AZ AZ - Daniel Robinson, 24, remote job site, Buckeye, 23 Jun 2021 #2

[samsmom]

Please join in and light a candle tonight for the missing along with Daniel.
More info at Please Help Find Daniel

 

[Benthic Depths]

I was the one (or one of those) who mentioned thinking there would have been more public objection to the project if it was contentious enough that someone killed Daniel over it. I still think that, though I accept I could be wrong.

However I wholeheartedly disagree that Daniel was in any position to terminate or implement any change to the project! He was a novice employee, doing the low-level work of monitoring/data collector. If he had simply quit the job, that would not stop the project, heck, probably wouldn't even slow it down. Someone else would have simply been sent to do the monitoring or data collecting.

The actual developer, or maaaayyyybe possibly the project manager at the hydrogeology company, would have been the appropriate place for public disapproval to be directed. As I've said in earlier posts, I definitely do understand (and have personal experience with) angry public taking it out on low level employees, but that's more of a road rage/lashing out than an actual attempt to h italt the project. The only exception I can think of is trying to scare the power brokers by harming an entry level employee.

MOO

That's just it- you are continuing to speak as though the (hypothetical) murder was aimed at preventing the housing developments being built.

But if Daniel were murdered due to his job, it would have been by someone trying to ensure the housing development got built and sold, not trying to prevent that.

Daniel was a professional geologist in this context, and just has to blow a whistle to delay the project for years, if not permanently. "Is the housing development contaminating or damaging the water table? Better take a few years and a bucket of $ to study the situation."

Whereas if Daniel disappears, you or someone much less observant can take over to tell regulators everything is wonderful and safe.

 

[Evilxelvis138]

That's just it- you are continuing to speak as though the (hypothetical) murder was aimed at preventing the housing developments being built.

But if Daniel were murdered due to his job, it would have been by someone trying to ensure the housing development got built and sold, not trying to prevent that.

Daniel was a professional geologist in this context, and just has to blow a whistle to delay the project for years, if not permanently. "Is the housing development contaminating or damaging the water table? Better take a few years and a bucket of $ to study the situation."

Whereas if Daniel disappears, you or someone much less observant can take over to tell regulators everything is wonderful and safe.

I wonder if any work continued to be done at that well site/ or further offsite analysis of that well after Daniel went missing?

I know he was at that site repetitively, so I'm curious of the activity on the well log (if it was signed off as completed right after he disappeared).

 

[Eyerish Eyes]

The same day Daniel disappeared an ex con named Michael committed suicide on the 303 after a short chase by MCSO. From his obit pix I saw that he had married his HS sweetheart and bought a house in Tolleson. He was a committed gangbanger and there were pix of weapons and cash. But what would make him commit suicide? And he was not headed to Tolleson because he was north of the west ramp to I-10 so he passed the exit by a few miles. The 303 is on the east side of the White tanks whereas Daniel was west of the White tanks. I have wondered if there is any connection to Daniel’s case. I found a video online of the officers dash cam and he was shot at and then within seconds the guy killed himself. This is where cell phone intel would be helpful to find out if either party was in the same vicinity that day. I think from the MCSO side they could get cell phone records because there are no longer civil rights in this case and the guy was fleeing something. I don’t think BPD can get phone records when it’s missing persons.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

That's just it- you are continuing to speak as though the (hypothetical) murder was aimed at preventing the housing developments being built.

But if Daniel were murdered due to his job, it would have been by someone trying to ensure the housing development got built and sold, not trying to prevent that.

Daniel was a professional geologist in this context, and just has to blow a whistle to delay the project for years, if not permanently. "Is the housing development contaminating or damaging the water table? Better take a few years and a bucket of $ to study the situation."

Whereas if Daniel disappears, you or someone much less observant can take over to tell regulators everything is wonderful and safe.

I disagree that Daniel was a professional geologist in this context. He had his degree but he was in the first year or two of employment and would have been an entry-level data collector only. NOT in a position to continue or discontinue this project in any way.

And those developments ARE studied for years before approvals are given and designs are finalized. If Daniel was collecting data from monitoring wells (not sure if that's what he was doing or not), those wells were likely themselves part of the pre-decision research "to study the situation" as you say.

I fail to see how someone who wanted the development to continue, would think that removing an employee would expedite the project, even if Daniel WERE a decision-maker which I do not believe he was. But even if he was, how does removing him (especially in such a mysterious way) do that?

And I don't understand your last sentence -- are you suggesting that the person who killed/disappeared Daniel would think that they themselves could take over and become the contact with regulators?

MOO

 

[Benthic Depths]

I disagree that Daniel was a professional geologist in this context. He had his degree but he was in the first year or two of employment and would have been an entry-level data collector only. NOT in a position to continue or discontinue this project in any way.

And those developments ARE studied for years before approvals are given and designs are finalized. If Daniel was collecting data from monitoring wells (not sure if that's what he was doing or not), those wells were likely themselves part of the pre-decision research "to study the situation" as you say.

I fail to see how someone who wanted the development to continue, would think that removing an employee would expedite the project, even if Daniel WERE a decision-maker which I do not believe he was. But even if he was, how does removing him (especially in such a mysterious way) do that?

And I don't understand your last sentence -- are you suggesting that the person who killed/disappeared Daniel would think that they themselves could take over and become the contact with regulators?

MO

If collecting geological scientific data for pay by virtue of a degree in geology doesn't make someone a professional geologist, then what does?
Previously you stated "He was a novice employee, doing the low-level work of monitoring/data collector."
So you can dismiss him collecting data, the core of what a professional geologist does, but are disputing he was monitoring the wells? He was collecting data, just not the most important one available at the site?

And if someone killed him due to the data he was collecting, that person would have to know both the data had been collected and it's implications for delaying or cancelling the housing development. That's a short list, most of them fellow employees within the company who also have geology degrees, and so could obviously become the contact with regulators.

What exactly are you struggling to understand about that?

 

[Auntie Cipation]

If collecting geological scientific data for pay by virtue of a degree in geology doesn't make someone a professional geologist, then what does?
Previously you stated "He was a novice employee, doing the low-level work of monitoring/data collector."
So you can dismiss him collecting data, the core of what a professional geologist does, but are disputing he was monitoring the wells? He was collecting data, just not the most important one available at the site?

And if someone killed him due to the data he was collecting, that person would have to know both the data had been collected and it's implications for delaying or cancelling the housing development. That's a short list, most of them fellow employees within the company who also have geology degrees, and so could obviously become the contact with regulators.

What exactly are you struggling to understand about that?

I'm not going to get into a spat about semantics of job titles. I maintain that, regardless of job title, an entry level data collector, monitoring well sampler, or whatever Daniel was doing, was entry-level work which I assert to be far removed from anyone later interpreting that data or making decisions about the project. I'm well aware that "professional geologist" or "professional hydrologist" can apply to a wide range of job responsibilities, from entry-level on up.

Removing a low level employee does not affect the direction or progression of the project, IMO. In fact, removing *any* level of employee does not do more than delay a project while someone else is reassigned or hired. (Other than the newsworthy spook factor of having to consider that someone is wreaking violence against your employees, which could make anyone reconsider their project or their role in society in general.)

Unless you are suggesting that Daniel had information and plans he intended to use to stop the project? Is that what you're getting at? If he did (which I don't believe to be the case), where would he have gotten such information? I maintain it would NOT have come from the data he was collecting or whatever he was doing on the job -- first off I do not expect Daniel even had access to the results of the data he was collecting, if that's what he was doing. And second, if he did observe something that caused him to think the project needed to stop, he would just report that up the line to his supervisor and that person would decide what action to take if any.

What evidence do we have that Daniel had strong feelings in either direction about the project his job was in support of? We don't have indication he mentioned to anyone his concerns about his work, do we? Was he known to be an environmentalist, or an activist of any sort?

To your final paragraph -- No, I don't think that someone could become the project liaison with regulators by killing Daniel. First off I have zero reason to think that Daniel or anyone in a similar job to his would even BE the project liaison with regulators -- that would be a much higher level person, if not the project manager, or perhaps a person at the company whose job is regulator liaison for all their projects. Second, if the person who WAS the regulator liaison was removed/killed/whatever, it's not like any random employee could decide they would now be the liaison. That is a high-level and specially trained position, IMO, and the organization or project manager would decide who filled that role going forward.

These are all my opinions, backed by my own personal experience in a similar job. Obviously you may disagree.

I don't find this train of speculation about someone killing Daniel as a part of trying to control the outcome of the project to be plausible, so, depending on your response, I may decline to continue replying. MOO

 

[Benthic Depths]

I'm not going to get into a spat about semantics of job titles. I maintain that, regardless of job title, an entry level data collector, monitoring well sampler, or whatever Daniel was doing, was entry-level work which I assert to be far removed from anyone later interpreting that data or making decisions about the project. I'm well aware that "professional geologist" or "professional hydrologist" can apply to a wide range of job responsibilities, from entry-level on up.

Removing a low level employee does not affect the direction or progression of the project, IMO. In fact, removing *any* level of employee does not do more than delay a project while someone else is reassigned or hired. (Other than the newsworthy spook factor of having to consider that someone is wreaking violence against your employees, which could make anyone reconsider their project or their role in society in general.)

Unless you are suggesting that Daniel had information and plans he intended to use to stop the project? Is that what you're getting at? If he did (which I don't believe to be the case), where would he have gotten such information? I maintain it would NOT have come from the data he was collecting or whatever he was doing on the job -- first off I do not expect Daniel even had access to the results of the data he was collecting, if that's what he was doing. And second, if he did observe something that caused him to think the project needed to stop, he would just report that up the line to his supervisor and that person would decide what action to take if any.

What evidence do we have that Daniel had strong feelings in either direction about the project his job was in support of? We don't have indication he mentioned to anyone his concerns about his work, do we? Was he known to be an environmentalist, or an activist of any sort?

To your final paragraph -- No, I don't think that someone could become the project liaison with regulators by killing Daniel. First off I have zero reason to think that Daniel or anyone in a similar job to his would even BE the project liaison with regulators -- that would be a much higher level person, if not the project manager, or perhaps a person at the company whose job is regulator liaison for all their projects. Second, if the person who WAS the regulator liaison was removed/killed/whatever, it's not like any random employee could decide they would now be the liaison. That is a high-level and specially trained position, IMO, and the organization or project manager would decide who filled that role going forward.

These are all my opinions, backed by my own personal experience in a similar job. Obviously you may disagree.

I don't find this train of speculation about someone killing Daniel as a part of trying to control the outcome of the project to be plausible, so, depending on your response, I may decline to continue replying. MOO

With respect, you still appear to find it implausible that Daniel Robinson, employed by an Engineering company with a job title of Hydrogeologist, was employed to do hydrogeology. Consider your observations on plausibility noted.

And to answer your demand for evidence regarding Daniel's Robinson's feelings about his job, we should look at those texts he sent Steve Noel the day before he disappeared.

Noel was not Daniel's supervisor, Kevin. Noel is the project manager. The police spoke with Kevin, but not Noel, the week he disappeared- despite knowing of Daniel texts to Noel, but not their content, as of 6/27/21.

But while we have literally every text he ever sent to Katelyn, who he hung out with once, those text messages to Noel, the project manager, from the day before he disappeared - 40% of the days total, twice as many as he sent to Katelyn that day- the contents of those to Noel didn't make it into the Buckeye PDs 128 pg. Report. (See page 26- the only mention of the fact of Daniel texting S. Noel multiple times the day before he disappeared I have found.)

It's just before page 27, where we discover Stephen and Daniel's employer, Matrix, paid his rent for July of 2021, despite his being a no call no show for over a week at that point.

(At this point I would note neither Tempe nor Daniel's family made entry into the apartment prior to 7/06/21, and yet forensics showed someone going through his Google search history while he was demonstrably not in his own apartment.

One wonders just how much access paying Daniel Robinson's past due rent purchased.)

At any rate, suffice it to say that I will need to see the text messages to S. Noel from the day before Daniel's disappearance before I begin opining on the plausibility of his job as hydrogeologist playing a role in his disappearance.

Your reply, if any, to these facts and extrapolations is your own prerogative, as it always has been. I speak to you, but not solely for you.

With respect.

 

[10ofRods]

I'm not going to get into a spat about semantics of job titles. I maintain that, regardless of job title, an entry level data collector, monitoring well sampler, or whatever Daniel was doing, was entry-level work which I assert to be far removed from anyone later interpreting that data or making decisions about the project. I'm well aware that "professional geologist" or "professional hydrologist" can apply to a wide range of job responsibilities, from entry-level on up.

Removing a low level employee does not affect the direction or progression of the project, IMO. In fact, removing *any* level of employee does not do more than delay a project while someone else is reassigned or hired. (Other than the newsworthy spook factor of having to consider that someone is wreaking violence against your employees, which could make anyone reconsider their project or their role in society in general.)

Unless you are suggesting that Daniel had information and plans he intended to use to stop the project? Is that what you're getting at? If he did (which I don't believe to be the case), where would he have gotten such information? I maintain it would NOT have come from the data he was collecting or whatever he was doing on the job -- first off I do not expect Daniel even had access to the results of the data he was collecting, if that's what he was doing. And second, if he did observe something that caused him to think the project needed to stop, he would just report that up the line to his supervisor and that person would decide what action to take if any.

What evidence do we have that Daniel had strong feelings in either direction about the project his job was in support of? We don't have indication he mentioned to anyone his concerns about his work, do we? Was he known to be an environmentalist, or an activist of any sort?

To your final paragraph -- No, I don't think that someone could become the project liaison with regulators by killing Daniel. First off I have zero reason to think that Daniel or anyone in a similar job to his would even BE the project liaison with regulators -- that would be a much higher level person, if not the project manager, or perhaps a person at the company whose job is regulator liaison for all their projects. Second, if the person who WAS the regulator liaison was removed/killed/whatever, it's not like any random employee could decide they would now be the liaison. That is a high-level and specially trained position, IMO, and the organization or project manager would decide who filled that role going forward.

These are all my opinions, backed by my own personal experience in a similar job. Obviously you may disagree.

I don't find this train of speculation about someone killing Daniel as a part of trying to control the outcome of the project to be plausible, so, depending on your response, I may decline to continue replying. MOO

I hear you, Auntie, and I agree. Whatever data was collected, it would have had to be put into a larger documented (the environmental impact report) which would be produced by the company for whom Daniel worked, not by Daniel himself. He was just beginning his life as a professional geologist, and at his station of employment, would be collecting simple data sets and adding them to a ton of other data, all for review by both his employer and by doctoral level geologists and engineers as the reports were processed.

The data was required for approval by authorities. Killing Daniel would not erase data already collected nor would just anyone be able to step in and do Daniel's data collect (they'd need to be a geologist). So the idea that some corporate henchman would kill Daniel thinking they could find another geologist is, to me, way out there in terms of probability (low probability) since another geologist would have to be found. The well samples are empirical, so unless the executives of this company were extremely criminally minded, they'd know that the samples would show whatever they showed.

At any rate, Daniel did not work directly for a developer. He worked for a hydrology consulting company called Matrix New World (per MSM, information provided by Daniel's father). He was said to be "acting strangely" by other employees on the morning of his disappearance. IOW, he wasn't the only field consultant out there on this mission. I'll post the interview with his father that clarifies some of this and alert the mods to see if this well known podcast (by Wondery) is okay to link here.

edited to remove the youtube link. After watching more of it, I think it is probably not MSM enough to be posted here. For those interested, it's easy enough to find on youtube.

 

[dotr]

Maybe Daniel realized that he really did not like the field he entered or the very job he was working on.
My hope for Daniel and his father, is that he was fed up, disappointed, ashamed and regretful, that he walked off and entered into some kind of alternative lifestyle. hopeful speculation, imo.

 

[Cedars]

I'm not going to get into a spat about semantics of job titles. I maintain that, regardless of job title, an entry level data collector, monitoring well sampler, or whatever Daniel was doing, was entry-level work which I assert to be far removed from anyone later interpreting that data or making decisions about the project. I'm well aware that "professional geologist" or "professional hydrologist" can apply to a wide range of job responsibilities, from entry-level on up.

Removing a low level employee does not affect the direction or progression of the project, IMO. In fact, removing *any* level of employee does not do more than delay a project while someone else is reassigned or hired. (Other than the newsworthy spook factor of having to consider that someone is wreaking violence against your employees, which could make anyone reconsider their project or their role in society in general.)

Unless you are suggesting that Daniel had information and plans he intended to use to stop the project? Is that what you're getting at? If he did (which I don't believe to be the case), where would he have gotten such information? I maintain it would NOT have come from the data he was collecting or whatever he was doing on the job -- first off I do not expect Daniel even had access to the results of the data he was collecting, if that's what he was doing. And second, if he did observe something that caused him to think the project needed to stop, he would just report that up the line to his supervisor and that person would decide what action to take if any.

What evidence do we have that Daniel had strong feelings in either direction about the project his job was in support of? We don't have indication he mentioned to anyone his concerns about his work, do we? Was he known to be an environmentalist, or an activist of any sort?

To your final paragraph -- No, I don't think that someone could become the project liaison with regulators by killing Daniel. First off I have zero reason to think that Daniel or anyone in a similar job to his would even BE the project liaison with regulators -- that would be a much higher level person, if not the project manager, or perhaps a person at the company whose job is regulator liaison for all their projects. Second, if the person who WAS the regulator liaison was removed/killed/whatever, it's not like any random employee could decide they would now be the liaison. That is a high-level and specially trained position, IMO, and the organization or project manager would decide who filled that role going forward.

These are all my opinions, backed by my own personal experience in a similar job. Obviously you may disagree.

I don't find this train of speculation about someone killing Daniel as a part of trying to control the outcome of the project to be plausible, so, depending on your response, I may decline to continue replying. MOO

IMO, regardless, whatever work needed to be done by the company he worked for, they would have assigned a replacement to do the work.

High status, low status, every employee can and will be replaced, unless the person is the sole operator of the company - and then another company will bid and take over the job.

JMO

 

[Sherlock1842]

I live in Phoenix and have done what I believe is extensive research on this case since 2023. His father is a good man and continues to rally for a resolution to his son’s case, as any good parent would. Unfortunately, I believe this is a tragic case of a young man going through a lot of emotional instability, it kept piling on, and that day he reached a breaking point. I don’t think he was necessarily driving off thinking “ I don’t want to live anymore” I think he was just thinking “I’m sick of all this and I don’t want to hurt anymore.”

He knew the terrain, perhaps there was a mountain or a creek bed or a cave where he found solace. I love going rockhounding, and for me, being out in the desert or the mountains is my safe space where I can think and feel and cry and (sometimes) find answers. Perhaps he felt the same way. I’m not saying this was suicide; maybe he went somewhere to think and there was an accidental fall or something. Maybe he didn’t even stay in the area and went into the city. There are a thousand possibilities; we can only speculate.

The answer to the mystery surrounding his car, the extra miles, the wrecked condition, and the fact it was found so long after he went missing is simply that it was stolen from wherever he left it that day. His wallet, keys, and phone were found in the car because he didn’t need them wherever he was going. Probably some teenagers came across a car one day, maybe even a couple of weeks after Daniel left it, saw the wallet, found it was unlocked AND found the keys and thought “Daaayum this is our lucky day!!!” and went for a joyride. They wrecked it, kept trying to get it started again so they could get back out of the desert, and eventually gave up and left it. Now, why someone would steal the vehicle and not take the wallet and phone is a good question, but maybe they couldn’t find them in the wreckage…or they probably weren’t even thinking about them after they crashed. The man who eventually found the wrecked vehicle was certain it hadn’t been there a few days or a week before and I believe that; he’s in that area all the time.

I do not believe there was any foul play involved in Daniel’s disappearance. I have not seen any indication that anyone was “after him” for anything, or that he was involved in any kind of dispute in his work or personal life. He was a young man just starting his life and was going through a lot of raw emotions at one time. I can’t imagine what Daniel’s family is going through; the pain of not knowing, the lack of closure, it must be a waking nightmare for them every single day, and IMO it is irresponsible and dangerous for people to start throwing out unfounded conspiracy theories. I pray his family finds answers soon.

 

[Ssschu]

I live in Phoenix and have done what I believe is extensive research on this case since 2023. His father is a good man and continues to rally for a resolution to his son’s case, as any good parent would. Unfortunately, I believe this is a tragic case of a young man going through a lot of emotional instability, it kept piling on, and that day he reached a breaking point. I don’t think he was necessarily driving off thinking “ I don’t want to live anymore” I think he was just thinking “I’m sick of all this and I don’t want to hurt anymore.”

He knew the terrain, perhaps there was a mountain or a creek bed or a cave where he found solace. I love going rockhounding, and for me, being out in the desert or the mountains is my safe space where I can think and feel and cry and (sometimes) find answers. Perhaps he felt the same way. I’m not saying this was suicide; maybe he went somewhere to think and there was an accidental fall or something. Maybe he didn’t even stay in the area and went into the city. There are a thousand possibilities; we can only speculate.

The answer to the mystery surrounding his car, the extra miles, the wrecked condition, and the fact it was found so long after he went missing is simply that it was stolen from wherever he left it that day. His wallet, keys, and phone were found in the car because he didn’t need them wherever he was going. Probably some teenagers came across a car one day, maybe even a couple of weeks after Daniel left it, saw the wallet, found it was unlocked AND found the keys and thought “Daaayum this is our lucky day!!!” and went for a joyride. They wrecked it, kept trying to get it started again so they could get back out of the desert, and eventually gave up and left it. Now, why someone would steal the vehicle and not take the wallet and phone is a good question, but maybe they couldn’t find them in the wreckage…or they probably weren’t even thinking about them after they crashed. The man who eventually found the wrecked vehicle was certain it hadn’t been there a few days or a week before and I believe that; he’s in that area all the time.

I do not believe there was any foul play involved in Daniel’s disappearance. I have not seen any indication that anyone was “after him” for anything, or that he was involved in any kind of dispute in his work or personal life. He was a young man just starting his life and was going through a lot of raw emotions at one time. I can’t imagine what Daniel’s family is going through; the pain of not knowing, the lack of closure, it must be a waking nightmare for them every single day, and IMO it is irresponsible and dangerous for people to start throwing out unfounded conspiracy theories. I pray his family finds answers soon.

Agreed! Unfortunately, the PI his father hired in the beginning really fed him a lot of false information and conspiracies.

 

[Bluedreamer]

https://infoshare.azwater.gov/docushare/dsweb/Get/WellRegDoc-385222/55-233391.pdf

Here is the Well Data for the Verrado well Job site.

Daniel was there 3 times leading up to his disappearance that we know of. The 17th, the 21st and the 23rd. The well was being drilled and lithology logs we being done starting on 6/09/21.

When Daniel was there on the morning of the 23rd, he took photos of the logs and immediately called Stephen Noel, the main boss. They spoke for 8 minutes. Later on that day Daniel would "drive off of another well site never to be seen again."

Those lithology logs would be completed on 6/24/21, the day after he disappeared-

In November of 2021 that well underwent transmissivity testing and it came out to 16k and 23k.

Matrix/Stephen Noel then used tests from 2 other wells from back in 2006-2008 to bring the total average up to over 40k, Stephen Noel used his old company SW Groundwater for these old tests-

edit- I also see that it has been speculated that Daniel was a rookie and wouldn't be involved in anything that could get him into trouble, but that's not true. Daniel had been working there for 2 years and was used to being the only hydro-geologist on site, like he was at the first well site and 2nd well site that morning.

Roger his coworker also said he was barely ever in the office because he was out in the field most of the time.

 

[FormerlyChucks]

Read through this thread. Wasn’t familiar with case prior to this. I’m pretty confident that his death was either suicide or succumbing to elements. I’m not convinced he was in the Jeep when it wrecked, but the actual reason for my post is a “search and recovery” angle I hadn’t seen elsewhere:

Perhaps he hasn’t been found because he didn’t want to be. It seems like his mental struggles were both a point of personal shame (they shouldn’t have been) and a taboo topic in his family (based on his family/fathers response so far).

So he found an extremely well hidden location where everything after took place. Just a theory.

My related but super wacky tinfoil hat theory is that he wasn’t physically in the vehicle when it went into the ravine. Smart guy like him could figure out a way to stage it. I’m not buying the teenage joy riding theory, but I could be swayed.

Think his body will eventually be found a lot further away from the Jeep than they are currently searching.

 

[FormerlyChucks]

Read through this thread. Wasn’t familiar with case prior to this. I’m pretty confident that his death was either suicide or succumbing to elements. I’m not convinced he was in the Jeep when it wrecked, but the actual reason for my post is a “search and recovery” angle I hadn’t seen elsewhere:

Perhaps he hasn’t been found because he didn’t want to be. It seems like his mental struggles were both a point of personal shame (they shouldn’t have been) and a taboo topic in his family (based on his family/fathers response so far).

So he found an extremely well hidden location where everything after took place. Just a theory.

My related but super wacky tinfoil hat theory is that he wasn’t physically in the vehicle when it went into the ravine. Smart guy like him could figure out a way to stage it. I’m not buying the teenage joy riding theory, but I could be swayed.

Think his body will eventually be found a lot further away from the Jeep than they are currently searching.

MOO, but the seriousness with which the criminal angle has been discussed on here and elsewhere feels so terminally online and unhinged. IMO, it’s totally fine to float the idea but the lengths people have gone to fit their round peg in the square hole of this situation is kind of wild.

Been said elsewhere, but I strongly recommend that anyone seriously floating this idea read the entire police report (to date) of the incident. I’m far from LE’s biggest cheerleader, but they’ve done a good job in this case. As a former prosecutor, I’d say they’ve gone above and beyond.

https://www.buckeyeaz.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/13375/638495406733930000

 

[FormerlyChucks]

MOO, but the seriousness with which the criminal angle has been discussed on here and elsewhere feels so terminally online and unhinged. IMO, it’s totally fine to float the idea but the lengths people have gone to fit their round peg in the square hole of this situation is kind of wild.

Been said elsewhere, but I strongly recommend that anyone seriously floating this idea read the entire police report (to date) of the incident. I’m far from LE’s biggest cheerleader, but they’ve done a good job in this case. As a former prosecutor, I’d say they’ve gone above and beyond.

https://www.buckeyeaz.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/13375/638495406733930000

A few more thoughts:

From the police report, we objectively know:

• he was lonely and was recently rejected by a woman he appeared mildly obsessed with (should be a familiar situation for many men reading this).
• He mentions being depressed when at the bar with his friend from NY.
• He surprises his close work friend/former roommate with spiritual questions when at Chick-fil-a.
• He doesn’t specify he wants spicy chicken nuggets to his friend at Chick-fil-a (big red flag to this humble commenter)
• Various things his sister said
• Strange behavior and suddenly leaving job site on last day (was only there 15 minutes)
• His last google searches were clearly related to the spiral he was in.
• Probably other things I’m missing

Subjective possible inferences from police report

• He saw the podcast recommendation as a sign that this woman was into him. It had an uplifting message (the podcast that is) and his subsequent rejection by the person who gave it to him caused him to spiral/feel unworthy.
• The report doesn’t give much insight into how he felt about his job. Most likely he felt similar to a lot of us: there were things he liked and didn’t like.
• His job and its location did provide him a lot of time alone or mostly alone in very desolate places. Over time, this could have impacted someone like him.
• The girl who rejected him essentially said they initially let him in the house because he had one hand and was short and therefore harmless (kinda mean thing to say). If she thought this way, maybe other women had historically responded this way too. We don’t know his romantic history with women or lack thereof (nor should we). His height, lack of limb and perhaps even ethnicity could have made him insecure, leading down the path it did.
• He clearly was a very smart guy by all accounts. Statistically this a notable factor.

I could go on and on. The report definitely gives more examples than I have here.

 

[Bluedreamer]

Been said elsewhere, but I strongly recommend that anyone seriously floating this idea read the entire police report (to date) of the incident. I’m far from LE’s biggest cheerleader, but they’ve done a good job in this case. As a former prosecutor, I’d say they’ve gone above and beyond.

I don't believe they have. Lets go over just one detail in the police report and debunk it, easy to see data points. I could probably do 100 at this point but lets just start with this one.

Page-49



As you can see, the police say the 11 mile difference is a anomaly, noted by jeep dealership departments and they do not bear significance is this case.


This is not true. The 11 miles are on the odometer but not the crash data because it was driven after the crash and the 11 miles aren't on the infotainment because the Jeep was never started again after driving the 11 miles.

You know how Jeep dealerships says its normal? Because it is. Anytime anyone crashes their car, restarts it and drives, there will be miles on the odometer but not on the crash data, just like Daniel's Jeep had.

So yeah they say its normal, because cars drive all the time after a crash. This means the 11 miles do bear significance. Buckeye PD knows this, look at Police Chief Larry Hall try and explain it-

(3:45)

In my opinion, they can't acknowledge the 11 miles were driven because those miles were driven after 12:54pm, after they say the Jeep was already in the ravine.

Again this is just one data point that shows movement after police say it was in one place and they are refusing to acknowledge this is how this data works and calling it an anomaly. If it was just a joyride it'd be easy for them to acknowledge and explain.

They also say they can't explain the 40+ ignitions but that's also easy to do because after an accident fuel shut off occurs. Again they can't acknowledge this because they'd be acknowledging it was started after a crash.

All of this stuff above is backed up by data, data the police refuse to acknowledge.

(4:00)

When you say people are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole in regards to foul play, what in particular are you talking about? I know police are trying to do that with car data but I'm unsure of what you mean when it comes to this forum.

 

[truthmattersnot]

https://infoshare.azwater.gov/docushare/dsweb/Get/WellRegDoc-385222/55-233391.pdf

Here is the Well Data for the Verrado well Job site.

Daniel was there 3 times leading up to his disappearance that we know of. The 17th, the 21st and the 23rd. The well was being drilled and lithology logs we being done starting on 6/09/21.
View attachment 608512
When Daniel was there on the morning of the 23rd, he took photos of the logs and immediately called Stephen Noel, the main boss. They spoke for 8 minutes. Later on that day Daniel would "drive off of another well site never to be seen again."
View attachment 608515View attachment 608514

Those lithology logs would be completed on 6/24/21, the day after he disappeared-

View attachment 608509

In November of 2021 that well underwent transmissivity testing and it came out to 16k and 23k.

Matrix/Stephen Noel then used tests from 2 other wells from back in 2006-2008 to bring the total average up to over 40k, Stephen Noel used his old company SW Groundwater for these old tests-

View attachment 608511

edit- I also see that it has been speculated that Daniel was a rookie and wouldn't be involved in anything that could get him into trouble, but that's not true. Daniel had been working there for 2 years and was used to being the only hydro-geologist on site, like he was at the first well site and 2nd well site that morning.

Roger his coworker also said he was barely ever in the office because he was out in the field most of the time.

Is this even legal? I think it is because they put it in writing but its crazy that SW Groundwater used well tests from 10-20 years earlier to get that Verrado well approved.

The population was 30k back in 2008, now its over 90k!

This proves that company isn't about approving wells based on viability, they are just trying to get as many passed as possible, using old well data to do it.

Who owns this well now?

 

[Bluedreamer]

View attachment 608631
Is this even legal? I think it is because they put it in writing but its crazy that SW Groundwater used well tests from 10-20 years earlier to get that Verrado well approved.

The population was 30k back in 2008, now its over 90k!

This proves that company isn't about approving wells based on viability, they are just trying to get as many passed as possible, using old well data to do it.

Who owns this well now?

Not sure on the legality but yeah putting it in writing makes me believe it's allowed.

The well was owned by Westpark Water LLC which is part of the WESTPARK project-

https://www.buckeyeaz.gov/government/community-facilities-district-cfd/westpark-cfd

Land developer plans 1,600-acre industrial park, homes in Buckeye

Jeff Garrett is locked and loaded with zoning and water approvals for a new commercial and residential project that will add 5.5 million square feet of industrial and more than 1,200 homes to Buckeye.

www.abc15.com

To get approval for new developments, Westpark needs water credits. Instead of drilling and operating their own well long term, they drill the well and then transfer ownership to the City. The City adds that well to its municipal water portfolio, which increases the City’s available water supply on paper. In return, the City allows Westpark to draw water from the municipal distribution system. This arrangement is necessary because development sites don’t always have a reliable water source on the property, and private developers can’t simply build a well elsewhere and run a pipeline through the city on their own.

How Arizona's long-term storage credits work

Long-term storage credits are earned when water is stored or banked underground for more than one year.

www.gilawater.com

The well was designated for drilling in November 2020. Drilling began on June 9, 2021, and was completed on June 24, 2021, just 1 day after Daniel disappeared.

It was originally permitted as a hydrologic test well, it was later reclassified for high capacity municipal withdrawal, as the well document i linked earlier shows.


Testing was completed in November 2021. In April 2022, ownership was transferred to the City of Buckeye , the same month Police Chief Larry Hall was appointed City Manager. Six months later, he was replaced by Javier Setovich, who has an extensive background in water management.

https://www.buckeyeaz.gov/government/city-manager/interim-assistant-city-manager

The Verrado well is a high capacity source, capable of producing over 2,000 acre feet annually. It now forms a major part of Buckeye’s municipal water portfolio. In 2023, the city spent $80 million to acquire 5,926 acre-feet of water from outside its boundaries,a rate of about $13,333 per acre-foot. At that rate, the Verrado well’s 2,000 acre feet capacity would be worth roughly $26 million.


https://www.buckeyeaz.gov/Home/Components/News/News/2192/18


The Verrado well’s approval likely hinged on timing. Under Arizona’s Assured Water Supply (AWS) rules, large scale development in an active management area must prove access to a 100 year water supply. The Buckeye water model, which was being finalized in June of 2021 and was finalized shortly after the well’s drilling, projected that the city’s groundwater use already far exceeded sustainable limits. Once that model was public, any new high capacity municipal well in the same overdrawn aquifer would face intense scrutiny, both from regulators and the public.

By permitting the Verrado well as a hydrologic test well and later reclassifying it for high capacity municipal withdrawal before the model’s release, Buckeye effectively locked in its approval without having to confront the model’s findings. In fact, Buckeye denied knowing about the water models existence entirely (YouTube link below) but developers knew and Buckeye's Mayor is a developer himself. Had the application for high capacity withdrawal been submitted after the model’s publication, it would have been far harder to justify withdrawing over 2,000 acre feet annually from a stressed groundwater source while the city was already struggling to meet its own AWS obligations.

(1:20)

'All groundwater is spoken for': New West Valley construction can no longer rely on groundwater after release of new report

Old test results were used to raise the Verrado well’s average output enough to get it approved. I wonder what Daniel's tests showed. We know he took photos of the lithology logs and then immediately called his supervisor, Stephen Noel. It’s possible Daniel noticed something in the logs that had been altered, photographed it, and then contacted Stephen to address it.

Daniel would now have evidence on his phone, that'd be bad for everyone.