Missing woman search in Shenandoah

[Anonymous]

^^^ car's location

[Anonymous]

And can't they check cell phone pings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The car in question was seen driving into the park by an elderly woman the same day it was found. She remembered the car because of its uniqueness. Meaning the car was parked there the same day it was found. I still think foul play.

This is so so obvious. The police know it too.

That doesn't make any sense - why would an elderly woman be driving the missing girl's car, and (assuming that's even true) why would she leave it there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The car in question was seen driving into the park by an elderly woman the same day it was found. She remembered the car because of its uniqueness. Meaning the car was parked there the same day it was found. I still think foul play.

This is so so obvious. The police know it too.

That doesn't make any sense - why would an elderly woman be driving the missing girl's car, and (assuming that's even true) why would she leave it there?

Not the PP quoted, but no--I think the elderly woman SAW the car being driven into the park. Not that an elderly woman was driving it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Beyond her dad's location, do we have reason to think she is in the park, or went to the park? It doesn't seem like she's an avid biker, or told anyone she was going there. Is it just the car? Or did I miss something?

From this Washington Post article:

"Nicole likes to compete in multi-sport events such as triathlons and regularly runs half marathons,” read a companion Facebook page “Find Nicole.” “She participates in CrossFit, is a gym regular and can often be found riding and running on trails.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/vehicle-found-at-shenandoah-national-park-search-for-missing-woman-continues/2016/04/17/42cd8b7c-04c4-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html

Her family and friends seem to be under the impression that she hikes a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The car in question was seen driving into the park by an elderly woman the same day it was found. She remembered the car because of its uniqueness. Meaning the car was parked there the same day it was found. I still think foul play.

This is so so obvious. The police know it too.

That doesn't make any sense - why would an elderly woman be driving the missing girl's car, and (assuming that's even true) why would she leave it there? [/quote

The elderly woman SAW the car, the elderly woman was not driving the car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The car in question was seen driving into the park by an elderly woman the same day it was found. She remembered the car because of its uniqueness. Meaning the car was parked there the same day it was found. I still think foul play.

This is so so obvious. The police know it too.

That doesn't make any sense - why would an elderly woman be driving the missing girl's car, and (assuming that's even true) why would she leave it there?

I had to read that a couple of times before I realized that the car was SEEN by an elderly woman. The elderly woman wasn't driving it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The car in question was seen driving into the park by an elderly woman the same day it was found. She remembered the car because of its uniqueness. Meaning the car was parked there the same day it was found. I still think foul play.

This is so so obvious. The police know it too.

That doesn't make any sense - why would an elderly woman be driving the missing girl's car, and (assuming that's even true) why would she leave it there? [/quote

The elderly woman SAW the car, the elderly woman was not driving the car.

I can't remember - is this a dangling participle? There is a basic grammar term for this type of error.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The car in question was seen driving into the park by an elderly woman the same day it was found. She remembered the car because of its uniqueness. Meaning the car was parked there the same day it was found. I still think foul play.

This is so so obvious. The police know it too.

That doesn't make any sense - why would an elderly woman be driving the missing girl's car, and (assuming that's even true) why would she leave it there?

This is why grammar matters. It was seen by an elderly woman being driven in. Not seen being driven in by an elderly woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys she's not a missing hiker. The discussion is useful for hiker safety but is not applicable here.

How do you know she's not a missing hiker? Everyone is speculating at best, but there is not proof she wasn't out hiking just as there is not any proof she was abducted.

Ok. Anyone with a background in law/criminal investigation is aware what this is. It's not a missing hiker. You can continue to believe it, but it isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys she's not a missing hiker. The discussion is useful for hiker safety but is not applicable here.

How do you know she's not a missing hiker? Everyone is speculating at best, but there is not proof she wasn't out hiking just as there is not any proof she was abducted.

Ok. Anyone with a background in law/criminal investigation is aware what this is. It's not a missing hiker. You can continue to believe it, but it isn't.

If not, then why are authorities searching the woods?

[Anonymous]

Let's get back to the car. Where it was parked is everything. I Park near entrances to popular trail spots using a booklet from the visitor center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys she's not a missing hiker. The discussion is useful for hiker safety but is not applicable here.

How do you know she's not a missing hiker? Everyone is speculating at best, but there is not proof she wasn't out hiking just as there is not any proof she was abducted.

Ok. Anyone with a background in law/criminal investigation is aware what this is. It's not a missing hiker. You can continue to believe it, but it isn't.

If not, then why are authorities searching the woods?

I was there sunday, and didn't notice any police activity whatsoever.

Let me add this wrinkle - it was national park week last week. They let everybody in free. Usually I think it's $15-20. And we know 2 girls 5-10 years ago were murdered hiking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Word through the grapevine is she and her husband were planning to split- hence why he wasn't the one who reported her, but rather her job did 3 days later. Her soon to be ex-husband is also a cop, and the car is most likely a plant.

Wow. Now that complicates matters.

I believe they separated in December, after she cheated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Word through the grapevine is she and her husband were planning to split- hence why he wasn't the one who reported her, but rather her job did 3 days later. Her soon to be ex-husband is also a cop, and the car is most likely a plant.

Wow. Now that complicates matters.

I believe they separated in December, after she cheated.

If she cheated - and there is another man/men in her life - well, that complicates things. Significantly.

Maybe she wanted to "start over" with her new lover?