Unlike most of the time, in Daniel’s case I don’t immediately roll my eyes at a conspiracy theory. (I’ve seen Chinatown!)
That said, in re: a theory specifically involving water rights/development, I have to wonder why Daniel would be a target. As others have mentioned, he was essentially an entry-level hydrologist, taking measurements, but with no power to make decisions or influence anything. What would killing him, in the conspiracy scenario, accomplish?
I’m not sure where I’m going with this. The interactions with the girl he door-dashed make me think there was some sort of mental health thing going on; the desert is vast, the simplest explanation.
However, the discrepancies in witness statements, the weird Jeep evidence: the distance travelled, the ignition cycling, (allegedly) showing up in a place people or cows would have found it had it been there the whole time, the clothes strewn about…
There’s a strange undercurrent to this case I can’t quite put my finger on.