IMPORTANT!

Do not post more comments at this page.
The discussion of the Kim Family Search in Southern Oregon continues here:

http://joeduck.wordpress.com/2007/01/11/kim-search-discussion-page-8/

People need to have the courage to admit their mistakes.

The housekeeper who initiated the Missing Persons report may have had a list of all credit cards but the hotel might have been able to provide ‘credit card in use’. It might have been “better” information, it might not have been.

Also ofcourse the various agencies may not have had all the information. When people started talking about the last known cell phone use they didn’t repeat the cell phone number.

So even if the detective was asking for duplicate information, he may not have known it.

Has anyone added up the various categories and numbers of detours and spurs that are available on this ‘coastal route commonly known as Bear Camp Rd’.

Some suggested categories:
Turnoffs that appear inviting.
Turnoffs that appear to be the proper road.
Turnoffs that appear to be daunting and remote.

I certainly think that searching all the spurs may have been senseless but searching this particular spur road should have been a fairly high priority because of its known history as a common mistake in the area.

In this search the request for credit card and phone information from the hotel appears to be a request for information that in fact had already been given to the “originating agency” (SFPD).

Yes. Ofcourse. How many times do you have to enter onto the form the same information over and over. No matter what form it is. How many times do you have to go through the identification routine when dealing with a credit card company over some billing error? There is duplication. Some of the information may not have been in fact known to Portland at the time, some might. It would still have been useful, but the hotel felt privacy laws were a consideration too. Properly so to some, improperly so to others.

I think I would interpret those bright yellow signs about snow blockage to relate to “The Road” which in this case means: A series of roads of various official and unofficial designations leading to the coast.

However, I don’t think a sign of ‘may be blocked by snow 28 miles ahead’ would be particularly daunting. I would continue onward seeing that message. Now add to it something about ‘No motorist services’ or ‘No food, fuel or lodging’ and you might get some different reactions particularly if traveling with kids in the car.

What sign is appropriate for the ‘Fateful Intersection’?
Narrow, uninviting and climbing road on the left is proper roadway to the coast, while wider and more inviting and descending roadway to the right is a logging road spur leading nowhere? Should there be an addendum to the sign about ‘If trying to get to a lower elevation in hopes of being “below the snow line” you ain’t gonna make it on this road’?

Irrespective of fuel worries or eventual “snow blockage” concerns, what should have been done? Stop near that intersection and await daylight and passing traffic? Stop near that intersection and take coastal route in daylight if snow is not too deep?

Taking a descending route to get below the snow line seems like a good idea, but for two facts: the road lead to nowhere and it did not lead below the snow lline. It simply caused them to get stuck in the snow off in the middle of nowhere rather than to get stuck in the snow along a route on which there MIGHT have been some sort of traffic eventually.

They were already on a rather rough road in a remote area and there simply was not going to be a sign that said “this road off to the right leads to nowhere” since just about all the roads in the area lead off to nowhere.

I’m going to exert a little self-control and not open that PPB file tonight. Time to get my beauty sleep. G’night!

Do not post more comments at this page.

The discussion continues here:
http://joeduck.wordpress.com/2007/01/11/kim-search-discussion-page-8/

Hey, that worked out swell!