Found Deceased MN - Marya Christensen, 23, Red Wing, 12 March 2016

[Inthedetails]

Unfortunately, clumsy English abounds in modern news reporting.

Nonetheless, two things stand out about the following article:

1) According to Marya's father, police had already ruled out foul play by March 15 (why and how?), and he didn't understand why they'd done that

2) If the reporter is quoting the Sheriff's office correctly, that office said that her "whereabouts aren't suspicious at this point, but help from the public is still crucial in solving this case."

"Whereabouts aren't suspicious" could be really weird English; it could also indicate police knew or suspected where she was. That's pretty odd. Ruling out foul play ahead of time--before the body has even been found--is also odd.

http://kstp.com/news/missing-wisconsin-woman-marya-christiansen-23-year-old-mother/4075237/

I think the "whereabouts are not suspicious" comment means that LE wasn't expecting to find Marya anywhere except along her route home. The mostly likely scenario according to their investigation was that she didn't make it home because of an accident, not because of any trouble in her life that would lead to her disappearance.

Regarding the first point, I can understand a father wanting to find his daughter and being frustrated if any lead was ruled out while his child was still missing. I don't think a scared, worried, and frustrated father rules out an accident. The man just wanted information and to make sure LE were looking everywhere and considering everything.

Accidents do indeed happen, and I think that's what happened here. My first hunch was that her car went into the water (not that my first hunch means anything at all, of course!).

What will change my mind is if the COD was not drowning. But, I honestly think this was a tragic accident.

 

[maggieo]

As to the unlikeliness of the car making it through the trees and pillars, etc., it's possible that the car was out of control only in the sense that it was going too fast and couldn't stop--either because the brakes went out, or M was hitting the wrong pedal, or a bottle or something rolled under the brake pedal. That is to say, she could have been steering the car but just couldn't stop it.

 

[Elainera]

Could it be she went so fast that the car was airborne when leaving the road which is why there are no marks on the grass?

 

[Tabirey]

Looks like that boat launch was just put in last year
http://www.piercecountyherald.com/news/region/3698520-boat-launch-nears-usage

 

[Zephyranth]

I think the "whereabouts are not suspicious" comment means that LE wasn't expecting to find Marya anywhere except along her route home. The mostly likely scenario according to their investigation was that she didn't make it home because of an accident, not because of any trouble in her life that would lead to her disappearance.

Regarding the first point, I can understand a father wanting to find his daughter and being frustrated if any lead was ruled out while his child was still missing. I don't think a scared, worried, and frustrated father rules out an accident. The man just wanted information and to make sure LE were looking everywhere and considering everything.

Accidents do indeed happen, and I think that's what happened here. My first hunch was that her car went into the water (not that my first hunch means anything at all, of course!).

What will change my mind is if the COD was not drowning. But, I honestly think this was a tragic accident.

In her own words, Sheriff Hove said Marya could be anywhere. The Sherriff, at least, certainly didn't expect to find Marya on any particular road, and in fact suspended the search for that exact reason ("We have no search area.")

To rule out foul play by presuming she'd be found on a certain road and that that "whereabout" wouldn't be suspicious goes against any logical law enforcement procedure. You simply can't rule out foul play ahead of time when you literally haven't located the person (much less when a witness at the bar says she spoke with Marya that night at the bar, and that a "creepy" Tennessee man at that bar was "trying to take girls home.")

The only possible way to begin ruling out foul play would be to have conclusive evidence, ahead of time, of an accident involving the vehicle--and even then you can't rule out foul play without having found a body.

 

[Tabirey]

So looking at a map (I haven't been over this bridge in years! ), I can see two routes of travel :
63, left to 35, right to Oo
And
63, left to Timberlane, left to 35, right to Oo (this route avoids going through town )
If she normally took Timberlane/830th to great river rd/wi 35, it would make sense that if she was inebriated, she could have been confused and accidentally taken her second left too early.
Also, there is a huge amount of wildlife in WI. I wonder if after she turned on Timberlane, she swerved to avoid a deer or other animal and lost control, hit the embankment next to the asphalt of the boat launch and couldn't stop.

IMO, those are possible scenarios and I'm hoping that is the case. But I'm not ruling out that she had "help" going into that river.

 

[Zephyranth]

Wasn't her car found here, though (red dot), near the only paved boat landing?

 

[Zephyranth]

Here are police examining the embankment; the airborne theory is one possibility for her having left no tracks, but that's an awfully long distance to go airborne.

 

[Zephyranth]

Here's an article on the building of that boat landing, showing a new view. From this angle, the downslope (both the paved road and the embankment next to it) look quite steep, i.e. a car could possibly roll into the river on its own, with a push. Again, photo perspectives can be misleading:

https://www.bassmaster.com/news/noreen-will-be-smiling-down-us

 

[Zephyranth]

This gives what is probably the best view yet:



Pushing the car into the river on the paved side would be risky; the dropoff wouldn't be steep enough, and the car might just get stuck, not fully submerged.

On the unpaved side, though, the water depth is much likely deeper (and, clearly, turned out to be). Whether pushed or driven, the car could have gone nose down and flipped over.

You can also see from this picture what a very long and straight route she'd have to have traveled in order to navigate the car the full length of that embankment, on rough terrain, and finally between the trees. I don't know. Looks pretty hinky, for an accident.

One more photo, showing the length of the path - traveling along the grass only, she'd need to stay on the highway side of two light poles. If she had turned onto the paved part but then left the paved part nearer the water, that would make more sense, as an explanation for the lack of tracks. Problem being that it becomes ever harder to show that this was accidental on her part rather than purposeful on someone elses--it would no longer jive with missing the curve and going off the embankment:

 

[Zephyranth]

I don't know that this is related, but it is interesting timing. Happening today:

"Motorists can expect some delays on Highway 63 between Hager City and Red Wing on Monday afternoon. Crews will be gathering soil data for the Wisconsin approaches to the Highway 63 bridge over the Mississippi River."

http://www.piercecountyherald.com/news/region/3991330-motorists-may-see-delays-highway-63-today

 

[Damarna]

I don't know that this is related, but it is interesting timing. Happening today:

"Motorists can expect some delays on Highway 63 between Hager City and Red Wing on Monday afternoon. Crews will be gathering soil data for the Wisconsin approaches to the Highway 63 bridge over the Mississippi River."

http://www.piercecountyherald.com/news/region/3991330-motorists-may-see-delays-highway-63-today

Nope - related to possible future construction.

 

[Tabirey]

Wasn't her car found here, though (red dot), near the only paved boat landing?View attachment 90870

Her truck was found across the river from there on the Wisconsin side. Where that red dot is the Minnesota side of the river.
ETA :This looks like a picture of the area from before last year's construction of the boat ramp on the Wisconsin side.

 

[Tabirey]

This gives what is probably the best view yet:

View attachment 90876

Pushing the car into the river on the paved side would be risky; the dropoff wouldn't be steep enough, and the car might just get stuck, not fully submerged.

On the unpaved side, though, the water depth is much likely deeper (and, clearly, turned out to be). Whether pushed or driven, the car could have gone nose down and flipped over.

You can also see from this picture what a very long and straight route she'd have to have traveled in order to navigate the car the full length of that embankment, on rough terrain, and finally between the trees. I don't know. Looks pretty hinky, for an accident.

One more photo, showing the length of the path - traveling along the grass only, she'd need to stay on the highway side of two light poles. If she had turned onto the paved part but then left the paved part nearer the water, that would make more sense, as an explanation for the lack of tracks. Problem being that it becomes ever harder to show that this was accidental on her part rather than purposeful on someone elses--it would no longer jive with missing the curve and going off the embankment:

View attachment 90877

Now I'M confused. ...these are pics from the Minnesota side of the river, correct? From everything I've read it's been stated she was found on the Wisconsin side? Was this misreported or have I been misreading? IIRC, they stated her van was found at the boat launch at 63 and Timberlane? I thought it was stated that she did cross the bridge into Wisconsin? Can someone clear this up for me?

 

[Zephyranth]

Now I'M confused. ...these are pics from the Minnesota side of the river, correct? From everything I've read it's been stated she was found on the Wisconsin side? Was this misreported or have I been misreading? IIRC, they stated her van was found at the boat launch at 63 and Timberlane? I thought it was stated that she did cross the bridge into Wisconsin? Can someone clear this up for me?

Both sides of the channel (called the Wisconsin channel, the "back channel" or "backchannel") are in Wisconsin. There's another bridge that crosses the Mississippi proper, and that one does indeed have a MN side and a WI side--but the "backchannel bridge" (marked here with red x) is the one closer to Hager City, WI.



If she went in from the Timberlane side that would be a pretty big problem, because her direction of travel would most likely be in the wrong direction (not likely she made a U-turn into the river coming from Red Wing). Also, her car was found literally right off the backchannel bridge boat ramp (marked with the red x), and it's unlikely that if she went in near Timberlane that her car would make it to the other side of the river (it's pretty wide there).

The photos showing police searching the area, examining the embankment, and pulling out the car, are all taken at the Noreen Clough Memorial boat landing, the only boat landing by the backchannel bridge that has a paved launch (that I'm aware of).

This photo is taken from the Clough Memorial landing; on the other side of the river is Timberlane.



Looking at that same landing, from the opposite direction (photo taken from Timberlane side, looking toward Clough Memorial side):

 

[Zephyranth]

The problem as it stands is that police called off the search, with Hove stating "We have no search area," but then days later, police suddenly resumed the search in the exact location the vehicle was eventually found.

The "We have no search area" applies to missing persons only under certain conditions. If a toddler had gone missing, for example, a search area would be initiated at the last point the child was seen, and would be continually expanded in days to come. That's because it is presumed the child is lost, not that at that age it voluntarily ran away.

Hove was able to say "we have no search area" only because police were not yet certain she hadn't simply run off. It doesn't matter how many friends say "she'd never do that," the reality is that police can't devote resources to a case where no likelihood of harm has been established. They didn't have an overwhelming indication she had come to harm.

But somehow that changed in the coming days -- they resumed the search, and in the exact location she was found. For an officer to have "noticed scraping" on the rocks, he'd have to have had some reason (and orders from the Sheriff) to go to the scene of those rocks in the first place.

That's the most obvious missing piece here - whatever it was that made police 1) resume a suspended missing person search and 2) resume it at the exact location she was then found.

 

[Elainera]

The problem as it stands is that police called off the search, with Hove stating "We have no search area," but then days later, police suddenly resumed the search in the exact location the vehicle was eventually found.

The "We have no search area" applies to missing persons only under certain conditions. If a toddler had gone missing, for example, a search area would be initiated at the last point the child was seen, and would be continually expanded in days to come. That's because it is presumed the child is lost, not that at that age it voluntarily ran away.

Hove was able to say "we have no search area" only because police were not yet certain she hadn't simply run off. It doesn't matter how many friends say "she'd never do that," the reality is that police can't devote resources to a case where no likelihood of harm has been established. They didn't have an overwhelming indication she had come to harm.

But somehow that changed in the coming days -- they resumed the search, and in the exact location she was found. For an officer to have "noticed scraping" on the rocks, he'd have to have had some reason (and orders from the Sheriff) to go to the scene of those rocks in the first place.

That's the most obvious missing piece here - whatever it was that made police 1) resume a suspended missing person search and 2) resume it at the exact location she was then found.

Maybe someone saw the scrapings on the rocks that were mentioned and called police.

 

[Tabirey]

Both sides of the channel (called the Wisconsin channel, the "back channel" or "backchannel") are in Wisconsin. There's another bridge that crosses the Mississippi proper, and that one does indeed have a MN side and a WI side--but the "backchannel bridge" (marked here with red x) is the one closer to Hager City, WI.

View attachment 90976

If she went in from the Timberlane side that would be a pretty big problem, because her direction of travel would most likely be in the wrong direction (not likely she made a U-turn into the river coming from Red Wing). Also, her car was found literally right off the backchannel bridge boat ramp (marked with the red x), and it's unlikely that if she went in near Timberlane that her car would make it to the other side of the river (it's pretty wide there).

The photos showing police searching the area, examining the embankment, and pulling out the car, are all taken at the Noreen Clough Memorial boat landing, the only boat landing by the backchannel bridge that has a paved launch (that I'm aware of).

This photo is taken from the Clough Memorial landing; on the other side of the river is Timberlane.

View attachment 90977

Looking at that same landing, from the opposite direction (photo taken from Timberlane side, looking toward Clough Memorial side):

View attachment 90978

Thank you for the clarification! Greatly appreciated! I was under the impression it was the hwy 63 bridge she had crossed. It irritates me when media aren't clear about the actual location *sigh*
In light of this, With her drinking that evening and it being so late, I'm wondering if she fell asleep at the wheel 😕

 

[Zephyranth]

Maybe someone saw the scrapings on the rocks that were mentioned and called police.

Surely possible! According to the media reports, however, police were already searching in the area when a "sharp eyed deputy" discovered the scrapings.

I find several instances of of police language to be odd, including:

"Sheriff Hove said the van was found submerged under the US Highway 63 bridge over the Wisconsin Channel, known locally as the "back channel bridge." The same spot had been searched Wednesday with a Sonar, but the vehicle had apparently shifted in the current.

"Today the vehicle must have turned just right so we could get a couple Sonar shots that looked like tires," Hove explained. "So we got our divers in from Goodhue County to check it out and hook onto whatever was there."

It sounds for all the world like police are referring to an object they know or suspect is there all along. Again, writing skills in the country (including myself in this criticism) seem to be deteriorating, and some of this could be chalked up to reporters (yet again) wording things oddly.

The point continues to be that in order to resume the search and deploy sonar in that specific area, you'd need a reason--especially after having said there was "no search area."

I'm not presuming anything nefarious -- just that there seem to be strong indications that police had a tip of some kind that the van was likely in that spot in the river. One possibility that no one seems to be mentioning is that of suicide. The van's path is far better explained by homicide or suicide (i.e. deliberate, careful driving/pushing between the trees and light pole) than it is by an accident where the van somehow missed everything in its path, maintaining a straight, exacting trajectory in order to miss the many obstacles between 63 and the river.

Honestly, the lack of tracks (and number of obstacles) along the alleged grass route really should be drawing people to the likelihood that by whatever means, the van was on the pavement almost up to the river, and only then drove onto the grass.

Not mentioned so far is the possibility of suicide--exceptionally sad for family members, and often carrying additional legal implications; it would also be a source of guilt to anyone she may have called or spoken to just before her death, perhaps someone who didn't take her seriously. No way of knowing yet, of course, but because her alleged path of travel is least well explained by a ruling of "accident," both homicide and suicide have to be considered until more info comes to light.

 

[darring21]

Surely possible! According to the media reports, however, police were already searching in the area when a "sharp eyed deputy" discovered the scrapings.

snipped for brevity

Don't you think they got cell phone data? A couple of days with no activity suggests she didn't run off and police get a subpoena that gets you very close to where the phone quit working.