5 ms·

Reading through the story, I had heard most of it while in the desert a few years ago. The writer's style generally rubs me the wrong way on multiple fronts.

Reading through the story, I had heard most of it while in the desert a few years ago. The writer's style generally rubs me the wrong way on multiple fronts. It's an interesting story and case, but I can't get over the "style" of the presentation.

meddlepal 10y ago
I was not a huge fan of the style either, but it does a fairly good job of keeping the reader interested. That said, the amount of digs he takes at various local and federal agencies is really unnecessary.
- sverige 10y ago
  I dunno, I think he earned the right to criticize them. It was fairly mild, considering the effort he put into it compared to them. And he was complimentary to them overall. He didn't even launch into what would probably be an epic rant if he were to provide all the details, but rather stopped himself. Apparently he has gotten the "style" feedback enough that he felt it necessary to put a full disclaimer at the head of the article.
  - syllogism 10y ago
    I think the effort he put in is pretty hard to justify objectively. He can do what he likes with his time, but it doesn't mean the various agencies deserve criticism for doing less.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      It wasn't doing less. It was not sharing helpful information with someone who'd earned rights to it through assistance, and dismissing very well-founded advice and input. That said, it's very harsh territory, and local government has very few resources.
      - whyenot 10y ago
        He comes across as very earnest; that might be misread by some people as obsessive. He also did do some very questionable things like remove the day planner and other items. It could be that law enforcement didn't really want to work with him any more than they had to. It's hard to know, we don't get to see that side. I really enjoyed his account. I've spent a lot of time doing field work in the Mojave (I am a plant taxonomist), and it's such a neat place to explore -- at least in spring time, before it gets too hot.
        dredmorbius 10y ago
        Uncovering human remains after 8 years in the desert of foreign nationals, hours from the nearest signs of civilisation, at risk of one's own life, and wanting to demonstrate to others that the claim is substantiated: removing an item that provides solid proof strikes me as grounded. The author clearly deliberated over, and fairly considered the merits, of removing other items. Consider too: finding something once in the desert does not mean you're likely to find it again. Animals, weather, rains (rare, but often overwhelming), or other humans could further disturb the scene, or you could simply lose track of where the item had been (even with GPS) or be distracted by false hits (the reflective surfaces which turned out to be rocks). Particularly after discovery of the remains had been reported and multiple parties were aware, with information being leaked out. I find nothing malicious, and nothing reproachable, in his account. Though note that this is his account, there may be another side.
        ktRolster 10y ago
        In addition, the police lost/damaged some evidence apparently, like the note written in German that was folded.
        sverige 10y ago
        I was left wondering whether the sheriff simply claimed to have found some of the kids' bones or they actually did find them and didn't want to tell the author any real details. I think there's probably a strong motivation for the sheriff's office to close the case, especially after so many years and so many resources expended. On top of that, there was probably some desire for them to make the author go away. Law enforcement officers have to protect the perception that they are both competent and caring, and this "enthusiast" proved to be better on both counts in this case. So either there's jealousy that makes them not give him the information that would have satisfied his curiosity (and spared him a couple more trips to the desert), or they just told him they found more bones when they actually hadn't to make him stop looking. Either way, I think they owed him more than that for solving their cold case, but couldn't stand to do that because now people like me say things like "he solved their cold case." Edit: Keep in mind this is the same office that had the responsibility to find all the bodies Charles Manson and gang buried out by the Barker Ranch, and didn't. I get that they have limited resources, so not blaming them, but it probably stings when this guy finished the job they started.
dredmorbius 10y ago
I'm curious about what rubs you wrong. The writing is good, clear, intelligent, informed, and captures the sense of the place and people -- I've spent some time there myself.

meddlepal 10y ago

I was not a huge fan of the style either, but it does a fairly good job of keeping the reader interested. That said, the amount of digs he takes at various local and federal agencies is really unnecessary.

sverige 10y ago
I dunno, I think he earned the right to criticize them. It was fairly mild, considering the effort he put into it compared to them. And he was complimentary to them overall. He didn't even launch into what would probably be an epic rant if he were to provide all the details, but rather stopped himself. Apparently he has gotten the "style" feedback enough that he felt it necessary to put a full disclaimer at the head of the article.
- syllogism 10y ago
  I think the effort he put in is pretty hard to justify objectively. He can do what he likes with his time, but it doesn't mean the various agencies deserve criticism for doing less.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    It wasn't doing less. It was not sharing helpful information with someone who'd earned rights to it through assistance, and dismissing very well-founded advice and input. That said, it's very harsh territory, and local government has very few resources.
    - whyenot 10y ago
      He comes across as very earnest; that might be misread by some people as obsessive. He also did do some very questionable things like remove the day planner and other items. It could be that law enforcement didn't really want to work with him any more than they had to. It's hard to know, we don't get to see that side. I really enjoyed his account. I've spent a lot of time doing field work in the Mojave (I am a plant taxonomist), and it's such a neat place to explore -- at least in spring time, before it gets too hot.
      - dredmorbius 10y ago
        Uncovering human remains after 8 years in the desert of foreign nationals, hours from the nearest signs of civilisation, at risk of one's own life, and wanting to demonstrate to others that the claim is substantiated: removing an item that provides solid proof strikes me as grounded. The author clearly deliberated over, and fairly considered the merits, of removing other items. Consider too: finding something once in the desert does not mean you're likely to find it again. Animals, weather, rains (rare, but often overwhelming), or other humans could further disturb the scene, or you could simply lose track of where the item had been (even with GPS) or be distracted by false hits (the reflective surfaces which turned out to be rocks). Particularly after discovery of the remains had been reported and multiple parties were aware, with information being leaked out. I find nothing malicious, and nothing reproachable, in his account. Though note that this is his account, there may be another side.
        ktRolster 10y ago
        In addition, the police lost/damaged some evidence apparently, like the note written in German that was folded.
        sverige 10y ago
        I was left wondering whether the sheriff simply claimed to have found some of the kids' bones or they actually did find them and didn't want to tell the author any real details. I think there's probably a strong motivation for the sheriff's office to close the case, especially after so many years and so many resources expended. On top of that, there was probably some desire for them to make the author go away. Law enforcement officers have to protect the perception that they are both competent and caring, and this "enthusiast" proved to be better on both counts in this case. So either there's jealousy that makes them not give him the information that would have satisfied his curiosity (and spared him a couple more trips to the desert), or they just told him they found more bones when they actually hadn't to make him stop looking. Either way, I think they owed him more than that for solving their cold case, but couldn't stand to do that because now people like me say things like "he solved their cold case." Edit: Keep in mind this is the same office that had the responsibility to find all the bodies Charles Manson and gang buried out by the Barker Ranch, and didn't. I get that they have limited resources, so not blaming them, but it probably stings when this guy finished the job they started.

dredmorbius 10y ago

I'm curious about what rubs you wrong. The writing is good, clear, intelligent, informed, and captures the sense of the place and people -- I've spent some time there myself.