EISPIRATEN

RH wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:44 pm organizers would not share previous search routes and became very guarded with information. This was a huge disservice to Monica as volunteers were searching the same areas over and over again rather than being able to help strategize where best to search. The organizers seemed more interested in controlling all aspects of the search and online discussions regarding the disappearance to protect the other hikers who were with her rather than actually doing what's best to find her remains. It's a very strange case.

Is it just me or does this all sound sus af

Nate U wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 6:28 pm

RH wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:44 pm organizers would not share previous search routes and became very guarded with information. This was a huge disservice to Monica as volunteers were searching the same areas over and over again rather than being able to help strategize where best to search. The organizers seemed more interested in controlling all aspects of the search and online discussions regarding the disappearance to protect the other hikers who were with her rather than actually doing what's best to find her remains. It's a very strange case.

Is it just me or does this all sound sus af

Psssst!

It's a cult!

So, I visited the location yesterday, 10/19/2025, with my buddy just to get the feel for the area and to poke around. The weather was amazing, in the low 60s, with no wind and sunny. Our main goal was to see how Monica could have gotten lost from the location she was last seen at, even though her leading hiking partner was only 30 feet ahead of her. (The lead hiker confirmed he was 30 feet ahead of her, and not 30 yards.) He made contact with her just before he made that northerly right turn downhill. And she acknowledged his communication with a wave. Then.... gone.

I may make future trips up there, but because I'm not that local to the area, I cannot commit weekly searches for her like many have done.

Thank you guys for your input.

RH wrote: Fri Aug 22, 2025 11:20 am Here is the timeline I tried to create based on statements from people involved. It's probably not 100% accurate but it's the closest we'll get other than the 4-minute video the "leaders" posted.

Thank you for that detailed timeline. That is a valuable source for someone coming onto this case later, like I am.

Although every part of the timeline seems to be 100% correct, based on what I've heard and read so far, I would like to report a slight difference about what I've heard directly from subject "A" on how Monica's beanie was discovered on Monday, 6/23 in that steep ravine.

After I came upon and read through this informative timeline, I wondered how/why the search dogs lost the scent at the beanie's location, after tracking it down from the ridge and there being no discovery of her body at the beanie's location. Without significant wind, to me this meant the beanie got transported there by some walking animal (not a flying bird) or someone other than Monica. (I guess, based ONLY on the scent information, it was possible Monica walked down there, dropped the beanie, and then walked back up the way she came. However, all the other known information pretty much disputes this improbable theory.)

I inquired with subject "A" about the loss of the scent trail, and he corrected how this beanie discovery played out. He stated the beanie was located by a SAR member on the morning of 6/23 in that ravine, and then a search dog was brought down to that location below the ridge to try to establish a scent trail for Monica. Unfortunately, the dog was unable to lock onto her scent at that location. So, who knows how the beanie got there, whether it was via an animal (including a flying bird), via a person, or via Monica herself. We can't conclude whether the dog's failure to lock onto a scent trail was due to lack of her being present there, or whether the lose terrain was not suitable for scent tracking.

I did descend down that ravine, and it was a sketchy terrain with lose and steep slope. I don't see how Monica thought that was the right way to the parking lot and kept blindly descending instead of stopping and returning to the ridge to reorient herself. I also wonder why she would not call out for her partner, and why she would not hear her partner's calls. Supposedly, he was back at the ridge in less than 10 minutes since last seeing her, and I can't imagine she descended too far down that ravine in those 10 minutes. Strange!

Nate U wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 6:28 pm

RH wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:44 pm organizers would not share previous search routes and became very guarded with information. This was a huge disservice to Monica as volunteers were searching the same areas over and over again rather than being able to help strategize where best to search. The organizers seemed more interested in controlling all aspects of the search and online discussions regarding the disappearance to protect the other hikers who were with her rather than actually doing what's best to find her remains. It's a very strange case.

Is it just me or does this all sound sus af

No....this is regular. The first search I went on it was the same thing...maybe worse. Its humorous...why its not obvious that anything but SAR is sus.
I would be suspicious if SAR wasnt suspicious of me. But the main idea is people applying different perspectives. Its basically people now saying they havent found her and have no clue.

And rather sad case...its the first AI case. So the AI dug up a case that hit all these key points. But was never solved...Barbara Bolick..which is dug up often enough by the social media ratings chasers...or parasites.

That's the issue is there's no definitive info like official statement or interview from her two hiking companions except obviously to law enforcement that first day.

Initially people heard her hiking partner say 30 yards which would make some sense to lose a person. Later he started saying 30 feet which is insanely close. You don't have to yell to be heard 30 feet yet that was the info they first said is he yelled back to her when he reached the turn. That and based on the 2nd to last photo of her (people investigated and it seemed like they were about 60 feet apart when that was taken) makes it seem like it was definitely not just 30 feet apart. If they were 60 feet apart when he took the second photo they were even more than 60 feet apart because he would have to stop, pull out camera, aim it and snap the picture. Also, very few people can judge proper distances in the wilderness. So more than likely they were at least 50-100 feet apart when he yelled back.

The beanie is another one where no definitive info. People have said it was found on a log, on some rocks, on a boulder, or snagged on a bush. But no one has seen a photo of it to know the exact spot or how it was found. That would be useful information. From the photos provided of her on the ridge, the beanie was tucked into lower backpack waist strap so it could have fallen off while hiking down tough terrain, it could have snagged on a bush, or it could have fallen off if she took off the pack to rest or try to get cell reception. I've heard SARs found the beanie and the dog came later but I've also heard the dog tracked from her last known location on the ridge down to the spot where they found beanie. So the only ones who could tell us those details are SARs people or law enforcement.

Also, she might have been calling out but they couldn't hear her and she wouldn't have heard the shouts from people above searching. Some of the searchers did sound experiments up there and discovered how little sound carries around all the boulders and ravines. The hikers testing it couldn't hear each other yelling even on the ridge once they got 300 or so feet away from each other with a boulder in the way. Emergency whistles were also tested and found to not be much more useful than shouting.

SARs was searching the north slopes mostly the first couple days and that seemed to anger "Subject A" as he kept insisting she went south. Why would he think she went south? When you come down that ridge if you missed the turn, your natural inclination with the landscape guiding you is to continue along the ridge west and/or veer northbound. Going south especially down that ravine is very illogical (sus) as is going south anywhere further down the west ridge.

She was a fast hiker and they were running down the ridge trail so if she did go south and he went north, they could have gotten far apart quickly. I went from her last known location down that south ravine all the way to the trail below it in 23 minutes without running. So if they were 0.1 mile (500 feet) away from each other, no chance of hearing each other. And if she reached that lower trail and went towards Twin Peaks, she could cover a lot of distance running before SARs started searching a few hours later. Everything about her heading south seems counterintuitive and 100s of people have searched south for months without any clues.

RH wrote: Tue Oct 21, 2025 1:11 pm So more than likely they were at least 50-100 feet apart when he yelled back.

Maybe you didn't read my previous post, but I wrote that this past weekend I spoke with Monica's male hiking partner, Subject "A", in person, and he stated they were 30 feet, NOT 30 yards, apart when he turned back and told Monica to make a right turn, a command she acknowledged with a wave to him. He then continued making that right turn. That's the last he saw of her. I too am very perplexed how she missed that turn, which she should have reached in less than 10 seconds after he went down it.

RH wrote: Tue Oct 21, 2025 1:11 pm I've heard SARs found the beanie and the dog came later but I've also heard the dog tracked from her last known location on the ridge down to the spot where they found beanie.

According to what Subject A told me in person, he stated the beanie was discovered by a SAR member on the morning of 6/23, and the dog was then brought down to that location in the ravine to try to lock onto her scent. Unfortunately, the dog was unsuccessful at locking onto her scent trail. This means either Monica did not bring the beanie down there, or the terrain was not ideal for a scent dog tracking operation.

RH wrote: Tue Oct 21, 2025 1:11 pm Also, she might have been calling out but they couldn't hear her and she wouldn't have heard the shouts from people above searching. Some of the searchers did sound experiments up there and discovered how little sound carries around all the boulders and ravines. The hikers testing it couldn't hear each other yelling even on the ridge once they got 300 or so feet away from each other with a boulder in the way. Emergency whistles were also tested and found to not be much more useful than shouting.

Subject A mentioned to me those voice and sound tests that were performed up there, and I have trouble believing that the calls for Monica did not carry far because:

a) The 3rd hiker, Subject "C", who stayed behind at the bottom of the steep portion of the trail heard the searching hikers and Subject A yelling for Monica, and the 3rd hiker was over 1,600' away as the crow flies, over 500' below the ridge, and on the noisier side of the ridge with Angeles Crest Highway. How far could Monica have travelled down that steep ravine before Subject A started yelling for her from the ridge? I assume he started yelling for Monica from the ridge about 10 minutes after they split. (He came down 150' on the trail after making that right turn and waited 5 minutes before he made his way back up to the ridge and started searching and yelling for her.) The linked timeline posted on here notes this length of time between their split and Subject A making it back up to the ridge as only being 8 minutes long.

b) When I descended down that ravine where the beanie was found, my buddy and his dog stayed at the top of the ravine. In 4 minutes I made it down just over halfway to where the beanie was found, or about 130 vertical feet down from the top (the beanie was found about 250' below the top of the ravine), and I could see and hear him TALKING to his dog, not yelling. His statements were clear, and I saw him at the top from my spot below. When I was down there I even heard, but barely, a hiking group coming down the Upper West Ridge trail in the distance on the ridge as they TALKED amongst each other, but I could not understand the conversations. It took me about 4 minutes to descend the 130', so how far down did Monica get in the brief 8-10 minute time window from when she last saw Subject A? She had to walk 400 feet off trail from her LKP to the top of the ravine in maybe 2 minutes, stop and contemplate where her partner went and possibly yell for him, analyze her surroundings at the top of the ravine, and then descend down the ravine. I doubt she made it past my position in that steep and loose ravine by the time her partner started yelling for her from the ridge.  

RH wrote: Tue Oct 21, 2025 1:11 pm SARs was searching the north slopes mostly the first couple days and that seemed to anger "Subject A" as he kept insisting she went south. Why would he think she went south? When you come down that ridge if you missed the turn, your natural inclination with the landscape guiding you is to continue along the ridge west and/or veer northbound. Going south especially down that ravine is very illogical (sus) as is going south anywhere further down the west ridge.

This is the first time I've heard/read about Subject A being irritated about SAR searching the north slope in lieu of the south slope. Where did this info come from? I hope this is not some rumor.
But if it is true, that is surprising because he told Monica to turn north. Why would he expect Monica to be on the south side of the ridge? He even initially searched for her right after she vanished in the westerly and southerly direction from the LKP. So, why was he so certain she went south, a position he held even before Monica's beanie was discovered on the south slope?
When I stood at the northerly bend in the trail and looked due west, the terrain was descending into a northwesterly-facing ravine. One would have to follow a 30-40 degree left-sweeping turn to the southwest from the northerly bend spot to stay on the ridge. So, if Monica missed the northerly right turn and instead was making a sweeping left turn along the ridge just seconds after receiving directions from Subject A and after watching him make that right turn himself, her making a left turn should have been a red flag to her and should have stopped. That is very strange, especially since she continued for about 2 minutes and 400 feet along the ridge to get to the top of the ravine, while she did not see Subject A since he turned. So strange! 

RH wrote: Tue Oct 21, 2025 1:11 pm She was a fast hiker and they were running down the ridge trail so if she did go south and he went north, they could have gotten far apart quickly. I went from her last known location down that south ravine all the way to the trail below it in 23 minutes without running.  So if they were 0.1 mile (500 feet) away from each other, no chance of hearing each other. And if she reached that lower trail and went towards Twin Peaks, she could cover a lot of distance running before SARs started searching a few hours later. Everything about her heading south seems counterintuitive and 100s of people have searched south for months without any clues.

What proof is there they were running down from Mt. Waterman? The timeline does not prove that, since they covered the 1 mile from the peak to the last photo spot in 17 minutes, which would make their speed about 3.5mph, a brisk hiking pace. They then continued 0.3 miles from the last photo spot to the LKP in 5 minutes, at about the same speed of 3.6mph. The last photo of Monica shows her quite well put together and not sweating after a mile run with a backpack that still had 3 liters of water in it, as estimated by Subject A. I don't have a clear version of the second-to-last photo of Monica as she was approaching the last photo spot. Was she running in that photo? Is there any concrete proof they were running back?

And regarding the reported coordinates for the LKP, they place that spot about 100' south of the trail. Is this really where Subject A last saw Monica, meaning they were already off trail by then? Or is this an error due to an assumption?

Finally, Subject A stated they were planning on taking a shortcut off-trail on their way back after making that northerly right turn. Do we know a bit more details about this shortcut discussion between him and Monica? Did he show her the intended shortcut on the map/phone, which would require a left off-trail turn?
I ask, because if she saw the map and roughly remembered what the trail and shortcut looked like, the only way I see Monica making that left turn down the southerly ravine is because she incorrectly believed she was making the left, shortcut turn down the northerly slope, hoping to reconnect with the Upper West Trail below. There, at the anticipated trail reconnect, she would make a left westerly turn to get to the trailhead below. But instead she accidentally went down on the south side of the ridge into Devil's Canyon, hit the Three Points to Twin Peaks Trail, made the planned left turn, but now she was heading east while believing she was heading west. After following the trail for a bit she realized this trail was constantly going uphill. She may have thought she hit a different trail, although believing she was still on the north side of the ridge, and decided to go off trail again, downhill into the canyon hoping to hit the Angeles Crest Highway. When off trail again, she lost her lip balm, and eventually yelled out in frustration when there was no highway at the bottom of Devil's Canyon.
But who knows. That's just my theory trying to connect all these dots we have, if I was asked to explain to someone how she could have made it down that southerly ravine. That theory still doesn't explain several big questions like why she didn't make that right turn behind Subject A, why she didn't stop and wonder where Subject A went, and how she never heard anyone's calls and no one heard hers, assuming she would be calling out once she lost Subject A. Do we know whether she had a hearing issue?

Yes, we read your post. Many of the people on this forum and others have also spoken with "Subject A". He is the one who has varied information slightly over the past months and his behavior has turned off many of the best hikers & searchers in southern California. I would have a tendency to trust his initial statements like 30 yards apart and after the turn he continued jogging for several minutes. Rather than his statements weeks later that it was 30ft and he only went 150ft down the trail after the turn. It could be trying to make a mistake in judgement seem less egregious when members of the online community started casting suspicion upon him (same reason they turned off comments on the Facbook page).

Again, few people judge distance accurately in the wild especially if you're not consciously trying to do it. I've led hikes where I pointed to where our goal was in the distance and the people with me swore it was 2-3 times farther away and we'd never make it there in the allotted time. They were shocked sometimes that a peak was 2.5 miles from our location rather than 4-6 miles.

As for how far down the trail he went after the turn, this has been questionable too. Some swore he went down to the third hiker because they had left her alone for so long but then after Monica didn't show up, he went back up to look for her. The 150ft is a weird spot to stop because you're jogging for only a few seconds and if you assume she's close behind why do you suddenly stop? The logical place to stop is the large boulder pile just before the steep part begins descending because you can see down (maybe even communicate with) to the third hiker, it's got a nice view, and plenty of places to sit to wait.

As for the missed turn, when Monica went missing it did not look anything remotely like it looked last weekend. It has been heavily trampled by 100s of people and various logs/rocks moved to mark the turn. Also, Subject A has said Monica never did off-trail hiking and was a poor navigator. There is also no evidence she turned down the ravine where you think. On one of our searches, we continued west down the ridge and after several hundred feet found a spot that took us down to the beanie. It seemed as natural and logical a way down as the top of the ravine near the turn. This would also be a route that would put more boulders and trees between her and the turn/Subject A so decrease the chances of hearing each other.

Sadly the 30ft between makes it more suspicious for Subject A because it is so close and that ridge is so open in terms of visibility. It has also never been established was the LKP Subject A's position when he last saw her? Or was it Monica's last position when he saw her from the turn? Was he jogging when we saw her or was he stopped? Was she stopped or moving? All of this factors into scenarios that trackers and detectives use to try to figure out a missing person's likely route.

The proof they were running is from Subject A stating this on numerous occasions. The timeline was created by a team reverse-engineering from the timestamped photos so the time they reached Waterman and time they left Waterman are estimates since Subject A did not provide that information but Subject A states that they were both lightly jogging (probably 4mph-5mph) most of the way from Waterman to where the final photo was snapped.

Subject A being irritated at SARS that first day also comes directly from him. He has stated this to various people in person, over the phone, and in messages. And as you said, he searched west and south. West makes sense but every person who has been up there says no one would even go down that south ravine. Everyone says they would go west or north especially once you get a look at that south ravine that is nothing like the way you came up. So why was he insistent that she wasn't on the northside? Some people have speculated the beanie was planted there or tossed down from somewhere above.

The shortcut statement is another mystery. Subject A has mentioned it but has never explained it or where he was talking about. There were no shortcut trails from the ridge. Some of the search teams went down the ridge looking to see if anything looked or felt like a trail or easy route down that northside. There was nothing and it's all quite steep on the north side between where the last photo was taken and the trail turn. Also, Subject A has talked about how she wasn't comfortable with off-trail or navigation so why would he suggest she take an off-trail shortcut? Also, from where the last photo was taken to the turn is only 1/4 mile so how much time would a shortcut save in that section? It's just another weird statement.

The noise tests were verified. This was even a discussion among some of the hikers with SARs members regarding carrying emergency whistles (those whistles are louder than yelling) because they only work the way the packaging states in perfect conditions. SARs members have missed people blowing emergency whistles numerous times unless they were very close like 1/3 mile. Perhaps down in the ravine where you were, you can hear sound from the ridge better as it's funneled somewhat. The further down the ravine not only will there be greater distance for the sound waves to have to travel but more and more obstacles (trees and plants absorb sound; boulders deflect sound waves in other directions) so if she was jogging and going quickly trying to catch her partner she could have been out of earshot very quickly. Also, you mention the 5-10 minutes but that is another unknown. Most people aren't constantly tracking the time especially on a fairly easy hike. So that 5-10 minutes could be a bit longer than stated.

The lip balm is likely not Monica's. The only photo they provided makes the lip balm look old like it had been out there a while. Subject A insists it looked new but never provided any additional photos. It is also a very popular brand sold at every store and convenience store so even if it was new, it could have belonged to one of the hundreds of searchers who had been covering the area for weeks before it was found.

The theory that she went down the south ravine missed the trail and continued towards Devils Canyon or that she went east on the trail but eventually ended up in Devils Canyon had been the initial theories after the first day she went missing. Professionals concentrated heavy search crew and equipment including heat-sensors from helicopters on the Waterman/Three Points trail and thoroughly searched Devils Canyon for a week. Other volunteer searchers have searched Devils Canyon as well.

The 3L of water is also a strange fact. Her pack doesn't look very robust and most day packs carry a maximum of 3L. They had already hiked uphill for 1700' and 4 miles which would be when most people consume the most water (i.e. the tough portions). So she still had 3L left? How much water did she bring for a short 5.5 mile day hike?! Also, how would the hike leader know how much water she had at that point? But maybe they talked about it on the summit. Maybe she had extra water bottles in the pack that she drank. Who knows. It's all speculation.

The best thing for Subject A would be to take a team up there and have them mark waypoints for everything and then release a map showing those points. Exact spot they left 3rd Hiker (and did she hike more or just wait 90 minutes for them in the same spot); exact spot where the discussed shortcut was; exact spot where he signaled Monica about the turn; spot where she acknowledged him; exact spot where he waited for her; spot where he encountered the group of 5 hikers. Then release the map with all of the searched routes preferably on the same map. If they truly want to find her, that would be the most helpful. Release all the information publicly and encourage people to help solve the mystery. For some unknown reason, they are keeping everything secretive and everything must go through them. As Matt said, very cult-like.

Subject A has spoke out against SAR in private zoom meetings as well as private phone calls with me after I left his lil group. The then sketchy vibes that have been caught from 10ish former members of the group as well as me make it hard to believe anything anymore. Me along with others are laying low and waiting for something to come up on the volenteer group front.

I've been looking for updates on this story since she disappeared.

There was a Youtube video posted 2 weeks ago that had this comment posted yesterday in response to anyone who suspected Monica's friends of foul play. It doesn't seem 100% honest and feels suspicious.
I suspect the user, "Mountaineersar", is Subject A, as you call him, or one of his devoted followers.
I thought I had read they had walkie talkies, but Monica was not in possession of either handset. If she was not known to be a good navigator, why wouldn't they make sure she was carrying one of them? Her clothing + pack, if she was indeed carrying 3 liters of water, is not great for jogging. AND, my personal experience with those Altras she's wearing, is they have lousy grip!! I slipped and fell twice walking down a steep grade in the same shoes... so I can imagine she may have slipped down a hill, but not so far out of sight that she couldn't be located.

It all feels OFF.

pocketfulofpeanuts wrote: Wed Oct 22, 2025 6:43 pm I've been looking for updates on this story since she disappeared.

There was a Youtube video posted 2 weeks ago that had this comment posted yesterday in response to anyone who suspected Monica's friends of foul play. It doesn't seem 100% honest and feels suspicious.
I suspect the user, "Mountaineersar", is Subject A, as you call him, or one of his devoted followers.

I thought I had read they had walkie talkies, but Monica was not in possession of either handset. If she was not known to be a good navigator, why wouldn't they make sure she was carrying one of them? Her clothing + pack, if she was indeed carrying 3 liters of water, is not great for jogging. AND, my personal experience with those Altras she's wearing, is they have lousy grip!! I slipped and fell twice walking down a steep grade in the same shoes... so I can imagine she may have slipped down a hill, but not so far out of sight that she couldn't be located.

It all feels OFF.

Pretty sure they weren't carrying walkies. That was a rumor started somewhere because of misheard info. I have a 3L pack that is larger than hers and I have jogged in it a few times to make up time on easy portions of trails. Pretty sure the jogging down from Waterman to Double Delight is true. I don't have experience with her shoes but I have shoes with good grip but still slipped multiple times during searches especially in that south ravine. It's the loose gravel/sand on hard surfaces as well as layers of pine needles. But even if you slip and hit your head (pass out or die), how do you vanish? Yes, there are things that feel off.

I looked up that video. Thankfully it was a pretty reasonable video instead of the Missing411 video that gets details wrong and sensationalizes things to sell books. Yes, that user who posted those comments seems sus for a few reasons.

Has anyone gone back to the timeline posted way earlier in this topic and considered the following item?

2:30pm – two hikers returning from Twin Peaks hear what sounded like a female in anguish or despair
(not calling for help) around Twin Peaks Saddle area (estimated 34.32474, -117.93031).

Kerenza wrote: Thu Nov 13, 2025 12:02 pm Has anyone gone back to the timeline posted way earlier in this topic and considered the following item?

2:30pm – two hikers returning from Twin Peaks hear what sounded like a female in anguish or despair
(not calling for help) around Twin Peaks Saddle area (estimated 34.32474, -117.93031).

Yes, it has long been a topic of conversation wondering why so few searches were conducted over in that area the first couple months. It almost seemed like the screams/shouting those hikers reported to LE were just ignored. Most of the searching over there seemed to just be casual searching while getting into Devils Canyon (where much of the heavy searching was done) from the saddle. The people that run the volunteer searches quit sharing maps and search routes around early August so maybe there have been more searches conducted there in the past three months.

Kerenza wrote: Thu Nov 13, 2025 12:02 pm Has anyone gone back to the timeline posted way earlier in this topic and considered the following item?

2:30pm – two hikers returning from Twin Peaks hear what sounded like a female in anguish or despair
(not calling for help) around Twin Peaks Saddle area (estimated 34.32474, -117.93031).

This stood out to me too, but I wonder if the "not calling for help" part is meant to suggest that it could have been a mountain lion?

I haven't really looked into this so pardon my uninformed musings, but:
- without casting aspersions on her, could she have intentionally disappeared in some way, either by going back to Hwy 2 to a waiting vehicle or hiding out for a while? Was there anything she might have wanted to run away from?
- could the beanie have been planted later on, and have they done a scent search in that area for the others in her group?
- if it was a mountain lion, have they looked into places where the local ones might hide a kill? Although, don't such attacks leave traces or bits of clothing?
- have they checked for pot farms, etc in the area?

GoalHiking wrote: Mon Nov 24, 2025 2:38 pm I haven't really looked into this so pardon my uninformed musings, but:
- without casting aspersions on her, could she have intentionally disappeared in some way, either by going back to Hwy 2 to a waiting vehicle or hiding out for a while? Was there anything she might have wanted to run away from?
- could the beanie have been planted later on, and have they done a scent search in that area for the others in her group?
- if it was a mountain lion, have they looked into places where the local ones might hide a kill? Although, don't such attacks leave traces or bits of clothing?
- have they checked for pot farms, etc in the area?

Nothing is ruled out. The "not calling for help" might have meant just sheer agony from massive trauma such as after falling from a great height where you can't even speak just moan and scream. No one but LE/SARs knows the identity of the people that reported hearing the sounds so none of the volunteers have been able to contact them for additional information. So that's all hearsay.

It was "Hiker A" that was leading and went too far ahead so unless he was helping her run away, highly unlikely that she planned this. Her friends and co-workers said she was happy with a great career and wouldn't have run away from her life.

No one but LE/SARs knows how the beanie was found (condition, fabric tears, dirty, on branch, under bushes, etc) so it's possible it was planted or tossed there by a third party.

Heard various accounts of tracking dogs being used the first or second day but unclear on what they did. Did dog track Monica's scent to the beanie? Did it track just a human scent to beanie (there are many tracking dogs that just track human scents rather than a specific human's scent)? Did the dog actually reach the beanie or just hit on human scent into that ravine? We heard the dogs were pulled out because it was too treacherous to continue down ravine but it really wasn't that bad the few times I went down it and we had a couple volunteers take dogs down it with little difficulty. Did LE take the dogs from Three Points to the trail below the beanie to try to pick up a scent? Did they bring cadaver dogs to search after a week or two? Again, only LE knows any of these things and they apparently aren't speaking because it's considered an open case. But I think if they suspected foul play, we would have heard about it by now on news as they've had time to investigate her and the other hikers.

Mountain lions and bears were in the area (found prints, scat) but experts were consulted and all but ruled it animal attack. Bears leave massive evidence. Mt lions can leave next to nothing and carry the kill to a hiding spot but no more than 500' away. All directions from the LKP have been searched heavily for at least 1000' and the same with the beanie location.

Pot farm information is also hearsay so really only LE knows the extent of them in Devils Canyon area. We were told all but one of the pot farms were old and defunct. The one remaining one was tiny and not likely to be guarded. Other people have run into armed pot farmer guards in these mountains over the years but they generally claim they hide and don't want to interact with anyone but sometimes will give verbal warnings to go away. So it seems unlikely she went into one of these treacherous canyons, runs into a tiny pot farm and someone kills her and hides her rather than just turning her around to go back the way she came. There were FLIR helicopters the first morning after she disappeared and they only located a bear and other searchers with their thermal radar.

RH wrote: Sun Nov 30, 2025 1:49 am Mountain lions and bears were in the area (found prints, scat) but experts were consulted and all but ruled it animal attack. Bears leave massive evidence. Mt lions can leave next to nothing and carry the kill to a hiding spot but no more than 500' away. All directions from the LKP have been searched heavily for at least 1000' and the same with the beanie location.

idk if I worded this well but I was wondering if the report of a woman screaming could have just referred to a mountain lion's call, given how humanlike they can sound, not suggesting that Monica was taken by one

but I guess there's no way to know. and it seems like quite a coincidence for that report to happen on the same day she went missing

abigailw wrote: Tue Dec 02, 2025 11:06 pm

RH wrote: Sun Nov 30, 2025 1:49 am Mountain lions and bears were in the area (found prints, scat) but experts were consulted and all but ruled it animal attack. Bears leave massive evidence. Mt lions can leave next to nothing and carry the kill to a hiding spot but no more than 500' away. All directions from the LKP have been searched heavily for at least 1000' and the same with the beanie location.

idk if I worded this well but I was wondering if the report of a woman screaming could have just referred to a mountain lion's call, given how humanlike they can sound, not suggesting that Monica was taken by one

but I guess there's no way to know. and it seems like quite a coincidence for that report to happen on the same day she went missing

Yes, that has been considered but without knowing who reported the sounds, we cannot play them mt lion vocalizations to see if that's similar to what they heard. Many of us agree that it seems like a strange coincidence that occurring the same day and within a logical time frame of her reaching that area if she went the wrong way on the south trail. And strange that the volunteer search effort never put much effort into searching that area despite that report.

Remind me - did other people see her on the trail besides the two hikers she was with?

Kerenza wrote: Thu Dec 04, 2025 2:13 pm Remind me - did other people see her on the trail besides the two hikers she was with?

Not clear how many other hikers they ran across on the way up or on the summit. Supposedly cameras on one of their cars confirmed the three were there on day/time they said to start the hike. And supposedly they encountered a hiking couple between Waterman and Double Delight (but closer to Double Delight) on their way back down. After disappearance, they encountered five more hikers (this is confirmed) who helped them search.