CA CA - Stacy Arras, 14, Yosemite National Park, 17 Jul 1981

[Knox]

I haven’t been in this area per se but my brother and sister have. They both have said they could see how someone could get lost and not be found. Hiking the back country has become super popular in the last 10-15 years so there are many more people up there in the summers than when she went missing in 1981. My brother used to go up there with friends for 1-2 weeks in the early 80s and wouldn’t come across another person the whole time.

There’s a good article about a ranger who went missing in a national park just south of where she went missing. They didn’t find his remains for almost five years.

He Was a Backcountry Ranger With 28 Years of Experience. Then He Vanished.

That was a great read!

 

[ekardh]

I just began reading this thread and am intrigued - still on page one. Forgive me if this is answered along the way - but have drones been used to search for Stacy in more recent years?

Is there a working theory on what may have happened to her?

To be honest, after 44 years the chances of drone technology locating Stacy are slim to none. Her remains would have been buried or scattered by predators and changes to the terrain during this time.

The consensus is that she got lost and either died from exposure or from a fall. There isn't really any evidence to suggest anything else.

 

[Warwick1991]

I think a drone search - depending on the drone technology - would be better than nothing. Even if human remains were scattered, some of her possessions might be found, especially if there are colors or surfaces not found in nature. The camera comes to mind. But it depends on the terrain, and of course many years have elapsed.

 

[Knox]

To be honest, after 44 years the chances of drone technology locating Stacy are slim to none. Her remains would have been buried or scattered by predators and changes to the terrain during this time.

The consensus is that she got lost and either died from exposure or from a fall. There isn't really any evidence to suggest anything else.

Thanks for the reply!

A mystery never to be solved? Logically speaking, you’re correct, but there’s always someone willing to challenge the logic.

 

[Rudy B]

I'm currently compiling as much information as i can with the very limited files released. I'm going to be using ChatGPT plus to write a formal FOIA request with citations. I just missed this years window to head out on Tioga Rd and inspect the Sunrise Campground area for a weekend. Looks like I'll have 9 months or so to dig and dig for more information and strategize for a solid game plan. If anyone is years ahead of me with information, files, etc. please reach out. I think a multi person party collaborating info would help this case. With modern tech, ai, drones etc. ( i know about national park drone no-nos), I think headway can be made (I'm hopeful and willing to put in time and commit).

 

[Knox]

I'm currently compiling as much information as i can with the very limited files released. I'm going to be using ChatGPT plus to write a formal FOIA request with citations. I just missed this years window to head out on Tioga Rd and inspect the Sunrise Campground area for a weekend. Looks like I'll have 9 months or so to dig and dig for more information and strategize for a solid game plan. If anyone is years ahead of me with information, files, etc. please reach out. I think a multi person party collaborating info would help this case. With modern tech, ai, drones etc. ( i know about national park drone no-nos), I think headway can be made (I'm hopeful and willing to put in time and commit).

Sounds like you're ready and willing to accept a challenge!! If you form a team and need a helping hand unrelated to possessing specific case knowledge, let me know.

 

[Rudy B]

FOIA email sent to the address in the attachment below and also sent via FOIX portal. Tomorrow I will place 4 hardcopies in the mail and send certified as well to these offices. I've already received confirmation from several departments receiving and acknowledging my email (auto replies) and due to the current government shutdown I imagine there will be a bit of a delay. Hopefully, I'll have more information over the next 9 months to really dial in what happened and where to spend time searching near the campground.

 

[beubeubeu]

I think a drone search - depending on the drone technology - would be better than nothing. Even if human remains were scattered, some of her possessions might be found, especially if there are colors or surfaces not found in nature. The camera comes to mind. But it depends on the terrain, and of course many years have elapsed.

I cant imagine how drone could help with such a passage of time. Its not like she was dressed in orange and pink poliester. So many years of plants growing, animal activity, seasons changing...

If anything, maybe some metal detecting device could help locate her camera. But how to know where to look? Assuming that its even still there. Cause its not like everyone who went there was aware of Stacy's disappearance and what she had with her. Random pieces of clothing lying at random places arent at all rare and well over 99% these are NOT related to any crime or disappearance. Theyre just lost and/or forgotten clothes. And unless someone stumbles on a scene that clearly indicates that something bad happened they wont think much of seeing a sock on the side of the road or a piece of torn, dirty fabric.

Its not like average person's mind goes straight to: oh, I better take a picture of it, make a note of specific location and just for a peace of mind will google if there wasnt any missing person in this area wearing something like that.
Im afraid that scary truth is that someone may stumble on some of Stacy's possessions and/or clothing but never realized what they were looking at, never reported, never even considered that there is anything to report.

Also... its not like there was a way to get in touch with everyone who was in the general area then. Even on that exact day or sometime later.

And people are finding cameras on the trails. As they do with many other locations with other possessions that may have some value.
One will look for the nearest location where they could deposit it as "lost and found". Other will ignore it and forget about it. Someone else will take it and get the pics to try figure out who it may belong to and will be bugged by that mystery. And some people would just take the camera to use for themselves, sell or put into trash. It is a possibility even with old camera that was out in the elements for years and someone thought it looked cool.

There was a case in my country where people found abandoned backpack on the trail. They got concerned, took it to the nearest location where national park and mountain rescue services people were and they just didnt do anything about it. Week passed till someone recalled that there was a backpack found - but only cause that missing girl's father went everywhere and kept asking while trying to search for her. I remember that cause I knew the girl.
I cant even point out the cases where there were people claiming that years earlier they found something concerning, reported it to the nearest police station, left the item there... and nobody else ever saw or heard about it ever. Was it connected or not, nobody knows.

Maybe (hopefully) that doesnt happen often. But with long unsolved cases and people missing for decades there are reasons why they arent solved. Different reasons, or few different factors combined.

 

[Leprikawn]

It is weird that as heavily traveled as this area is these days that nothing was ever found of her. Makes you wonder about an obduction instead of an accident.

 

[ekardh]

It is weird that as heavily traveled as this area is these days that nothing was ever found of her. Makes you wonder about an obduction instead of an accident.

It's not so weird if you consider that Stacy may have walked off the beaten track. Wasn't Stacy seen standing on a rock about 50 yards south of the trail? If she was trying to get a good vantage point to take a scenic photo, I could easily see her slipping and falling into a blind spot. Unfortunately, even with a full-scale search, a few feet can make the difference between spotting someone and walking right past them. Their body could be hidden in dense forest vegetation or hidden down a slope behind rocks. There have been cases where remains have been randomly discovered mere feet from the trail which weren't found during the initial searches, but sadly Stacy's isn't one of them.

 

[Leprikawn]

It's not so weird if you consider that Stacy may have walked off the beaten track. Wasn't Stacy seen standing on a rock about 50 yards south of the trail? If she was trying to get a good vantage point to take a scenic photo, I could easily see her slipping and falling into a blind spot. Unfortunately, even with a full-scale search, a few feet can make the difference between spotting someone and walking right past them. Their body could be hidden in dense forest vegetation or hidden down a slope behind rocks. There have been cases where remains have been randomly discovered mere feet from the trail which weren't found during the initial searches, but sadly Stacy's isn't one of them.

But they also used dogs and a search party in the initial search. Since then that spot has become very active for campers and hikers. a friend of mine talked about it being very busy when they went there. I understand what you are saying and I do agree with you that she could have fell into a blind spot. I just think that something, a piece of clothing, a bone. something should have been found by now, especially with all of the exploring going on. In the initial search there were no prints, blood, or markings found. If someone took her then you searching for her and not sealing off the area would give you an escape. I find it interesting that so many children and adults have been missing from parks and forests without anyone finding anything.
If she was dragged off by a mountain lion I would think more attacks would have happened, and evidence in a den.

 

[beubeubeu]

It is weird that as heavily traveled as this area is these days that nothing was ever found of her. Makes you wonder about an obduction instead of an accident.

Unfortunately its not so weird. Realistically someone would have to find a skull or have some medical background to realize that some old bone or piece of a bone is not from an animal. Shoe soles, binoculars and camera should survive the passage of time, BUT even if it was lying clear on the ground somehow, without remains nearby its unlikely that someone would assume thats not just somebodys lost possesion but a piece of evidence associated with a missing person.
Especially that we also have to consider that person who could theoretically stumble on something wouldnt be your average hiker going along the trail. People usually dont wander aimlessly around national parks and Yosemite is pretty poor choice to do so. So that person would be either someone who briefly went out of trail to take a picture (so focused on taking that picture and going right back), maybe someone who went out of the way to pee, OR someone who got lost. Someone whos lost and possibly in the panic unlikely wonders about some items on the ground, they want to find the trail and get back to it asap.

But they also used dogs and a search party in the initial search. Since then that spot has become very active for campers and hikers. a friend of mine talked about it being very busy when they went there. I understand what you are saying and I do agree with you that she could have fell into a blind spot. I just think that something, a piece of clothing, a bone. something should have been found by now, especially with all of the exploring going on. In the initial search there were no prints, blood, or markings found. If someone took her then you searching for her and not sealing off the area would give you an escape. I find it interesting that so many children and adults have been missing from parks and forests without anyone finding anything.
If she was dragged off by a mountain lion I would think more attacks would have happened, and evidence in a den.

What do you mean by interesting?
Forests and parks are hard to search thoroughly, easy to get lost, easy to get injured and full of animals ready to eat a dead body. Add to that rains, snow, bushes and plants in general and you have it - more time passes, less likely it gets to find anything.
Wherever there are people, some deaths and injuries are caused by other peoples actions.

Having said that... I do see abduction as a likely (not most likely, but likely) possibility here - not cause nothing was found, but cause Stacy's camera lens was found in the exact area where she was last seen and kinda "expected to be" but also where nobody could see her. And cause it wasnt totally "middle of the wilderness" kind of area but where other people, apart from her group were going as well. Someone could be there and see that moment as an opportunity.
It is much more likely that she got too focused on taking pics and wandered away, then panicked, went in wrong direction and got injured in the area that wasnt searched or even considered to search.
But in the same time... she was a young woman but a kid still. The moment when friends/family lose a sight of a child is when kids are getting abducted. Could happen in a mall, could happen on the street, could happen in a church, in their own home, may happen in the woods or in national park also.

 

[Leprikawn]

What I mean by interesting is that people have gone missing that were seen just before within minutes. People searched immediately and didn't find a track, blood, or any trace of them. There have been cases of small children gone missing from parks within minutes of someone seeing them, and nothing was found, then years later police start looking at the fact they more than likely were abducted. Animals leave tracks especially if the person is fighting them to get away. There are mountain lions in Yosemite and bears. I have actually seen Mountain lions who have taken small animals and the tracks are easy to see. Broken limbs, blood (when a large predator grabs you with their jaws there will be blood) So it confuses me that no evidence of this was found. Especially since they started looking for her immediately. a 10 day search, you would think they would find something? She went through a tree line and vanished. Hikers find remains all the time so it is reasonable to think that if someone came across a skull they would notice it.

Then when you look at the fact that no one can see the files, even though it is a missing person case, and it makes you wonder as well. So yeah i find a lot about this case weird and interesting because it doesn't make much sense. If there was a sensible answer we would not be here trying to find her.

 

[beubeubeu]

What I mean by interesting is that people have gone missing that were seen just before within minutes. People searched immediately and didn't find a track, blood, or any trace of them.

Its pretty much how long it takes. Abductions or accidental falls arent lasting for hours. Its just a moment.
Same with people getting lost. Few minutes tops between seeing their group/company/trail/path or whatever and getting totally confused and not recognizing the area at all. Doesnt it happen to anyone at least few times in their life? Its just that 99,9% of the time it doesnt lead to anything bad, they catching up with the group, finding trial. Those who are getting searched for are that 0,1% where injury happen, or they got even more and more lost... or abducted.

There have been cases of small children gone missing from parks within minutes of someone seeing them, and nothing was found, then years later police start looking at the fact they more than likely were abducted. Animals leave tracks especially if the person is fighting them to get away. There are mountain lions in Yosemite and bears. I have actually seen Mountain lions who have taken small animals and the tracks are easy to see. Broken limbs, blood (when a large predator grabs you with their jaws there will be blood)

So it confuses me that no evidence of this was found.
So it just tells us that it wasnt animal attack.
Nor injury, cause that surely would leave some obvious scent for dogs... unless she got injured far enough from where the dogs were looking for her to make it untraceable.
BUT why would she get there in the first place?

Especially since they started looking for her immediately. a 10 day search, you would think they would find something? She went through a tree line and vanished. Hikers find remains all the time so it is reasonable to think that if someone came across a skull they would notice it.

Yeah. 10 days long search with over 100 of people, most of which familiar with the area and experienced + dogs + helicopters and nothing.
And also the fact that dogs werent able to follow her scent. With the most likely reason for that being that there was super dry, hot and dusty everywhere. Okay. BUT dusty ground would mean that her footsteps would be visible at least in some areas of these dirt paths. Yet they werent.

Then when you look at the fact that no one can see the files, even though it is a missing person case, and it makes you wonder as well. So yeah i find a lot about this case weird and interesting because it doesn't make much sense. If there was a sensible answer we would not be here trying to find her.

It makes even less sense when you look at the pics of the area and even pics of the searching crew camp in the woods. Not super dense woods. Not super thick bushes. She shouldnt get lost there.
And possibly she didnt.

Its not even clear how many people were in her group. Its not stated anywhere if and how many other people were there then, before, showed up right after.
What is clearly stated is that:
1. Stacy wanted to go near the lake to take some pics.
2. Stacy asked her dad to go with her.
3. Stacy was wearing flip flops as she was intend to go there.
4. Stacy decided to switch flip flops to hiking boots with advise of her dad.
5. There was this old gent who also went on a walk in the direction of the lake.

Pretty sure that 70 or even going on 80yo guy in good shape was NOT able to hike fast. And we have a clear confirmation of that - he was going rather slowly, then he needed to take a break and sit for a bit.

What is NOT clearly stated is if that elderly guy was the only person who went that direction before Stacy did.
And I would guess that points 2-5 took at least few minutes if not like 10-15. Enough for someone who heard about Stacy's plans to go there and wait at the spot invisible from the camp.

Unlikely idea, right?
Is it more likely that a girl who didnt wanted to go alone very far and first asked her dad, then asked the older guy just to figure that oh, so I guess now Im gonna hike 1,5 mile towards that other lake alone cause why not.
Possible that she did. Not enough info about her personality to rule that out completely. Maybe she got sooo hooked on the idea of getting the nicest pics possible that she decided to go by herself and got lost not from the tree line area but actually much much farther.
But that was considered as well and nothing was found on the way to the second lake either.

And considering what little we know about it, isnt the close second probable scenario that she got abducted?
Either by someone who happened to be near the lake and watched this young girl going there alone, then threatened her and took her away?
Where that away would be? I have no idea, never been there. But if so many people who were there insist so hard that it would be awfully easy to get lost there and never found then it would also mean that someone who kinda knew the area would also know a spot or two to hide a body.
Or by someone who appeared friendly and unthreatening enough to not take her by force but convince her to go with him to the other lake, or to some super attractive spot where she could take a good pics. With some knowledge of the area, possibly even some tracking experience he could lead her away leaving as little track as possible and attack/abduct mile or two miles away.

 

[Leprikawn]

Yeah I could see someone saying "Hey I see your camera you should really check out this area over here if you want great pictures. Here let me show you." Then once she gets farther away they take her.

 

[ekardh]

An abduction would be unlikely to say the least. They would've had to drag her for miles to the nearest road, and no rangers or hikers saw anything amiss. I think people are underestimating just how easy it is to get turnaround on yourself and lost, even for experienced hikers, and the sheer amount of land that has to be combed to find a body. When nightfall came, Stacy would've been trapped in the dark without a flash-light. It would've been extremely difficult for her to find her way back to the trail. The temperatures would drop, she would be scared, disoriented and dehydrated. The terrain was rocky and there are dangerous cliffs and ridges in either direction. Imagine trying to navigate all of this in total darkness. She slips and falls never to be found again.

 

[beubeubeu]

An abduction would be unlikely to say the least. They would've had to drag her for miles to the nearest road, and no rangers or hikers saw anything amiss.

I totally agree that opportunity perp abducting a girl to drag her more than 4 miles to the nearest road (likely much farther back to his vehicle) is "unlikely to say the least".
But why drag her to the road? To take her to some less secluded area than Yosemite - where most people agree that dozens of experienced organized searchers aware of the disappearance could miss her?

As far as I recall Stacy told the older man that she will be back in "few minutes". So at least that much passed before he followed where she went (+ few minutes before he got there), probably looked around for a bit, as much as he could (+ few minutes), even with high adrenaline rush surely it would take him at least few minutes to get back to the camp and alarm others in the camp. Few minutes before some of them got there.
Thats 5 x "few minutes" at least. That could be slightly less but probably bit more than 30 minutes. Considering that Stacy was taking pictures and surely wasnt going fast in straight line the moment she passed these trees that obscured her from the sight of others. So the most she could make in that time would be approx. 1 mile.

I think people are underestimating just how easy it is to get turnaround on yourself and lost, even for experienced hikers, and the sheer amount of land that has to be combed to find a body. When nightfall came, Stacy would've been trapped in the dark without a flash-light. It would've been extremely difficult for her to find her way back to the trail. The temperatures would drop, she would be scared, disoriented and dehydrated.

Before that nightfall came Stacy would be well aware that she's lost.
Yet she didnt heard people calling her (I assume that they were) not screamed for help herself. Why not? Cause she was already severely injured and couldnt do that or already dead? That would mean it happened relatively close to the camp.

That was a massive search. And people were very fast to start it. No rainfalls, no snowstorms, no thick bushes, no wild rivers.
Instead of that steeps, boulders, lakes and no super distinctive trails - enough to get lost. Stacy may be unaware of that, her dad may be unaware of that, older guy may be unaware of that... but sure as hell the guides who were there with them should be aware of that. Yeah, they could be not alerted seeing two people going relatively short path to the nearest lake. But that one who allegedly saw Stacy walking farther alone knew that she disappeared from his sight walking somewhere alone.

For me this case sounds just vastly different to almost all of these "disappeared in the wilderness" kind of cases. Rarely all these factors combined appear:

• Not much of a delay with starting the search.
• Massive search, decent effort, good resources, experienced searchers, tracking dogs, decent presence of the event in newspapers.
• No sudden change of weather that would force the searchers to stop or make it harder for them.
• Very clear idea where exactly Stacy was right before she disappeared.
• Confirmed presence of at least one other group of hikers/horseback riders who came from the direction where Stacy would be expected to go if she followed the trail not so long after she disappeared who didnt saw her on their way.

And excuse me for the roughness of that note, but as far as the coverage that I was able to get and read about this case (which as we all know isnt rich in solid info) nobody on that searching group got injured during the search - which sadly happens in rough and challenging areas. Not here. Doesnt mean that area is safe to aimlessly wander around but it implies that it wasnt that bad and dangerous to search and look around.

And what about animals? In case she slip and fell somewhere and succumbed to exhaustion and possibly an injury in that summer heat - wouldnt that attract scavenger birds that would alert searchers?
Maybe not cause some reason, maybe something else cause another reason.

And maybe I wasnt clear enough with the abduction theory - which is in my opinion like 45% probability vs. 55% that she got lost and wandered so far away before accident happened that searchers didnt even consider looking there for her.
Im not seeing some random hiker attacking her right away or dragging her miles away by force or threat as very probable scenario.

My bet would be on someone with good grasp on the area, with good awareness that late afternoon means that most hikers either went somewhere to camp or leave the park and possibly even some knowledge how to get by away from trails. Surely someone who knew that nobody but overwhelmed, tired elderly guy could look for her right away.

Sources cant agree even on that how many people were in that group Stacy was travelling with. Was it 7? 9? 12? 20? How many guides? Were all these people together as Stacy left and stayed together so 100% nobody from that group followed? Were all their horses in the camp?
Pretty sure nobody followed Stacy the exact route she took to get to the first lake but was it impossible to get there other way? It doesnt look like it wasnt. And surely someone from the group could easily convince her to go with him under false promise of leading her to another lake. Or maybe even taking her on the horseback with him. Nobody whitnessed that, but avoiding meeting people on the trail for someone who knows the area and doesnt want to be seen by anyone aint that hard.
If not someone from the group then someone who coerced her to believe that theyre working in the park or friendly and helpful could be a reason why she "disappeared". She could be literally miles away when she realized that something is off or before she got attacked.

Would dogs be able to follow her scent if she got on a horse with someone?

For me it doesnt work both ways:
a) super easy for Stacy to get lost and wander away to not be seen, heard or traced by anyone,
b) crazy and impossible than abductor with evil intent could not possibly get away from there with her unseen.
For me either A was as (if not more) easy as B - or if B is so totally unplausible that A is not that plausible either considering all the searching efforts.
*by "getting away from there" I mean getting far enough to have some time to assault, murder and hide the body

 

[Leprikawn]

I have read theories from people wo said she must have went off in a different direction and got lost. they say it got dark and she was turned around, and went in the wrong direction. Search and rescue would have thought that as well. I am sure with the search they took all of that into account. People say she fell from a ridge. You would think that search and rescue would have looked at that possibility as well. Search and rescue are very good at finding bodies that fall from high altitudes. It was July and hot. Temps could drop during the night but I doubt it would drop enough to die from exposure.
If someone took her I would bet it wasn't a seasonal camper and instead someone that lived in the park. Someone who had a hidden place to take her. They couldn't find a body so I don't have much faith they would find a hidden camp.

The thing for me that confuses everything is her file is sealed. I have never heard of a missing person that is presumed dead from the elements having their file sealed. The family has tried for years to get the file and been denied.

 

[beubeubeu]

The thing for me that confuses everything is her file is sealed. I have never heard of a missing person that is presumed dead from the elements having their file sealed. The family has tried for years to get the file and been denied.

Isnt the most logical assumption that they (to the very least) consider foul play as possible scenario? 44 years passed since her disappearance. Why not release the files?
Cause for four decades people in charge of making this decision suffer from a god complex and wont do that cause nope?
But this doesnt make them look powerful, it does make them look bad.
Why would they want to look bad?

Ive got totally lost track with the credibility of a claim that her case files is over 1.000 or 2.000 pages long. But I am (JMO) sure as hell what was released aint that. This is not how case files look like. Its just very very basic overview of a case and search that doesnt offer anything substantial.
Yet it still required some effort on their side. They released something. So nobody can say that they havent released anything. Almost like they care to not look bad.

Well, maybe they lost or destroyed the files and dont want to admit it cause it would make them look even worse.
Or maybe they were so out of this world neglectful and unproffesional that they havent made any files. How likely is that? I dont think that "very".

JMO but 44 years is not enough to say with confidence that murderer passed away. That guy could be younger now than Stacy's companion was in 1981.
Maybe they have genuine reason why they are not releasing files. Maybe its one of these cases where they are pretty confident that they know who did it but cant prove it yet still hope that "something" may come up?

OR (and I vaguely recall that I might came to this suspicion years ago as well) they not only strongly suspect that it was foul play and have a good idea who did it, but they suspect one of their "own" of doing it. Cause in that case, more time passes, worse they would appear in the eyes of the public if that surfaced.
Who would do that to their business organisation or whatever?
With full confidence that yep, thats the guy, he did it it may be bit different, cause then you can just cut off the bad apple and go on. But what if its like 50:50?
50:50 means still no justice for Stacy. Terrible, terrible look for Yosemite. And 50% chances of making innocent guy look guilty in the public eyes.
Im not implying that nobody would. Im saying that IMO many people would not.

Maybe thats why nobody saw these files.

 

[Leprikawn]

Could be but from what they told the family she was missing and presumed dead from a fall or the elements. If they are not actively looking into the case as an abduction then there is no reason to not release the file.
A long time ago I read that the FBI had sealed the case as classified.........if true that is interesting. It would also be the reason for them not releasing it.