ways she might have known what she claims to know, but the chances of it being right are greater than if you simply guess. Guessing works too sometimes, I know. It's just less likely to work.
And then you have to test the hypothetical and see if there is any other data to support it. Or see if another theory seems more likely.
This method, as opposed to coming up with theories that have no factual basis to them at all, makes the most sense to me. Otherwise we are dealing with fiction, and how do you even begin to prove a fiction, in a case like this?
All we have are possibilities, probabilities, improbabilities, and impossibilities.
We have very little that's certain.
Force Ten
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2012
- Messages
- 3,192
- Reaction score
- 11,015
I know many feel that the vehicle was "dumped" in Beaumont as a sort of diversion but I can't ignore the reports of their scents going up the hill. They had to have been there. I've never heard of dogs picking up a false scent, and in this case there are two. Reasons why they would go up the hill would be to run and/or hide. Beaumont is way off from their home and a bit obscure as reported they didn't know anyone around there. It could be that they were fleeing someone or something so bad they could not go home (or to police). Bad enough to where they disappeared themselves.
offdutycriminologist
Verified Investigator/Criminologist
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2017
- Messages
- 109
- Reaction score
- 8
Wow. Whatever your day job is, keep it. If you think that I "guessed" that JDR used a debit/credit card to order a pizza, you got me. You're absolutely right, he could have used cash. In fact, I'm wrong on several counts. Someone used some form of accepted currency to order something edible from Dominoes to be delivered to the address associated with JDR.
I was just using that as an example. I didn't think it was wrong of you to make that determination. It was a reasonable one to make. It was just a perfect example of what I meant.
There are a couple of different reports on whose scent was picked up on. I only know a little about scent tracing. And there are factors that can throw a scent off if time or elements intervene. Early on in this thread someone posted a really comprehensive article on the accuracy and fallibilities of this method. I'll try to find it.
That's an interesting theory, but can you back this up with something more than the possibility of the dogs having been right?
And even if dog tracking is very reliable, we really don't know if the reports on this are reliable.
As you seem to know a lot about dog tracking, can you post any data on it. I am having trouble finding the article that was posted earlier, which kind of breaks this method down for the lay person.
- Status