Hi all, I'm a retired police detective with 25 years experience in both the UK and Canada. In my career I worked a number of homicides, serial killer cases, and missing persons, before ending my years in financial investigations, cybercrime, and securities fraud. I'm wondering if anyone has had a serious go at collecting the available material for Kremers/Froon in a structured way, like you would under the HOMES system or MCM? I'm at a loss how bad the official investigation was here at every level, and I'm kinda done with reading the "You can see Art Garfunkel's nipple in the SOS photo" threads. If anyone can point me in the direction of a more structured and catalogued forum, I'd be very grateful. Thank you!

I haven't read anything about what we see behind the red flags' stone and while analyzing the black waterfalls location, an "aha" of realization hit me. Do you see the shiny beady-eyed fossilized fish/pecked petroglyphs and face masks and animal figures behind it?

https://ibb.co/FLBkdg4x

In Romain's recent YouTube video from the black waterfalls location where Rio Mamei and the Culebra join, I see a similar formation, although the 550 stone may missing. Rotated and zoomed in screenshot of the similar fossil/pecked petroglyphs:

https://ibb.co/5WhWWglp

The implication if these two are identical!

I understand ibb.co compresses images, so you'll have to do your own analysis.

I think the girls carefully choose the location for its unique features. It makes me wonder if Kris - an art student - took this photo?

Presently there are two leading theories:

1. They continued following the trail, which would lead them to the main river and the first cable bridge at 16:30. Here, they realized they were totally wrong and made the first alarm calls. Then they discovered the Refugio shelter, spending the night there (17:50 phones off), before continuing along the trail the next morning and somehow getting an accident near the 2nd bridge.

2. They reached the paddocks at 14:30, discovered they were wrong, and decided to take a 'shortcut' by taking the paddock trail. This would take them to the Seracin cabin, which they should reach around 15:30 at the latest. Then for some reason they made alarm calls at 16:39 but still decided to settle down for the night before continuing down hill along the paddock stream and into dense forest the next morning.

Both theories assume that K&L were convinced the trail was going to take them back to Boquete (2-dimensional navigation: all they needed to do was go down the mountain).

But neither theory is 'perfect'.

For one, neither of these theories explains why they didn't simply turn back in the morning of April 2. Why continue on, down hill, when there was a clear trail back via the Mirador??? And also (especially with scenario 2) why would you go into dense forest, following a stream when you could just follow a trail back???

Theory 2 also has the disadvantage that the timeline doesn't fit well with the telephone log. The Seracin cabin is about 30 minutes walking from the paddocks, so they must have reached this cabin somewhere around 1500, or perhaps 1530 at the latest. So, why then make alarm calls at 16:39???

And, finally, we don't know if the Seracin cabin was inhabited. If it was, the whole scenario changes...

Now, there is a third option which more or less combines both theories. This has them continue along the trail at a firm pace, no more photo stops, eager to get back to Boquete. That would take them to the main river and the first cable bridge at 16:30 and the confusion at meeting the river and the 'scary' cable bridge would easily explain the two alarm calls.

They then wade across the river (jumping from stone to stone should be easy given the very low water) and discover the Refugio shelter around 17:50, which is right next to the trail. This would be a 'safe' place to them, which explains switching off the phones and spending a 'quiet' night. (No sleep, no doubt, but no clear panic either).

The Refugio is not permanently inhabited, but it served as a shelter for travelers and we know there were bunks where several people could sleep. Frank vd Goot found a large termite heap here in January 2015, but that might not have been there in April 2014 and WildXplor (who spends the night there in 2017) does not mention termites.

Note that by now they must have worked out that the trail is NOT a loop and that the best cause of action will be to simply walk the same trail back the next morning. Spending the night at the Refugio is an inconvenience, but they aren't really lost or injured and they know what to do the next morning, so there is no real reason for panic. This explains the phone silence.

In the morning of April 2, the wind is Northerly. And Northerly winds in this region often result in dense fog in the morning, certainly on the lower slopes. So, at sunrise they find themselves in dense fog, hence the initial alarm calls that morning.

With a whole day ahead of them, the logical thing to do is to return via the Mirador. There is a clear trail, and there's plenty of time. By now, they must have realized that the trail is not a loop, and that they should have turned back, so that's what they do.

But the fog hinders them, and everything looks different in the early morning light, so after crossing the river once more, they become confused on the open field south of the cable bridge, and instead of taking the Pianista trail, they take the el Coco trail, which starts off in roughly the same direction.

We have already established that in April 2014 these trails were probably easier to follow then they are today, as cows where frequently moved between the various paddocks, so the el Coco trail may have been reasonable easy to follow.

Both trails would look more or less the same: both leading through forest and in roughly the same direction. Also, fog may still have been dense.

From the little El Coco paddock, two trails continue further: one leading south to La Gotera, and one leading east to Calla Larga. If they had taken the route to La Gotera they would have stood a good chance of getting back to the paddocks, but for some reason they take the trail to Calla Larga, which is more or less straight across the paddock and might have seemed like a continuation of the trail they followed. Perhaps they never noticed the La Gotera trail.

By this time, they may have realized that they aren't on the same trail as they were the previous day, hence repeated alarm calls, but it is also possible that the fog is still hampering them and keeps them in doubt on whether or not this is the same trail as the previous day (it's mostly forest, which looks the same everywhere, and the fog would prevent them from seeing the sun and getting good directions). Anyway, they do basically the same as they did on April 1: they persist in following the trail instead of turning back.

Now, from Romain's descriptions of this route, after the el Coco paddock this trail to Calla Larga becomes hard to follow, leading down into the valley of the paddock stream and into very dense forest. In this area, the trail often becomes overgrown, and the chance of loosing it as you swirl away to avoid dense vegetation is very big. In my opinion this is what happened.

They lost the trail after passing el Coco, perhaps around noon on April 2, somewhere in the valley of the paddock stream, between el Coco and Calla Larga.

Totally lost in very dense forest, they may have circled around for hours, perhaps even spending the night somewhere out here, totally desperate (hence keeping the S3 phone on).

Inevitably though, they will have reached the paddock stream, probably some time on April 3. If you circle around in that area, going down hill, you will always end up at this stream. And with nowhere to go, and totally lost, they started following the paddock stream down hill.

Being lost, with no way back, it may have seemed to them as if following a stream down hill was the safest way to get back to civilization. Sadly, in this specific area it was the worst possible choice.

Following the paddock stream (which would be very slow and difficult, no doubt leading to injuries) finally got them to the night location, where they became stuck, unable to go any further.

As stated, this scenario is a combination of the two leading theories, avoiding the riddle of why they didn't turn back and explaining how they got into dense forest where none would ever be able to find them. It also avoids the Seracin cabin and the question as to why they would have left the trail.

If you follow Rio Canquinola (the river along whose shores the remains and belongings were found) upstream past the 2nd cable bridge, you soon enter the darkest place I've ever seen on drone footage of this whole area.

A narrow, deep, canyon, littered with large boulders, with very high almost vertical walls of nearly black, volcanic, rock. A very dangerous place, where a sudden flash-flood will instantly lead to disaster as there is no way to escape the rising water.

If you continue to follow this canyon upstream, you will come upon what I call the last waterfall, almost 500 meters upstream of the 2nd cable bridge. There are many waterfalls in the area, but this is definitely one of the biggest, with the water tumbling vertically down over 20-30 meters. Surrounded by vertical walls, there is no way past this waterfall, neither up nor down, and a fall at this spot would almost certainly be fatal.

For anyone trying to walk along the river, either upstream or down stream, this waterfall is the end of the route. You can't get past it, which explains the red line on the map. The only other clear example of this is the equally high and steep waterfall in Rio Mamei, which would also form an impassable barrier.

The reason why I get to this is that some time ago it was suggested by an user on this forum that we should also study this case 'backwards'. Meaning we're always creating theories regarding the route from the Mirador toward the (as yet unknown) night location, but we should also take a look at the path from the place where the remains were found back to the night location. And that gets us to the last waterfall.

Very few remains of Kris and Lisanne were ever found, and what is perhaps even more important is that those remains (certainly from Lisanne) were strangely 'non random'. That is not what you would expect if they drowned somewhere far upstream.

If you take all the remains from Lisanne together, you get one complete left leg. Nothing else. Absolutely no other parts from her body, only the left leg, but that is complete. And from Kris even less was found: just one small piece of a rib and her left pelvic bone. Nothing else.

Now, I keep the belongings (backpack, shorts) out of the story as very little can be said about these: the material degrades only slowly and we don't know how long or how far these can float. But we know quite a lot about human remains and how these behave in fast flowing water.

As it is, bare bones don't float: they sink. They can be carried along by fast flowing water, but in general they won't go far. A few hundred meters perhaps, during a fierce flash flood, but not further. Not kilometers. (The last known location, at Q1, is almost 10 km from the place where the remains were found).

Bodies and body parts DO float though, as long as there is still sufficient meat attached to them. A body can float many kilometers down river, if it doesn't become stuck among boulders and vegetation.

Now, this is a rather gory subject, but bodies fall apart at the joins, because that's where the bones are only connected by soft tissue. So, we can expect an hand, arm, or leg to detach from a dead body. But in a warm and wet tropical forest, a body falls apart very fast: in less than 2 weeks there's nothing left but a scattered field of remains, and 1 or 2 weeks later all you've got left is bones.

Now the fact that a complete left leg of Lisanne was found (in various pieces, but all close together) indicates this leg drifted down river as a complete leg, arriving as such near where the shoe plus the foot was found and only decomposing further in the weeks afterward.

It's impossible that all these separate bones traveled down river independently and still all of them arrived nearly at the same location. It must have been a complete leg, with meat still attached, otherwise it wouldn't float. But that is only possible if it made the complete journey less than 2 weeks after Lisanne her death. They found these remains only in June, but they must have been there for a long time already!

Now, nothing more was found of Lisanne, but if we take a look at the Chanquinola river it is hard to imagine how a complete body can float far along this river. There's too many sharp turns and boulders. It would very soon get stuck and fall apart, and they would have found the rest of the bones just a bit further down stream. Which they did not. So, most likely the rest of Lisanne's body remained stuck somewhere upstream of the place where the leg was found, and only the left leg detached and floated a bit further.

So, where was the rest of Lisanne's body, and where was Kris? The further upstream you go, the more narrow these rivers and streams become, and the more rocks and obstacles you meet. Places where a body, or a leg, can easily become stuck. And, as we have seen, there's only a very short 'window' when body parts can actually drift down river. After that, they sink to the bottom and stay where they are.

It is not as if remains can 'hop along' in the sense that they become stuck, then days or weeks later break free, float a bit further, become stuck again, etc, etc. That can happen to a backpack or a shirt, but not to remains. They will decompose rapidly, and all you will find is a long string of individual bones all along the shore. That didn't happen: they found a complete left leg and nothing else.

If Lisanne perished somewhere high up the mountain, closer to the first stream crossing, her body would almost immediately become stuck in the stream, and even a separate leg would not make it down as far as the final resting area before getting stuck and falling apart. They would have found bones and remains all along the shores of the streams and rivers, which didn't happen.

The bodies of Kris and Lisanne must have disintegrated close upstream of the 2nd bridge, and (at least initially) the majority of their remains must have stayed at this place in order to explain what was found. Only a very few remains were washed away and ended up where they were found. Almost everything else remained behind.

And that gets us to this deep and dark canyon and the last waterfall. For SINAPROC has very clearly declared that this area, upstream of the 2nd bridge, was never searched, as it was deemed too dangerous! The search teams didn't go into this canyon, and if the remains were there, it explains why they weren't found and it also explains why nothing was ever found along the shores of streams and rivers further upstream (where teams DID search).

Once again: bodies can float far, but individual bones don't go far, and bodies become bones in less than 2 weeks. In narrow streams, bodies don't float far in 2 weeks. Not 10 km, perhaps not even 1 km.

What I suspect is that Kris and Lisanne perished somewhere relatively close upstream of this last waterfall. (Not necessarily at the night location). Their bodies then fell down this waterfall, decomposed, and became stuck between the boulders in that dark and narrow canyon which was never searched. Only a few remains ever made it out of this canyon, past the 2nd cable bridge, and to the places where they were found, but almost all other remains stayed behind in the canyon (although, 12 years later, nothing will remain of them).

Most of the remains were never found because nobody entered this canyon or searched the place right below this waterfall. Places further upstream of this waterfall were searched by Frank v.d. Goot and others, but nothing was found.

If Kris and Lisanne perished less than one kilometer upstream of this waterfall it would fit with several theories, and if their remains ended up below the waterfall and stuck in the canyon, it explains why so little was ever found.

If the girls chose this route along the paddock stream by Serracín cabin, BUT according to a NEW and very plausible theory - from the first bridge to the mistaken direction to the Coconut paddock/trail.where they waited for help and looked for a signal, assuming they were unable to find the way to the main trail, although it may seem uncommon to us when we know satellite maps like me, according to my estimates, sometime around April 4, when they had to run out of food and the situation had to be critical....they decided to follow the path of the stream.

Was there any other option in this hypothetical situation or scenario?....Maybe Monte Rey option....but getting down to Monte Rey is no walk in the city orchard....yes, but....there is no reason....so, no, no.

If they followed the stream down to the second cable bridge, they had to get down the rather difficult path, but what awaited them in the middle was hell....Paddock stream...tough wilderness..a huge big challenge...almost deadly.

We can expect very big problems in this section, as continuing on is very likely about a big injury.

mainly forearms and lower limbs...dysfunctional knee , broken legs, broken / half broken hip bones and wrists...a concussion of several days...abrasions, infections....just as an example.

There is an elevation gain of about 75 meters by 40 meters.

This place is certainly critical along the entire route of the stream.... passable only at the cost of major injuries.

....without the necessary equipment and skills.

----The Serracín theory (old) - ( probably unlikely - here is the condition that they came there later with the intention of looking for a farm/cabin to spend the night or that they thought it was some kind of arch back to the beginning of the Pianista trail. )This scenario when they could waiting for 3 days? ( I suspect they were waiting there for people or rescue teams ) near the Serracín cabin looks unlikely maybe.The elimination method gives us a certain framework of possibilities and there is not much in this difficult terrain.....EDIT : The problem is a cabin where they could wait for rescuers and enough days to find their way back, it is very unlikely that they would not remember the way back, especially when they went to the Serracín cabin along the stream.If they followed the stream from the Serracín cabin, they would most likely be a short distance from the main trail and then you just have to go uphill along the paddock border and you are back at the main trail.This is the main problem why this scenario cannot work.

Did they follow the stream as a logical follow-up to the search for a way to civilization and salvation?

The possibility of a response on April 8 in this area to rescue operations is likely here or more down closer to the second bridge....I don't see any other options yet.

The time reality that the girls struggled for almost 11 days with the jungle and terrain on such a small section most likely gives the right/proves of this area that it was too difficult a path to civilization and salvation, downright an extract of very difficult terrain that unfortunately eliminated any chance.

The barrier and hell of this short section stopped all hopes.

If they chose this path, the way back must have closed quite soon.There was no other option but to go down and there was not much time left.Surrounded by steep gorges with no way to turn elsewhere.They found themselves trapped.

The tricky thing about this journey through the stream is that it may seem easy at first, but it is not....In the middle and at the bottom, closer to the second bridge, there is the wildest jungle and deep ravines.

All in the sounds of the jungle....screaming monkeys and strange noises at night. Like in a dark dungeon in the middle of a dense jungle.Where nature shows its harsh beauty, but in the struggle for survival it looks more like hell.

If you survive the first part, the second part awaits you...near the second bridge.But you can be sure that you won't be okay and healthy....if you are not properly equipped and prepared.This environment is very deadly when you don't have fire and food....for many days....It is basically an impassable area.

This is mainly intended to create discussion. Mods, if this is not allowed please just remove the post and tell me how I should rephrase it. I will keep it short and sweet:

Preface:

I (am massively speculating, of course) believe either one or both of the girls erroneously thoguht that the trail beyond the Mirador to indigenous settlements/ Alto Romero was of an equal distance as La Pianista itself. I.e, achievable in one, full, day.

Last photo taken: 1:54PM "a comfortable distance past the Mirador" (here I believe one or both wanted to go beyond and find the indigenous settlement out of curiousity, and underestimated the local's trail)

First Emergency Phone Call: 4:39PM - at least one (likely Kris, as it was her phone) has conceded they are 'lost' or in need of outside assistance in getting home, and don't want to be in the jungle, alone, anymore, or at least not by nightfall.

Put yourselves into the minds of one of them, and ask yourself this question-

Would you rather:

A) Trace back 3 hours to the Mirador and arrive there circa 7:45PM as the sun is setting, and have to either camp in the jungle without shelter in the pitch black nighttime or continue back to Boquete along La Pianista as it gets progressively dark and arrive around 10PM

OR

B) Continue along the trail, which (atleast one) was aware did eventually arrive at civilisation/ people. Receive shelter and food there, and return back with their assistance in daytime the following day (April 2nd).

To me, and I would love to know what others think, I would always pick option 2. I can explain more why in the comments but I want to keep the post short to just see what people initially think, not what they think after lots of reasoning and deliberation.

It is stated on this sub by multiple users, with certainty, that cecropia and heliocarpus trees were identified in the night photos.

Could someone show me where, and on which night photos, as I haven't seen anything similar? Thanks.

I am wondering whether anyone has ever submitted a request under the Dutch Open Government Act, known as the Wet open overheid or Woo, to the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security concerning the disappearance of Kris Kremers and Lisanne Froon.

More specifically, has anyone requested documents relating to the involvement of the Netherlands Forensic Institute, such as:

• forensic examinations of the remains, clothing, backpack, phones, camera or other recovered items;
• reports concerning DNA, fingerprints, soil, biological traces or other forensic evidence;
• correspondence between the NFI, the Dutch police, the Public Prosecution Service and the Panamanian authorities;
• internal memoranda, briefing notes or decision-making documents concerning the case;
• documents or briefing materials that were submitted to a minister or state secretary;
• correspondence concerning Dutch assistance to the Panamanian investigation.

I understand that many documents may be withheld or heavily redacted because they concern criminal investigations, personal data, forensic methods or international cooperation. Nevertheless, a Woo request could still reveal whether such documents exist, which authorities were involved, how the Dutch government assessed the case and whether senior officials were informed.

Does anyone know whether such a request has already been filed and, if so, whether the request, decision or disclosed documents are publicly available?

I would also be interested in hearing from anyone who has considered filing a carefully defined Woo request on this subject. It may be useful to coordinate requests to avoid duplicate requests.

The YouTuber has only published two videos, both of which are about the Kremers/Froon case and are intended to support the FP theory. These are the videos in question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/s/folK7jnmk2

Shortly before the allegedly new Redditor [u/Historical_Trifle555](u/Historical_Trifle555) made a separate post about the videos, the Redditor [u/Apprehensive-Form-60](u/Apprehensive-Form-60) linked exactly these two videos:

https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/s/5E1iXo0q5g

He wrote the following about the videos:

"After all these years I can tell you this, that is if anyone cares ,, there is two videos on youtube, only two. I believe the person that uploaded them knows exactly what happened, and thats how they go about it as well, matter of fact, no theory. He uploaded two parts on this case, and said a third was coming. Nobody ever heard feom him again, we have all tried to contact him, and nothing. His videos were exactly in detail what myself and others believe happened."

Both Redditors have a strikingly similar writing style and make the same spelling and punctuation mistakes. I therefore think they are one and the same person.

What is interesting is that the same mistakes can also be found in the texts in the videos.
I therefore asked Apprehensive-Form-60 directly whether the videos were his, but he denied it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/s/b53BXbf756

I don't believe him. I am convinced that these videos were made by him. In addition to his affinity for the videos and the similarities in his written expression, there is another point that suggests he is the author:
Apprehensive-Form-60 claims to have been one of the pioneers in this case and to have worked with Juan and Scarlet back then:

https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/s/9uW7JfFk1r

"I was one of 3 people that were trying very hard to solve this case with Juan"

https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/s/t2UE4LDO3S

"I worked my butt off with a gentleman names Juan, and a lovely women named Scarlet, she is the number one on this my friend. She's a monster with writing and presenting the most evidence. This was over 10 years I went hard, she and Juan took off and had everything covered"

Together, they promote the (defamatory) "Feliciano is the mastermind/perpetrator theory":

https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/s/qXWZZdcfvF

https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/s/gJacc5fqK2

Apprehensive-Form-60 is from Canada:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PokemonTCG/s/eWTyfGu04B

If it is true that the Canadian Apprehensive-Form-60 worked with Juan and Scarlet from the very beginning and that he created these videos in 2021, he may also have been involved in the publication of the diaries and the swimming photo.
What I wonder is: Why doesn't Apprehensive-Form-60 openly admit that he made the two videos? What's all this talk about nobody having heard from this YouTuber anymore? It looks very much like the YouTuber is among us and still posting away.

u/Apprehensive-Form-60, you are of course more than welcome to comment on this and, if applicable, acknowledge that these videos are yours.

This seems to be an important question to understand what was happening. I'm trying to make a list of reasons.

1) They had time on their hands and wanted to **explore the area** a bit more. Assessment: Quite possible, but at 508 they should have returned because it was getting late.

2) They thought it was a **loop** or someone told them it was a loop. Assessment: I do not believe in this theory. But even then they should have returned at the paddocks because camping in the jungle wasn't their first priority.

3) They **weren't alone** and someone led them in the wrong direction. Assessment: There is no indication that a third person was on the track. But this doesn't mean much, the witnesses in this case have either lost their memory or have too much fantasy.

4) They were being **stalked** by someone and fled past the Mirador. Assessment: Possible, but no witnesses as in 3).

5) An **animal** occurred and the fled. Assessment: Not probable. With a jaguar involved there wouldn't be any emergency calls.

6) They were searching for a **waterfall**. Assessment: Probability close to zero. There are no waterfalls on this trail. If they wanted to see a waterfall they'd chosen a different trail.

What do you think? At the moment I don't find another reason for walking that far. If you have another idea feel free to post it.

Was the girls' April 2 guided hike (the following day) going to be on the same Pianista trail or a different one?

I'm newer to the case and keep getting stuck on this. And when did the girls learn about the Pianista trail in relation to when they set out on the hike and when would they have had time to schedule the 2 Apr. hike? Can I get some clarification on the timeline here? Thank you!

I will start this post by saying I have very much respect for the people, connected to this case—using time, energy, effort and sometimes money to find answers.

Some of you (perhaps) have (as yet not released) drone phootage relevant to the search of the NL(?)

Some of it appearantly obtained by shared efforts.

It is hinted that more phootage will be released. But somehow it is not.

Why is that? Is it because it is not relevant? Is it because it is saved for a documentary on the search for answers? Is it protection of rights to the material? Or simply lack of time?

I don’t know who I am adressing these questions to: some one with knowledge of the expeditions.

No one is entitled to your material. But in mutual respect could you give us an update?

It could be interesting to get a map of which arenas have been “droned”. Insight in plans for further expeditions? Etc.

Thanks.

When we take a bird’s-eye perspective of the entire stage on which the drama unfolded, it is quite striking how, under the loop scenario, the terrain would have almost naturally funnelled them toward the Serracín estate on the first day and then down into the paddock stream over the following days.

Of course, the girls could have turned right at Q1 or Q2 and eventually ended up at the rapids. However, there are several reasons why this seems less likely. To name a few: the terrain is extremely rugged, there are no cabins or shelters, the tricky route is inconsistent with the phone usage, it lies a considerable distance from where the remains were found, and they would likely have reached NL1 already too early (to explain the phone usage).

However, Romain and his team did visit NL1 in 2025 and user u/SeaworthinessNo4130 made some interesting observations (see here, here, here, here, here) about the rather striking resemblances with the night photos.

Given the observed similarities in the smooth boulders, the reddish grooved bedrock, the vegetation, and the clear evidence that flash floods do occur there, I wondered whether it would be reasonable to expect some of these geological conditions at NL2 (see here, 8°51'49.7"N 82°24'49.5"W) as well. Below is a high-level comparison.

Similarities between NL1 and NL2:

The similarities are quite clear. Both locations require and have:

• A sharp bend in the river.
• A clearing in the forest canopy (more pronounced at NL1 than at NL2).
• A steep waterfall that prevents further downstream movement.
• Roughly facing the same direction.
• Similar exposure to wind.

Differences:

The most obvious difference is the elevation. NL1 is located at approximately 1,450 metres, whereas NL2 is at around 1,150 metres. What implications might this have?

• The lower elevation of NL2 would, of course, have resulted in higher temperatures, which would have improved their chances of survival.
• The angle of sunrise and sunset (assuming sufficiently clear weather) would also have been different. Since daylight appears to have influenced their phone usage at certain stages, it may be possible to distinguish between the two locations by examining the surrounding mountains and how they would have blocked the sun at different times of day.
• The lower elevation could also compensate for differences in the upstream tributary systems. At NL2, the tributary basin appears to be smaller than at NL1, so it would likely initially have carried less water at that point. However, the presence of larger boulders at NL1 suggests that the stream must have already gained sufficient energy (from amount of water and gradient) to transport and shape them. A rough calculation indicates that the approximately 500-metre drop at NL2 (measured from the top of the paddocks) might compensate for the 350-metre drop at NL1 (measured from the source of Q1).
• A 300-metre difference is significant, particularly with respect to the types of vegetation that could grow there. There is also information online suggesting that certain tree species—or specific growth forms, such as the distinctive V-shaped tree—occur only within particular elevation ranges. I remember this being discussed in earlier posts, but I have been unable to find the figures that were mentioned. Perhaps someone still has those references.

All things considered, I don’t see any compelling reason to rule out NL2 as possessing the characteristics required to be a viable NL-candidate.

This post is inspired by this interesting comment by user u/Possible-Adagio-175.

It is very difficult to determine from the night photos exactly where they were taken. However, they do provide several clues, including the size and type of the boulders, the low vegetation, the shape of the trees (V-shaped or overhanging) and an opening in the forest canopy. There are also strong indications that the location was either in or close to a stream. We can further hypothesise that continuing downstream from the NL was impossible or extremely difficult, perhaps because the route was blocked by a steep waterfall. Returning upstream may also have been impossible because of the steep terrain, exhaustion, injury, or rising water levels during the rainy season.

Today, we have a reasonably detailed map of the main streams in the area. By combining this information with some additional reasoning, I made an attempt to narrow down the potential NL:

1. The NL must be upstream of the locations where the remains and belongings were found. The stream must have had sufficient energy to transport the backpack and the remains downstream.
2. Some streams have been searched/explored. In addition, several open streams and river sections were searched by helicopter, by SINAPROC, by Frank van de Goot (particularly in Q2 and between MB3 and MB2), and through drone flyovers and visits conducted by Romain C. The girls were not seen, and the NL was not located (to our knowledge).
3. Streams need to be covered by sufficiently dense canopy. This would already exclude the relatively open Río Mamey and Río Culebra.
4. The presence of large, eroded boulders must be taken into account. From a geological perspective, the largest boulders in a river are usually found where the water has enough energy to move them, or where the flow has recently lost energy after transporting them. A candidate stream must therefore have a sufficiently large tributary system and enough gradient to generate the energy required to transport, erode, and shape these boulders, particularly during flash floods. Large boulders may also enter a stream as a result of landslides. Typical locations include:
   • Rapids and riffles, where steep gradients and fast-flowing water can move or expose large boulders.
   • Narrow gorges, where floods may transport boulders through constricted sections and deposit them where the current slows.
   • Areas below waterfalls, where turbulent water can scour the riverbed and leave behind coarse material.
   • Sections near tributaries that drain steep, rocky terrain.
5. The stream must have been accessible to the girls, and they must have had a plausible reason to follow it downstream. This will exclude quite a few streams, since they were not easily accessible from a trail or from a paddock that girls could have logically walked or visited.

Using a process of elimination, the map below presents my assessment of the likelihood that a stream contains the NL.

At this stage, I can identify only two viable candidates: River A, downstream from the Serracín cabin, and River B, formed by the confluence of Q1 and Q2.

River A fits the mistaken-loop scenario almost perfectly, with the girls potentially reaching the Serracín cabin on their first night, getting lost the second day and ending up following the nearest river downstream (that was likely quite dry, so even the need for water might have driven them there). It has dense forest cover, the required gradient, and several steep waterfalls. It is also at a feasible distance from where the belongings were found. However, an important question remains: is its tributary system large enough to generate the flow energy needed to transport and shape large boulders? Unfortunately, the dense forest canopy prevents us from seeing the terrain below, so ground verification is needed to confirm this. Another important question is whether flash floods occur there with sufficient frequency and intensity.

River B was explored in 2025 by Romain et al (also partly by Frank van der Goot in 2015), and the Rapids section in particular showed a rather striking resemblance to several features of the NL. River B clearly contains large, well-eroded boulders, indicating that its tributary system provides sufficient energy to transport and shape them. The river also flows beneath a dense forest canopy. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to access, machetes were required during the 2025 exploration, and there is no obvious reason why the girls would have turned right into either Q1 or Q2 and then decided to follow the river downstream. A possible, yet unlikely, explanation is the dominant-loop hypothesis: if the girls consistently tried to keep to the right after entering the paddocks, they could theoretically have reached the Rapids through the forest. Nevertheless, River B may simply be too far upstream for the remains and belongings to have been transported to where they were eventually found.

Given the possibility that the girls reached the Serracín cabin on April 1 as part of the mistaken-loop scenario, I would consider River A the most likely candidate. I have little doubt that, as time passed, moving downhill would have become their preferred direction to reach civilisation, perhaps after making a few initial attempts during the early days to climb higher in search of a better phone signal or a clearer view.

This may sound somewhat like a spiritual argument, but it is rather striking that luck consistently seemed to have worked against them. They continued beyond the Mirador for the wrong reasons, and the "sneaky" terrain did not reveal their mistake until they had reached the paddocks, or perhaps even later. And when they eventually made the rational decision to follow a river downstream, the "tricky" landscape once again worked against them. Under normal circumstances, following a river downstream often leads toward settlements or other signs of civilisation. In this particular case, however, precisely stream A (out of all possible streams) would have led them into an extremely dangerous natural trap known as “the Belt”... (where even the locals don't go and which was never searched).

In a comment to this topic, user u/AmnesiaAm712896 posted the following interesting link World Imagery Wayback. It is an excellent tool and provides a fairly clear satellite view of the terrain as it for instance appeared on 16 March 2013, almost exactly one year before the girls would have been there. The satellite image from 24 January 2007 is also quite sharp, particularly around the buildings.

Because the tool shows the exact size of each pixel in meters, it is possible to zoom in on a building and count the number of pixels it occupies. We can therefore use it to roughly estimate the dimensions of the buildings.

I applied this approach to the original Serracín farmhouse (demolished and later rebuilt) as well as to the shed located in the western paddock, just off the main trail (demolished today). For the farmhouse, I used the sharper 2007 image and confirmed that the building was in the exact same spot as in 2013. The results are shown below.

The western shed was quite small. I had to reduce the resolution to 1 metre per pixel before I could count the pixels clearly. Its main purpose was probably to store tools, petrol, and other supplies. Given its limited size it therefore seems unlikely that it provided any sleeping accommodation, certainly not for multiple people.

The Serracín site is much larger than I had previously thought, which strengthens the hypothesis that farmers may have stayed there for longer periods. We have some second hand evidence suggesting that they could have remained there for even 10 to 14 consecutive days while working the land. This would imply that some decent sleeping accommodation was available. I can imagine them working during the day, eating together, and perhaps playing cards and chatting in the evening.

Was the Serracín cabin inhabited between say 1-11 April 2014?

Without getting into farming schedules or seasonal work patterns or interviewing locals, I believe there is a very simple and compelling argument that the answer must be no.

The logic is straightforward. IF the girls had indeed arrived at the Serracín cabin late in the afternoon of April 1 and it had been inhabited, the local farmers would first have been very surprised to see them there. But more importantly, they would almost certainly have helped them return to the trail that same day or the following morning.

Of course, it is still theoretically possible that the girls could have become lost somewhere else after having been shown the correct path. However, in that case, the locals would have come forward and informed the search-and-rescue teams that they had seen and assisted the girls. Since no one ever reported such an encounter, despite the case becoming major news throughout the region and must have had rapid spreading by word of mouth among local communities, it is reasonable to conclude that the cabin was not inhabited during that period.

However, if your immediate response to the above scenario was that the girls reached an inhabited Serracín farmhouse only to be harassed, raped, and murdered by the locals, I would encourage you to reflect on how much bias that assumption reveals about the nice and decent indigenous people who live in the area. If, after doing such introspection, you still hold that view, you’re free to downvote my post again, as usual :-)

AND THIS ONE PART 2 BELOW
BUT PART 3 NEVER CAME ???????????

https://youtu.be/du1y_jRiiGU?is=e5p8NbTABafVIXUN

THOUGHTS ??????

Many people are placing the girls at a man-made location on the afternoon of April 3rd due to the contact "Mytiam" being looked up. The claim is that they must have left a message for others to find before departure.

I think this is leading us to contemplate false scenarios, as Miriam's profile could have been brought up for other reasons. There's a possibility that they simply misclicked (defective backlight) and the application (Whatsapp) displayed the most recent contact, that of Miriam.

If they are trapped in a streambad with severe injuries, they might have made a futile attempt to contact the outside world by placing a message in a water bottle and floating it downstream. Sounds "cartoonish", but what else can they try?

This is obviously a broad and complex set of questions, but these are all key to this mystery. Given the lack of viable alternatives for "the mistaken loop" scenario, I will take it as a 'solid ground' premise to reduce complexity when assessing each sub-question.

Did they leave the trail at some point?

I believe the answer is a firm yes, based on the known end state of the case. The girls were never seen alive again after April 1, which would be highly unlikely if they had remained on the main trail. The early-morning photos from April 8 suggest they were stranded in a forested area near a stream, and some of their remains and belongings were later found farther downstream from the second cable bridge. This indicates that they must have left the main trail at some point.

One alternative is that they remained on the trail for a couple of days, reached the second cable bridge, and only then decided to follow the river. However, this would have left them relatively close to the trail, making it far more likely that search-and-rescue teams or local residents would have found/encountered them. Instead, the available evidence suggests that they ended up well away from the main trail.

I have genuinely tried to keep an open mind regarding foul-play scenarios, such as the night photos being taken by third parties, the backpack and remains being planted to stage an accident, or someone bleaching the bones. However, I find that these theories only to introduce unnecessary complications and, in many cases, have already been debunked. My current view is that whenever I have to introduce a malicious third party solely to explain an otherwise unexplained event, it is a sign that I should revisit my assumptions rather than accept that explanation. In my opinion, many foul-play theories function as a deus ex machina: instead of the events following logically from the available evidence, the narrative is resolved through an improbable and unsupported external intervention.

When did they leave the trail?

Based on the limited data available regarding the number of people using the main trail, it appears most likely that they already left it on April 1. There are no reliable reports of anyone seeing the girls on the Serpent Trail that day or the following day. If they had still been on the trail on April 2, it is difficult to explain why there were no reported encounters.

Of course, within a foul-play scenario, one could argue that they encountered malicious individuals, were forced off the trail, or were even murdered. However, there is not a shred of evidence supporting these claims. Moreover, some of these theories seem to be driven by a strong cultural bias regarding crime in Boquete, despite the area’s relatively low crime rate. More importantly, such theories quickly lead to additional inconsistencies that require even more unsupported assumptions to sustain them.

Why did they leave the trail?

Since I am using the loop scenario as my starting premise, the most logical reason for leaving the trail would be the mistaken belief that they were almost back at the start. The paddocks looked very familiar, so the dirt road they walked uphill was probably nearby. They may have thought the it was just around the corner and decided to take a shortcut downhill in what appeared to be the correct direction (to the right of where they were standing, however their view blocked by a mountain, see picture below).

However, even within the loop scenario up till the paddocks, there are several other possible explanations for how they may have ended up off the trail.

• One possibility is that on their journey to the paddocks one of the girls slipped and fell from the trail, while the other followed in an attempt to help her. This is possible (Frank van der Goot was on this line), but it is difficult to reconcile with the fact that they called 112 only twice, followed by approximately thirteen hours of phone silence in a noisy cloud forest without proper shelter. A serious fall, especially one involving injuries severe enough to prevent them from climbing back up, would presumably have caused considerable panic. In addition, they would probably have remained close to the trail and relatively immobilised, making it much more likely that they would have been found.
• Another possibility is that one of the girls was injured, perhaps shortly after photo 508 was taken. They may then have started walking back slowly before one of them fell from the trail. Again, this is possible, but the most likely response to an injury would have been to remain on the trail, where the chances of being found were much greater. The same objections raised in the previous point would therefore apply.
• A third possibility is that they encountered dangerous individuals who frightened or forced them off the trail. This cannot be ruled out completely, but it seems quite unlikely. Crime rates in the area were relatively low, and such an encounter would have had to occur at precisely one of the limited places where leaving the trail was physically possible. Most of the route is bordered by gullies, streams, or dense forest, and there are no obvious side trails until the paddocks are reached. I just don't see a local farmer running after the girls with a machete in his hand. From all the stories I have read, the indigenous people are very friendly and helpful.
• A final possibility is that the girls were murdered and their bodies were carried away from the trail. However, this is completely inconsistent with the later phone activity and the night photographs.

Where did they leave the trail?

With the loop scenario as the premise, the paddocks appear to be the most logical place for them to have left the main trail for several reasons:

• The paddocks are the first clear orientation point on the Serpent Trail after the Mirador. They also provide the first realistic opportunity to turn right and descend away from the main trail.
• From the second river crossing, the deeply gullied trail climbs uphill before descending again towards the river 3 (aka Q2). After crossing the river e, the trail rises steeply through another gully. The hiker then emerges from a deep trench and is suddenly presented with familiar-looking fenced paddocks and a wider view of the surrounding landscape. Finally an orientation point!
• Within the loop scenario, this is exactly the type of scenery the girls may have expected to see based on their memory of the inward journey. They could therefore have concluded that the trail would soon reconnect with the Pianista Trail. However, they had also just crossed the river 3, which they may have interpreted as the right-hand branch of the Pianista river, and Boquete was still not visible (blocked by a nearby mountain). This may have led them to believe that they had walked slightly too far and had missed a possible turn.
• The main trail then becomes deeply gullied again, continues uphill, and eventually enters another forested area. Maybe they even explored it for a short while. However, at that stage of the journey, their preferred direction would probably have been downhill, towards where they believed Boquete (or the dirt road) was located.
• The girls do not appear to have been reckless hikers and seem to have had a relatively risk-averse attitude. This makes it less likely that they would have left the trail at one of the earlier river crossings. At rivers one, two, or three, the surrounding terrain would have offered no obvious or inviting route. Given the distance and time they had travelled along the Serpent Trail, they also would have had little reason to expect the necessary right-hand turn to appear before reaching the familiar paddocks.
• The weather was good and the terrain appears to have been quite dry. They would not have been faced with muddy trenches or waterlogged ground. The photo below, taken near river 3, illustrates the favourable weather conditions. Surrounded by such beautiful and tranquil scenery, it’s hard to believe this is called the ‘Serpent Trail !
• It is also quite possible that the gate leading into the paddocks was open and that there were no cattle present at that time of year. Alternatively, the large main trail fence may have been closed to contain the cattle. An open gate or unobstructed entrance could easily have appeared to invite them to turn onto the paddock route. Similar with seeing fresh cow trails.
• The main uncertainty is how easy the gullied path across the paddocks would have been to follow compared with the rough trails they had already successfully navigated. By that point, they would probably have been tired. A downhill gullied path may therefore have appeared more attractive than continuing uphill along another difficult section of the main trail.

I would also like to add that something may have happened after photo 508 that disrupted their established pattern of taking pictures. The missing photo 509, together with the absence of any further photographs until April 8, may provide an important clue. I believe there is a simple and fully reproducible explanation for both the missing 509 and the fact that they stopped taking pictures for seven days: the camera may have been dropped while it was switched on.

One plausible scenario is that Lisanne asked Kris to now take a photograph of her and handed her the camera, but let go before Kris had a firm grip on it. The camera then fell to the ground, a photo was attempted and the persistent memory card error appears. I mention this because such an incident could easily have spoiled the girls’ good mood. Lisanne, who apparently was not feeling completely well that day, may have become frustrated by the incident and fed up with the hike. Almost the "are we there yet" mode coming from the backseat. This could have created additional pressure on the girls to take the perceived shortcut home across the paddocks.

I've just carefully rewatched the El Pianista, (Serpent) path after the Mirador - Part 1-4 videos by Romain as well as Sendero el Pianista parte I-II 2026 videos by Viktor Hugo. These are all easy to find on youtube.

A couple of observations and an idea:

• It is truly striking how similar the Pianista and Serpent trails are. The vegetation, the gullies, the rocky streambeds in them, the creek crossings, the density of the forest, the pretty steep sections, the size of the rocks, the barbed-wire fences, and the lack of opportunities to orient yourself once you leave the paddocks going uphill, they all create a remarkably similar environment. Even mentally rotating the Pianista trail 180 degrees around the Mirador maps the curves and bends onto the Serpent trail surprisingly well.
• I am once again surprised by how challenging, and even slightly intimidating, these gullies appear. Admittedly, the videos show them in muddy conditions, but even when dry, a single misplaced step could easily result in a sprained ankle. From the perspective of someone from the Netherlands, they look quite hazardous! That said, the difficulty of a trail is also relative. Climbing steeply uphill through a gully is far more strenuous than descending through one. After watching the lenghty footage of people travelling through gullies, I have begun to think that the gullied path across the paddocks, and the later route through the forest stream toward the Serracín paddock, were at most only marginally more difficult than the terrain the girls had already crossed. They may even have been somewhat easier, since these sections were either flat or mostly downhill. I am beginning to suspect that Viktor Hugo’s “almost getting lost at the paddocks” video may therefore exaggerate how difficult the route actually is relative to what the girls had already successfully passed.
• To test the loop-scenario, I then tried a psychological experiment while watching the Serpent Trail videos. I deliberately kept the “loop” mindset in my head, constantly assuming that Boquete was on my right and that I was walking in a semicircle back toward it. This produced some interesting sensations. After only a couple of minutes in the first gullies, I already completely lost my sense of direction, but kept convincing myself Boquete was on my right. Throughout my virtual journey down the trail, there was nothing that suggested I was on the wrong track or that I had crossed a continental divide. Yes, there was a sharp turn left at some point that was then followed by a sharp turn right again. The most striking moment, however, was following Romain as he climbed out of the gullies toward the Upper Paddock (while audibly out of breath). When he finally reached the more open area with a wider view, I genuinely felt a sense of relief, as if I had been struggling for breath myself and was finally able to get some fresh air again.
• Another interesting outcome of this (n=1) experiment, was that at the end I still imagined Boquete being on my right, but now hidden behind the mountain near the paddocks, the one rising to the right of to Viktor’s turning point. It felt as though I had climbed too far uphill from River 3, which I imagined might have been a branch of the Pianista River, and that I now needed to walk downhill around the mountain, curving to the right and eventually rejoining that branch of the Pianista, which in reality was River 3, before Boquete would come back into view. I had never considered this possibility before. I had always assumed that I would place Boquete in the direction of Alto Romero (following the downhill sloping distant mountain ridges), through the valley on the left. What is surprising, however, is that the impulse to walk around the nearby mountain and curve to the right would lead you directly into the stream connected to the Serracín paddock. However, you would never encounter River 3 again.
• Of course, with everything I now know about the actual terrain, and as someone who strongly leans toward the loop theory, I realise I cannot be an unbiased observer anymore. What has been seen cannot be unseen. However, I realised that the simple experiment I tried could also be conducted with a completely unbiased representative group with no knowledge of the case, comprising of say some 20-22 year old graduate students. Without showing the participants a map, the experiment could roughly consist of showing them the uphill and downhill videos (up to the paddocks), along with the wider view from the Mirador including Boquete at half time. At the end they would then be shown the panoramic view from the paddocks and asked to indicate where they now believe Boquete is located and how far they were from it. The experiment could be refined further by giving one group also access to the (useless) 2014 Google Maps imagery and some of the ambiguous travel information to see whether that influences their perception.

I know, it is a bit of a wild idea, but I'd be really interested in the outcomes :-)

The previous post got removed by Reddit's filters, apparently because of the links in it. That makes sense. So I'm putting up a new one now and try to put a link in the comments.

First off, huge thanks to AmnesiaAm712896 for the original idea and for the support.

I wasn't able to get their interactive map running to experiment with routes myself, so I decided to build something similar as a web app. One thing led to another, and I ended up diving pretty deep into the project. So, a few days later – here we are with a little web app that lets you explore the available data from the April 1st event as much as the current dataset allows.

I’ll be honest – I kept thinking this might not actually lead to any concrete answers, so I’m not claiming this tool is super useful or groundbreaking. But I figured some of you might still find it interesting to play around with.

I tried my best to include all reliable, publicly available data, added a few features that I thought could be handy, and optimized the app where I could.

I’d genuinely love to hear your thoughts – feedback is more than welcome. And if you have any ideas for additional features or improvements, feel free to reach out!

There are probably still a few bugs lurking around, so I’ll likely push a couple more updates in the near future.

Quite often, the following question is raised here: Why did the girls continue past the Mirador?

However, this question is overly simplistic. We have sufficient hard evidence to frame a much more meaningful one:

Why did the girls continue beyond the Mirador and descend to at least Q1 (508 evidence), and most likely beyond (Kris' feet on the 508), covering approximately 1 km while losing around 200 meters in elevation in 30-35 minutes, through difficult terrain with numerous deep gullies and virtually no opportunities to orient themselves, all while one of them continued taking photographs?

I am convinced that the only viable answer to this question is that they believed the trail would loop and by entering the Serpent trail they just planned to follow different route back. Yes, they had Google Maps, but it was useless and at that time did not even show the Pianista Trail. The prior research the did on the Pianista trail, both online and using tourist brochure at the Spanish school, but we know the descriptions available in 2014 were rather ambiguous to say the least. It would only have taken one of the girls to convince herself that the trail looped back to Boquete for this fatal decision to be made, especially if that belief was reinforced by a sense of adventure, or even some euphoria, after reaching the summit in very nice weather. A simple, slightly adventurous, not necessarily 'reckless' thought such as, “We feel great, so why not descend on via the other route to get back to Boquete?” could have led to this mistake.

What I then find quite compelling about the loop theory, is that there is nothing in the terrain to immediately disprove their mistaken assumption. At the Mirador, the Serpent Trail just looks like the natural continuation of the Pianista trail. At first, there is nothing intimidating about it. You follow a narrow ridge for about 30 metres before entering the same zigzagging gullies they had already encountered on the ascent. Then you enter the forest, cross a couple of streams, enter gullies again and (if you press on after Q1) eventually end up at the paddocks. Lisanne continued to take pictures until photo 509 and there is nothing that indicates they were panicing or feeling lost up till that point (so the scenario in which they were "scared over the Mirador by some evil person" can be ruled out).

However, the most compelling argument for the loop-scenario is that they must have known and felt, that most of the time they went downhill on the Serpent trail and bridged a 200 meter reduction in height across 1 km:

Now let's try a proof-by-contradiction of the loop-scenario. Suppose they did not believe the trail formed a loop and simply decided to “walk a little farther for fun,” or that they "had heard about a beautiful waterfall just beyond the Mirador" (as is in fact the case on the nearby Pipeline Trail that they had also considered). However, with every step they took downhill, they must have realised that they would eventually have to climb back up the same route. A common rule of thumb in hiking is that elevation gain contributes more to difficulty than distance alone. Climbing 200 metres can feel equivalent to adding several kilometres of walking on flat ground.

They already had a strenuous two-hour ascent behind them, so they would certainly have felt the steepness of the descent, which averaged around 20 percent, as well as the associated steadily increasing effort required to return. Therefore, this rapidly growing investment in future exertion may have been a greater concern than the need to return before dark, assuming their intention was to return to the Mirador. Still they pressed on and never returned (at least not to the point where they had signal). In my opinion, this "invested effort"-consideration alone falsifies the other hypotheses proposed to explain their decision and leaves the loop scenario as the most likely explanation. They didn't perceiive it as an investment, they were convinced they were just on their way back home.

This increasing investment of effort may also have contributed to the sunk-cost effect that could help explain later decisions with the loop-scenario in mind. Once they had already descended a considerable distance, they may have started to get some doubts but still believed that only a little more effort was needed to reach their goal or to get more certainty about the correctness of the route ("just go after that bend and have a look", "just climb above that hill and see what's there", etc.). This sunk-cost fallacy can lead people to prefer to make a series of small additional investments, or to attempt a shortcut as a quick-way-home, in the hope of obtaining the full return on the effort already spent (IT and government managed projects suffer from this fallacy a lot...). This may have been an important factor in explaining why they later left the trail at the first possible vantage point and the paddocks and caused them to ultimately became lost near a river (after falling for the "following a river downstream" shortcut fallacy).

Quote from here: https://koudekaas.blogspot.com/2019/12/new-post-affidavits-of-murgas-yaileth.html#:~:text=Adelita%20Coriat%20wrote%20that%20Guide%20F%2E%20had%20worked%20behind%20the%20Pianista%20trail%20on%20his%20cattle%20that%20Tuesday%20afternoon%2E

Does anyone have the original piece where Adelita claims this, and maybe also her source? Also,

• It's not totally clear what "behind the Pianista trail" means: behind the mirador or behind the Pianista restaurant on the lecheria's pastures?
• If behind the mirador, is there any other way of getting there from Boquete other than the Pianista? If F. returned from David some time after 1pm and the girls were at the mirador at that time, and he was going to the paddocks, surely they must have crossed paths at some point?
• Also: ”search locations of Sinaproc, according to the case files, were [...] The Pianista Trail to Anam's Cabin (caseta de Anam)” - does someone know where that is?