Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.
Woo
I respect the opinions of all here,and am glad to discuss further if you feel the need,but will not hash it here on this thread.Experience has taught me that does no good.
I don't mean to pull out the "WB Psych Couch," but I'd like to offer a different perspective on this: I think that the majority of hikers feel threatened when someone is murdered on the trail because they realize that it could have just as easily been them or they no longer feel safe when they hike alone. Many may wish to attach blame to an individual to restore that level of security or because they feel frustration that Scott's Killer has not been found.
It is hardly "character assassination" or a "witch hunt" if individuals who encountered Papa Smurf or "Teardrop," as he has also been referred to, express that his actions (and machete) contributed to a sense of great unease for them. They are not locking him up. They are not burning him at the stake. They are expressing that, in their opinion, it would not be a far stretch to imagine that this man could have committed such a crime. If you want to look for the true "culprit," you have only to look at Teardrop himself. He is obviously aware that brandishing a huge knife and making threatening remarks only serves to draw attention to himself. I would even warrant that he works hard at being known as a "Bad MF."
Not everyone is going to come across as "Mr. Rogers of the Appalachian Trail Neighborhood." Hikers are simply expressing their opinions and working through a myriad of emotions on this. And their freedom to do this far outweighs the "rights" of a man who obviously fits the profile. Again, they aren't lynching this man; they aren't storming the WB Castle. They are simply expressing their opinions. And their freedom to do so is pretty important.
Last edited by WIAPilot; 05-20-2012 at 05:20.
And we know that he was buried in a shallow grave. Doesn't sound like a "survival mistake" to me.
The reason that we know it was a homicide is because the Medical Examiner was required by law to report the cause of death within 6 months.
Under the circumstances, not sure why the investigaging authorities were unwilling to report this early on.
I know a number of Universities have been critisized for not reporting crimes on campus. They don't want to worry studendts and parents.
In this case the FBI not only failed to volunteer this was a homicide, they felt it appropriat to tell the public that hikers should only exhibit normal precations.
Step back for a second an imagine if a partially body was found at a State University and the authorities took a similar tact.
Would the public be so accepting?
The trouble I have with campfires are the folks that carry a bottle in one hand and a Bible in the other.
You never know which one is talking.
I don't agree that it's wise or right to say, "Clayton Gardner (aka: Teardrop) absolutely killed Scott Lilly." However, there is a big difference in stating actual encounters that transpired between Gardner and hikers or instead stating that "based on the interactions of many hikers, that Gardner is a person of interest in this case."
Now what Rickb is saying makes this explode even more in my opinion. Given the fact that the Authorities knew that Scott Lilly was actually murdered, didn't they have a moral obligation to reveal this to the hikers on the trail? Many hikers do hike alone, if not for the majority of the day, at least for long periods at a stretch - although I just don't know how crowded some areas of the trail are at times. But rather than worry about tourism and the almighty dollar and negative publicity, I personally feel that most hikers would want to be aware that a murder had recently been committed and that his murderer had not been discovered. They could then make an informed decision as to whether they wanted to hike in groups or with a partner or take their chances.
Last edited by WIAPilot; 05-20-2012 at 09:26.
Where has anyone here done that? They haven't. You're making that up.
To everyone else, there's an important pair of words which need to be attended to here: "murder" and "homicide." To the best of my understanding, the authorities have termed this case a homicide - death by one person at the hands of another. It won't be a murder, per se, until and unless it's established that the killer acted with the requisite mental state - intent to kill or reckless indifference to the life or death of the victim. I encourage those who discuss this to refer to the crime, for the time being, as a homicide, not a murder.
The more miles, the merrier!
NH4K: 21/48; N.E.4K: 25/67; NEHH: 28/100; Northeast 4K: 27/115; AT: 124/2191
I don't post here often but still amazed that over the years the level of stupid here has not changed.
What makes you all think that what you read in the paper, hear on the news, read online is the truth? Most police are not going to release all the details. It protects the investigation from arm-chair quarter backs like y'all. Everything you have posted is purely speculation. You don't have all the details to make an informed decision.
The right thing to do is be aware that there is someone out there that did this. Be aware of your surroundings and people.
Hike on and enjoy your time in the woods otherwise. I've lived in some major metro areas and I'm safer in the woods than I am on my sofa.
~If you cant do it with one bullet, dont do it at all.
~Well behaved women rarely make history.
So are you saying the facts released by investigating authorities, FBI, etc., cannot be relied upon as true? How much do you know about this and other thread discussing this case? Are you sure you're not baselessly commenting on this discussion in just the way you condemn others, falsely, best as I can tell, having read the threads, with baselessly commenting on the homicide case?
The more miles, the merrier!
NH4K: 21/48; N.E.4K: 25/67; NEHH: 28/100; Northeast 4K: 27/115; AT: 124/2191
Requesting a WhiteBlaze sanctioned séance. It's the only way
LOL Can't help you with the seance, but here is the link to the Court Docket showing that Mr. Gardner is still in custody regarding the theft of hostel services that were discussed on WB.
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketS...R-0000265-2012
I think this goes to prove that not everything has been rumors and conjectures on the WB. Does this make Mr. Gardner wanted for homicide? No. But it also goes to show that there is a basis for speculation. I am not familiar with the PA Court System, but it seems odd to me that Authorities would be keeping this individual for almost a year over an amount this small. However, if he was considered to be a "person of interest" in an unsolved homicide, that might make sense. <<< Now this is pure speculation on my part. (Driver8 might be able to shed some light on this.)
We do not know if Scott was killed by one person or a group of persons. There have been too many assaults, beatings, and thefts on the trail in Virginia in recent years for me not to suspect that the killer did not act alone. Just pondering the facts and wondering if we are missing that possibility.--Kinnickinic
You never know just what you can do until you realize you absolutely have to do it.
--Salaun
What irks me about what is being said here is that essentially a person with previous criminal record is the only person that could have done this. If that were the case lock up everyone that has a prior arrest record and there would be no crime. I was at Cow camp gap shortly after all of this took place and can tell you that,
A) It's a very easy walk in to there so someone without much hiking experience could get there.
B) There are multiple entry and exit points.
C) The parking area is secluded as well.
Now none of this means anything, but there are other solutions to a crime other than the closest guy with a previous record did it.
You make some excellent points. However, I think hikers were more concerned about Mr. Gardner brandishing his large machete; his volatile conduct at times while on the trail; and the fact that he had a teardrop tattoo, which initially symbolized that the wearer had committed a murder either in or out of prison.
If this individual hadn't been flashing around the machete and had behaved in a somewhat less volatile manner and hadn't brought attention to himself with the prison talk - I doubt that he would have been mentioned at all.
Last edited by WIAPilot; 05-21-2012 at 07:33.
I don't know who did kill Mr Lilly. The picture below is from the 2010 April fools hikers bash, I know I took the picture. I like to "people watch" at gatherings like this. Within 5 - 10 minuets after the "Papa Smurf" of all this speculation arrived, almost all (if not all)of these people had him on their radar. They probabley did not even know why, he just was. At that point in time, it was most likely the first time any of them had ever heard of or laid eyes on him.
I am not saying that he had anything to do with anything (except threatening to eat Fishin Freds dog) just saying that there are around zillion trail miles represented in that picture. I think that might be why there is so much speculation about this Papa Smurf. So many have seen him in action.
I would not for one minuet try to speak for anyone in that poto, Just my opinion of what I saw that day.