OK OK - Jamison Family: Truck, IDs and Dog Found Abandoned 08 Oct 2009 - #12

[Ghostwheel]

Hmm, well, let me look...

Okay, I just measured the distance against the scale on Google Earth and it looks like the site of the remains is about 3,000 feet from those two houses. That's over half a mile, with a lot of trees in between. When I go back and look at this picture:

The thing that stands out to me is the road (traced in red) that turns off the well site road about halfway down the hill and then curves around to the northwest along Smokestack Hollow. There are NO homes at all along that road, as far as I can tell.

A local would probably know that, but it would be quite a feat for an outsider to pull off, to choose that particular road and dump the bodies where there would be the fewest possible number of witnesses. Or maybe just a heck of a coincidence. There are other areas on that mountain just as remote or even more so, but that one at least had a fairly driveable road leading to it.



I absolutely agree about NS. I know from reading all the posts on FTJ that she'd been holding on to hope that Madyson at least was still alive, so the news of three sets of remains had to be devastating. Normally, it's family members using social media to keep their missing ones' faces and names out there in the public eye, and pushing for results from LE, but Bobby and Sherilyn and Madyson didn't have family participating in much of that, so I'm glad NS stepped up to the plate. As I've said before, without her input, we'd know very little about who the Jamisons were.

The Jamison case has definitely sucked me in, and I'm thankful for every one of our regulars on this thread and those who only stop by occasionally, each bringing such different knowledge and experience and perspectives to the table. I appreciate every bit of input, even opinions that disagree with mine, forcing me to rethink what I think I know. Because, really, there's so very little about this case that we know for sure.

Would tell me which coordinates you are using? Per the LCSO incident report, the remains were found at 35.014298, -95.21731. I am getting what looks like a different location than I see in your pictures, so I'm trying to get everything lined up. The place I get has much less greenery in Google Earth, and it looks like there might be a track/path towards where the remains were found. Thank you, and great screen shots.

 

[OkieGranny]

Would tell me which coordinates you are using? Per the LCSO incident report, the remains were found at 35.014298, -95.21731. I am getting what looks like a different location than I see in your pictures, so I'm trying to get everything lined up. The place I get has much less greenery in Google Earth, and it looks like there might be a track/path towards where the remains were found. Thank you, and great screen shots.

Page 1 and Page 3 of the LCSO's report listed the coordinates as 35.04298 -95.21731 on the upper portion of both pages, and then there's that additional 1 inserted in the second coordinate in the text on the lower part of Page 3. We talked amongst ourselves and decided that the extra 1 must be a typo, because 35.04298 -95.21731 is only 500 feet away from the GPS coordinates we received from the ME's office via a secondhand source, and 2.7 aerial miles from the location of the truck, as described in press reports. That's too much of a coincidence to not be correct. The coordinates that include the extra 1 -- 35.014298 -95.21731 -- land in a different place entirely and are much too close to the truck location.

 

[TheCrankyChef]

Okay, then I answered your question regarding grid searches that were conducted as best that I can.

After reading the article at your link I presume that you feel that there is a possibility that LE did something wrong related to the search. It doesn't seem to me that there is much similarity between the Jamison case and the one in the article. The widow in the article told LE where her husband was probably located, and they didn't bother to search that area.

In the Jamison case there was no information as to the location of the Jamisons. No one could even conclude that the Jamisons were still in the area. Even today after the discovery of three skeletons some people believe that the Jamisons are elsewhere. In 2009 there was no more reason to believe that the Jamisons were in the area where they were eventually discovered than any other spot. Apparently the searchers did the logical thing and concentrated their main search in areas close to the last place where the Jamisons had probably been which was their truck.

I have read that it takes about 924 man hours to do a “grid” search of a square mile of land when searching for missing persons. It would probably be more than that in the area where the Jamisons disappeared because of the difficulty of the terrain. To start a grid search at the truck and work their way out to a 2.7 mile radius the searchers would have had to search 22.9 square miles. At 924 man hours / square mile such a search would have consumed 21,160 man hours. A large well trained 100 person search team could have done this in 212 hours or in slightly less than 4 weeks if searching for 8 hours /day and 7 days/week. It doesn't make sense to me to commit this many resources and risk injury to so many searchers to grid search an area without being reasonably sure that the lost persons are in that area. If a member of the Jamison family had received a cell phone call from the Jamisons explaining that they were lost somewhere in the general area of their truck, I am confident that the search would have continued until they were found.

Sometimes it's something and sometimes it's not. LE could very well have a POI but proving it is a whole"nother ballgame".

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped:

I have read that it takes about 924 man hours to do a “grid” search of a square mile of land when searching for missing persons. It would probably be more than that in the area where the Jamisons disappeared because of the difficulty of the terrain. To start a grid search at the truck and work their way out to a 2.7 mile radius the searchers would have had to search 22.9 square miles. At 924 man hours / square mile such a search would have consumed 21,160 man hours. A large well trained 100 person search team could have done this in 212 hours or in slightly less than 4 weeks if searching for 8 hours /day and 7 days/week. It doesn't make sense to me to commit this many resources and risk injury to so many searchers to grid search an area without being reasonably sure that the lost persons are in that area. If a member of the Jamison family had received a cell phone call from the Jamisons explaining that they were lost somewhere in the general area of their truck, I am confident that the search would have continued until they were found.

I just wanted to say that this is one of the best explanations of the manpower issues in a grid search that I have ever read. Thank you.

 

[ontheclock]

Holy cow. 924 man hrs to search one square mile! A standard 40 hr. workweek translates into 2080 hrs./yr. So almost half a year's worth of work (for one person).

 

[TooCurious]

It takes about 3.5 hours for a trained SAR team to search a mile by using grid search techniques. It is not illogical at all to think they could search to the 3 mile range. The time consuming part is walking slow looking for evidence. (Not people) Once the speed is increased the time drops considerable. Also, this is time calculated by a walking person. Horses were used and that also increases the time. Read this link about SAR and search methods and scroll down to grid search. They could have reached the 3 mile mark in a full day. One person searching would take a long time but they had a lot of people and horses out there.

http://www.alpharubicon.com/rsar/sartechcent.htm

 

[TooCurious]

Basically, a person walks on average 3 mile per hour but this is slower walking. One person in a 100 person grid search (20' spacing) will walk up, down, and up. (1 mph speed)An hour each pass would be about 3 hour total. Of course terrain does come into account and will slow down progress, but the use of horses will speed it up. They had more than enough time to cover the three miles in a day IF they had 400 searchers, (100 per each direction) They spent multiple days in field although I am unsure as to the number of searchers. So if they could only dedicate 50 to each direction (200 searchers) the passes would increase to 6 from 3 and double time. (3 hours per square mile) If only 25 per direction then it would double again (Only 100 searchers) to 12 hours. Back to the basic numbers using 100 searchers and only 100 searching 23 mile (2.7 radius from truck) One searcher would have approximately 69 hours in total to search the area. With a force of 400 it is like 17 hours. The time they spent in the field, they probably should have had this area searched.

 

[TooCurious]

Respectfully snipped:



I just wanted to say that this is one of the best explanations of the manpower issues in a grid search that I have ever read. Thank you.

Too bad is not accurate. Trust but verify is a saying I have heard and follow. The big thing here is speed of searcher. If they are looking for evidence, they will be going super slow. If they are looking for people, much faster.

 

[TooCurious]

http://www.kjrh.com/news/state/rema...earch-for-missing-jamison-family-from-eufaula

News story states that more than 300 people searched, includin helicopters.

If 300 people broke into (6) 50 person teams, using numbers above post each team would search a square mile in 6 hours. Every 6 hours, 6 miles are being searched. To use mapman's estimate of 22.9 miles in a 3 mile radius, it would take (4) different searches, 6 hours per search/per team, and the 3 mile mark would be reached within 24 hours of search time. Not months, not week's, but days. The question is if this was organized properly, not if they could have reached the area.

 

[little726]

http://www.kjrh.com/news/state/rema...earch-for-missing-jamison-family-from-eufaula

News story states that more than 300 people searched, includin helicopters.

If 300 people broke into (6) 50 person teams, using numbers above post each team would search a square mile in 6 hours. Every 6 hours, 6 miles are being searched. To use mapman's estimate of 22.9 miles in a 3 mile radius, it would take (4) different searches, 6 hours per search/per team, and the 3 mile mark would be reached within 24 hours of search time. Not months, not week's, but days. The question is if this was organized properly, not if they could have reached the area.

Also, at a cost of one million dollars,per Sheriff Beauchamp!

 

[Mapman]

Too bad is not accurate. Trust but verify is a saying I have heard and follow. The big thing here is speed of searcher. If they are looking for evidence, they will be going super slow. If they are looking for people, much faster.

There are a lot of different types of searchs that can be conducted. The answer I gave pertained to a question regarding why wasn't a "grid" search conducted. A grid search as I understand it is generally a line of searchers spaced no more than twenty feet apart moving slowly enough to find most evidence which could include footprints, pieces of clothing, signs of struggle, evidence of shallow graves and so forth. In my explanation of the manpower requirements of a grid search I didn't intend to imply that a grid search of the entire 22.9 square miles would have been a good use of manpower. How many of the 300 people offering to help were trained searchers even physically capable of conducting a grid search?

 

[Mapman]

Attached is an elevation profile of a road from the abandoned truck to the point in Smokestack Hollow where the road intersects with other roads near the location of the remains. Obviously the trip would involve uphill and downhill sections. For those of you who might not be familiar with the term “slope” it is the change in elevation for a given distance. For example, if you climbed 40' over a distance of 1000', you climbed a 4% slope (40/1000 x 100). To give you an idea of steepness a standard 4/12 pitch roof has a slope of 33% and this is flat enough to easily walk around on; however, even with good tennis shoes I cannot walk on a steep 12/12 pitch roof which has a slope of 100%.

According to Google Earth the route leaving from the truck would have an average slope of 4.2% uphill and 6.2% downhill. The maximum slopes at any point on the road/trail would be 25% uphill and 32% downhill. These maximimun slopes most likely occur either immediately before or after the three dips which probably are tributaries or gullys of some type. Although 32% is not all that steep for a roof it would feel steeper on loose dirt/rocks. These would be short intervals, but I suspect that anyone walking through these three points would carefully pick their way across them. By the end of the 5.18 mile trip the Jamisons would have climbed 433 feet and descended 1128 feet for a net change of -695 feet.

From my experience this would not be a particularly difficult trek for a healthy adult. You will have to factor for youself the effect that their physical and mental health in addition to having a child in tow would have on their ability. It is my opinion that they almost certainly could not have made the trip before sunset on the day that they disappeared, and that it is highly unlikely that they intentionally set out to do it.

 

[TooCurious]

There are a lot of different types of searchs that can be conducted. The answer I gave pertained to a question regarding why wasn't a "grid" search conducted. A grid search as I understand it is generally a line of searchers spaced no more than twenty feet apart moving slowly enough to find most evidence which could include footprints, pieces of clothing, signs of struggle, evidence of shallow graves and so forth. In my explanation of the manpower requirements of a grid search I didn't intend to imply that a grid search of the entire 22.9 square miles would have been a good use of manpower. How many of the 300 people offering to help were trained searchers even physically capable of conducting a grid search?

A grid search just describes the method of search. How fast/slow or how tedious they are in search method depends upon the focus of the search. If a dead body was found in the woods, maybe a grid search would start from that area out looking for everything and anything and it would be very slow. A grid search for missing persons would be faster as the target is larger and there wasn't any evidence of a crime with this case initially. So an evidentiary grid search would not have been necessary. I think a grid search in this type of case would have been a great idea. (I do not know the method of search they used) Since they were looking for people they could have expanded to 30' distance and could have had 2 lines a mile long each and covered a huge amount of land. They had a natural barrier (river or creek) to the north along with roads they could have checked for tracks. They could have had been knocking out a square mile an hour. IMO

 

[SchoolgirlShamus]

Too bad is not accurate. Trust but verify is a saying I have heard and follow. The big thing here is speed of searcher. If they are looking for evidence, they will be going super slow. If they are looking for people, much faster.

But if they are looking for skeletonized people, the pace will have to slow again, especially in the absence of a deep winter freeze climate; otherwise. skeletonization happens quite quickly for an unburied unsubmerged body. The brown bones and dessicated connective tissue (most clothing having disingegrated quickly) are extremely hard to spot, even when you know what you're looking for, and even when you're looking right at it.

I think both Mapman and I are trying to say that just under 23 square miles is a staggering scope of the search. Still puzzled by posters here who say, uhhh, whar's the big deal? Whyn't they find them?

 

[TooCurious]

The searches started less than two weeks after they went missing. If they were deterioating as fast a you suggest they would have been smelled before they were seen. The pace could have been fast. When looked at as a whole it does seem daunting but when broken down by grids it is very manageable. One step at a time vs 29 steps right now. The amount of time spent searching and the numbers of searcher with an adequate search plan the area should have been or could have been searched. Even if not in one weekend but keep working at it.
Hindsight is 20/20 but IMO the area they were found in should have been searched.

 

[Mapman]

http://www.kjrh.com/news/state/rema...earch-for-missing-jamison-family-from-eufaula

News story states that more than 300 people searched, includin helicopters.

If 300 people broke into (6) 50 person teams, using numbers above post each team would search a square mile in 6 hours. Every 6 hours, 6 miles are being searched. To use mapman's estimate of 22.9 miles in a 3 mile radius, it would take (4) different searches, 6 hours per search/per team, and the 3 mile mark would be reached within 24 hours of search time. Not months, not week's, but days. The question is if this was organized properly, not if they could have reached the area.

Your posts have morphed from a claim that I provided inaccurate information regarding the manpower necessary to conduct a grid search to an argument that the Jamisons should have been found in the initial search.

In response to a somewhat vague question about grid searching the area I attempted to provide a concise explanation of the manpower requirements for what is normally considered a grid search with a 90% probability of detection with searchers spaced 20' apart. As you can see from the chart at the bottom of the page at the following link it would require 924 total hours of time to search a square mile, but it could be accomplished in 3.5 hours with 264 searchers. If 30' spacing is used rather than 20' the search could be conducted in 3.5 hours with only 176 searchers but the probability of detection drops to only 85%.

If we pretend that LE could have found 100 people with the endurance and skill to actually conduct a grid search of this scale using your recommended 30' spacing, it appears from the table that a square mile could be grid searched in 6.2 hours (176/100 x 3.5) or all 23 square miles in 3.6 weeks with an 85% POD. Perhaps the spacing could have been increased to 100' then all 23 square miles could be grid searched by 100 searchers in about a week, but sadly, the probably of detection would only be 50%.

LE did what was reasonable with their resources. They intensively searched 1100 acres near the truck, used HRD dogs and many additional searchers well beyond the intensively searched areas, and used airborne search devices and several other techniques. I don't know how far out the HR dogs were run on roads from the truck, but to find the remains they would have had to follow the road for over five miles from the truck. Few people on this forum believe it is possible that the Jamisons could have walked five miles so it seems odd that we would expect LE to search that far.

Monday morning quarterbacking makes it so easy to see how the Jamisons should have been found. If the information that I provided in my initial post was inaccurate, it would be helpful if you would contact the experts who prepared the information at the following link and ask them to correct their charts.

http://www.co.vermilion.il.us/ema/sar/tfisher/with_fl/html/theoretical search area.pdf

 

[SchoolgirlShamus]

Few people on this forum believe it is possible that the Jamisons could have walked five miles so it seems odd that we would expect LE to search that far.

Good point.

 

[TooCurious]

By300 searchers means.....300 searchers. When you scale the numbers to down to get your big time frame it is inaccurate.
I was short 42 searchers but they are getting a square mile searched every 1 hour and 45 minutes.
23 square miles x 1.75= 40.25 hours. There are about 11 hours of daylight in Oklahoma in October. 40.25/11= 3.65 days. Not months, or weeks, but days. 3.65 approximately.
POD is made on 1 individual as well, you have 3 and this affects the numbers as well. Run those numbers through your experts.
The speed is not agreed upon either, as searchers on horseback cover ground faster and it is a fact that average person walking speed is about 3 mph but to get his time frame, speed it less than 1 mph. That is too slow.

<modsnip>

 

[SchoolgirlShamus]

Why didn't they take a specific road etc? Who's to say they didn't? They may have taken any number of paths/roads & still gotten lost, especially if they got lost in the rain, or if it got dark...or maybe they had a big argument, and Bobby or Sherilyn stormed off in a particular, non-sensical direction & the other followed after. I think there's a lot of different things that *could've* happened.

Exactly -- this is what makes the exposure vs. murder question so difficult. Anything could have happened.

The question isn't whether the Jamisons voluntarily took a highly unlikely, pain-inducing, pointless, inconvenient five mile stroll. Of course they didn't. (Not even the "exposure" camp is claiming this -- though it's sometimes made to sound that way <mod snip>.)

The question is whether the Jamisons could cover X amount of ground in Y type of terrain in Z amount of time if they were lost, confused, and slowly succumbing to the irrationality and eventual death of hypothermia. The answer is, yes.

To those who think it was too warm and/or just too crazy for healthy(ish) adults to get lost so easily then just "lie down and die" when it wasn't even freezing, or whatever... I don't know what to refer to you if you haven't already digested the good info here on the disturbing ease of both getting lost and getting hypothermia.

That said, though... IF those HRD hit locations were in fact accurate and did point to deceased humans having been in that spot, but the Jamisons' remains were found miles away, I'm not sure how it could have been anything but murder.

(Does anyone have a theoretical explanation for that which doesn't involve murder?? I'd love to hear any thoughts.)

I guess my current opinion is as follows, though I can't even use percentages anymore, it's all become too nebulous...

1) Murder - assuming accuracy of HRD clues and remains location, likely (albeit baffling).
2) Lost/exposure - assuming nothing about anything, still entirely possible.
3) Murder/suicide - assuming concealment of gun presence by LE, still possible.

Arrggghhh.

 

[SchoolgirlShamus]

it is a fact that average person walking speed is about 3 mph but to get his time frame, speed it less than 1 mph. That is too slow.

As I understand it, the average person's walking speed on a flat, clear surface when just strolling (i.e., not looking for anything on the ground) is between 2.5 and 3 mph.

Why would a pace of 1 mph, in the woods, while looking for human remains, be "too slow"?