Inchworms Journal during 26 days lost...newest report

[Starfly]

At this point not many think anything other than a tragic misfortune did in fact take place. And we all realize bad things happen. These facts do not excuse the large mistakes that were made by our esteemed Maine Warden Service. We take great pride in our MWS. Their record is pretty near perfect. So, when a 66 year old woman goes missing and isn't found after the largest, most Expansive and most Expensive missing persons search in Maine history-- we have some questions.

Well said t-man. There really hasn't been talk of anything but that especially since she was found. Not sure why some are still in a tizzy about the conspiracy thing when most of us have moved well beyond that. Hopefully the FOIA report will be out in a few days and we can get whats left of the facts. It will be interesting to know if she was on Benzodiazepines or something related. Sure would explain a lot. I mentioned years ago that cerebral issue probably caused her to leave the trail and/or not recover.

Speculation seems to be all thats left at this point among the conspiracy buffs and those who tend to blame government for a host of issues.

Travler please don't lump everyone posting here in with with conspiracy buffs. Even in your very last post you speculated so lets not be hypocritical. We all have plenty of facts and many things can be quantified making this thread valid and hopefully something useful for the future. The MWS did make mistakes, thats a fact as Don and many others have mentioned through the course of this thread. However, you're entitled to you opinion and I'm partially in agreement that those mistakes are not negligence and the blamed per se can only be taken so far. You'll have to go back and review to see some of these factual mistakes but there are many, documented. I'll give you a couple that you can easily verify. The police I've interviewed feel that these initial mistakes were critical and probably contributed to the misidentification that happened. The original trailhead markers posted throughout the area list Gerry with brown hair (she had blonde/grey hair when she went missing), and last seen in a black pullover (it was bright red).

[TexasBob]

Bob, I take it you're from Texas. Have you hear of the Maine Warden Service? ................

Your post is a classic example of what I am talking about. Someone must be at fault. Someone has to be held to account. You have nothing to point to other than guilt by proximity (found on government property so the government must have had a hand in her disappearance) and nit picking details while avoiding looking at the big picture. Go back and read the ALDA article and timeline, watch the North Woods Law episode that follows the search (its on Amazon) and then you will realize that the MWS was given misleading information and based their search on that wrong information especially in the first few days. Is that the fault of the MWS? You fault the medical examiner for not have a press conference. They released their full report and when is the last time you have seen any medical examiner have a press conference? You say you have questions about the search and that's fine but if you read everything in this thread since Inchworm's discovery you will find that most of the questions you raise have already been answered. The truth is a hiker got lost and never came home. People did their best to find her and are not at fault for what happened to Inchworm. Some will choose to believe instead that there was a conspiracy or gross incompetence at work but to do so is to purposefully ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary and nit pick some relatively trivial details.

[4eyedbuzzard]

There are few people involved in this discussion that quite obviously don't understand the difficulty of locating someone/something in the woods, especially given limited and/or misleading information, and a likelihood that the victim was non-responsive. It just isn't as easy as some of you seem to think it is, even with good information. Some of you ought to read up on the subject of hindsight bias before throwing out comments like "grave dereliction of duty on the part of the MWS".

[tdoczi]

There are few people involved in this discussion that quite obviously don't understand the difficulty of locating someone/something in the woods, especially given limited and/or misleading information, and a likelihood that the victim was non-responsive. It just isn't as easy as some of you seem to think it is, even with good information. Some of you ought to read up on the subject of hindsight bias before throwing out comments like "grave dereliction of duty on the part of the MWS".

"dereliction of duty" perhaps is too strong a word (and im someone who would just element SAR altogether and make hiking an at your own peril proposition, btw) but concentrating the search in the wrong place (yes in hindsight, but it should have been obvious in the moment) is something not good that needs to be addressed. i mean if i had told them i saw gerry hiking near gorham that day would they have believed me? to have believed she was where the false lead said she was was only slightly more plausible.

[timeless_man]

Texas Bob and Four Eye, you both raise good points. You accept the word of the Authority and cease to not only ask questions, but doubt whether there are still questions that should be asked. That's fine. Don't ask. There are four FOIA requests in to the MWS at this time so I am not the only one who isn't satisfied with the answers provided. I spoke with several MASAR volunteers who participated in the search who told me they were not happy with the direction and organization of the search-- that the overall logic of the search was lacking.
I didn't say the Medical Examiner didn't "hold a press conference." I said the ME didn't respond to many questions from the press.
As far as reading this entire thread, I have. I've also read all the press I can find. There are still unanswered questions. For instance, why did the MWS continue to say the terrain was "very rugged" "steep" and "dangerous" when it wasn't? Why did they turn away many in-shape and experienced hikers from participating in the search ? I've been to the sight where her remains were found-- twice. I spent several hours bushwhacking all over the terrain, on both sides of the AT. These woods are not thick or treacherous.
At the MWS press conference after her remains were found they would not verify whether or not she had a tent or a journal. Why not ?

I am not faulting the all volunteer organization, MASAR. They take their orders from the MWS.

In all likelihood she was unresponsive. But the reluctance on the part of the authorities to be transparent with the facts of this search is a disservice to all who hike and hunt and get lost in the Maine woods.

As far as the North Woods Law episode: garbage, like most TV. If anything it served to distract the MWS. They played for the cameras instead of thinking methodically about the facts in front of them.

I think its fair to ask more questions concerning this failed search. That is all.

[4eyedbuzzard]

"dereliction of duty" perhaps is too strong a word (and im someone who would just element SAR altogether and make hiking an at your own peril proposition, btw) but concentrating the search in the wrong place (yes in hindsight, but it should have been obvious in the moment) is something not good that needs to be addressed. i mean if i had told them i saw gerry hiking near gorham that day would they have believed me? to have believed she was where the false lead said she was was only slightly more plausible.

No, it's the wrong word - because some words have very specific meanings. "Dereliction of Duty" means to willfully disobey or ignore an order, conscious or willful neglect, etc. It is a crime under UCMJ, and in most civilian situations, where the term would be official misconduct or similar. But while the person using the term may disagree with MWS actions, they essentially are accusing MWS of a crime. To add, there is no affirmative "duty to rescue". Government agencies and officials almost always do what they can (and often risk life and limb), but they can't be held criminally responsible for bad outcomes. FWIW, in HINDSIGHT I think MWS could have done things differently and perhaps would have achieved better results. But to accuse them of misconduct/criminal negligence is simply absurd and inflammatory.

[Starfly]

Ya Buzzard thats a really important point and can't be stressed enough. This section of the AT is really a super remote area and tough to find anything in there. I'm not sure if I could back this up with real facts, but probably its in the top 5 most remote on the whole AT from road to road, with several of the others also being in Maine. The weather didn't cooperate for much of the early search and of course theres the misleading information. It was the perfect storm scenario unfortunately. Now, allll of that being said, my team walked to within a few hundred yards of her after less than two days of searching. Not by accident or getting lucky, but by following the basics and fundamentals of lost person scenarios. I'm not willing to use terms like negligence or 'grave dereliction of duty' regarding the habits of the MWS in this search. But the fundamentals of lost person scenarios and establishing PLS were not follow. If you believe otherwise, than you believe that mystery calls and 17 year old second guessing is part of that formula.

T-Bob you raise some valid points and much of it is true. Keep in mind nobody is blaming the volunteers nor the vast majority of the MWS. There were only one or two people in charge of this search. If there is blame, its on an individual or two. As far as military involvement I too don't see anything but praise for whatever help was offered.

[Starfly]

The MWS obligations probably fall under the 'Duty To Act' if you're looking for a legal catch phrase. Usually applied to EMS and one on one care, but theres a broader scope that this falls under in addition to other obligations. Since they 'acted' theres not way anyones personally or legally responsible for anything in the search. Its more of a moral/ethical argument imo.

[Traveler]

Travler please don't lump everyone posting here in with with conspiracy buffs. Even in your very last post you speculated so lets not be hypocritical. We all have plenty of facts and many things can be quantified making this thread valid and hopefully something useful for the future. The MWS did make mistakes, thats a fact as Don and many others have mentioned through the course of this thread. However, you're entitled to you opinion and I'm partially in agreement that those mistakes are not negligence and the blamed per se can only be taken so far. You'll have to go back and review to see some of these factual mistakes but there are many, documented. I'll give you a couple that you can easily verify. The police I've interviewed feel that these initial mistakes were critical and probably contributed to the misidentification that happened. The original trailhead markers posted throughout the area list Gerry with brown hair (she had blonde/grey hair when she went missing), and last seen in a black pullover (it was bright red).

My last post on this was a ridiculous speculation along the lines of the other ridiculous speculations that have been offered. It was not serious and was intended to reflect the nature of speculation of this issue and how far it has spun out of control. That anyone would take that seriously demonstrates the power speculations have over facts.

[Traveler]

Double post....

[Starfly]

We hear you Traveler and I think we get it. There are various rabbit holes that we need not get into regarding speculation, the different levels of it, how its such an integral part of all of us that its part of life itself, on and on. Bottom line, and my suggestion - let people speculate. If you have a bone to pick, focus on an area where there are true facts and very revealing information...thats being withheld up to this point...by the MWS in the file of this case thats been requested by half a dozen under the FOIA. You're keen on defending them. Ask them why they haven't released the facts that will deter speculation after the applicable time limit requirement.

[ChuckT]

How about the Maine Warden Service is not releasing all the facts that some want out of respect for the family's privacy?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[Don H]

The MWS final report would be public information and available when completed.

Gross Negligence is the legal term we use in EMS, not "Dereliction of Duty". From all the information I have the MWS actions doesn't even come close.

I do not blame the MWS at all, I believe they did the best they could, with the information and circumstances they were handed. I'm sure they will critique the entire case and make recommendations for the future. That's a document I'd like to read.

[ChuckT]

IMHO "Dereliction of Duty", "Gross Negligence" or any other label that's been mentioned here is not a conclusion we should publish. Others with more and hopefully better judgement are welcome to speak as they see fit. We can't and should not add to what is essentially hype and emotional noise.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[iAmKrzys]

I'm not sure if I missed a post, but apparently there is another installment in The Bollard: http://thebollard.com/2016/03/03/m-i...a-t-inanition/

[Starfly]

The articles main points I think were actually pretty good. One is that she did keep a journal, something some of us have know for a while but might be news to many. The second is about prescription medication. I'd personally assumed she wasn't on any significant meds. If she were it would explain a lot. Probably we'll know for sure in a short period of time.

[TJ aka Teej]

I'm not sure if I missed a post, but apparently there is another installment in The Bollard: (Link removed for decency)

Just more tabloid-style anti-military conspiracy theories from a ghoulish attention seeking Portland bartender.

[rocketsocks]

The articles main points I think were actually pretty good. One is that she did keep a journal, something some of us have know for a while but might be news to many. The second is about prescription medication. I'd personally assumed she wasn't on any significant meds. If she were it would explain a lot. Probably we'll know for sure in a short period of time.

ridiculous, seriously ridiculous. Why would you even think your untitled to a persons medical history...freedom of information act? There's somthin really wrong with even suggesting this but goes to show the level at which some are really very self ish.

[4eyedbuzzard]

ridiculous, seriously ridiculous. Why would you even think your untitled to a persons medical history...freedom of information act? There's somthin really wrong with even suggesting this but goes to show the level at which some are really very self ish.

Agree. HIPPA privacy rights extend 50 years after a person's death. http://www.compliancephd.com/content...ly-after-death

[Starfly]

Ah perhaps your right rocket. Maybe I've been attached to this thing for too long and on this forum more than need be. However, there is not selfish intention on my part I don't think. I'm one of the few that went out looking for this woman. Did you? Have you ever gone looking for anyone? Until then please don't point fingers at certain ones of us, its just makes you look hypocritical. Same to you Buzzard.