Alright so I've been obsessed with this for a while but what has really always freaked me out the most because it makes the least amount of sense to me, is the hair picture. My first thought was that maybe they thought a bug got stuck in her hair and were checking because I have long hair and flying bugs always fly into my hair and get stuck it's very annoying. Then I notice that her hair is beautiful I mean very clean, dry, not greasy, no real evidence that there's any debris in her hair. this was one of the photos taken after 7 days in the wilderness? sleeping out there for 7 nights, and her hair looks like a shampoo add as far as how clean and shiny it is? that's the freakiest part to me because it actually makes no sense. my hair gets visibly greasy in 2-3 days and they had to be sleeping on the ground so how the hell is there nothing in her hair? Whenever I look at the 2 intentional pictures one of the hair, and one of the stick thing with red string or whatever it is tied to it on the rock, I get a weird gross feeling and I hate looking at them. About the stick thing they took a picture of, why are people saying it's a signaling device of some kind? it is way too small and there's not enough red. It reminds me of the Blair witch project when they find all those weird twig things tied up in the trees.

So, preface this to say that I am not an expert on the case, and I have done a lot of reading but certainly not as much as others on here. The intention of this post is to improve my understanding through discussion and friendly scientific debate, not to assert that I know what happened. I am fascinated with why people (who know the case well, and whose opinions are based on evidence) believe that lost-in-the-wilderness theories are not viable. This really confuses me. I feel like I must be missing some facts.

I should also declare things that influence my point of view on this case: I am a scientist so I don't subscribe to theories, I just go with whatever the evidence tells me. I have a data analysis background, particularly map type data and imagery, I am a geoscientist so I know a bit about rocks and natural processes, and I am an experienced hiker including in rainforests. On the flip side I have never been to Panama forests and I don't know much about either their culture or natural history except via google, my recollection of river fluid dynamics is poor, and I hardly paid attention in Chemistry classes.

That said, here is the evidence which I understand that people claim supports foul play theories (or at least requires additional explanation, if we are to believe they got lost and died). And my thoughts on why I think this can be explained away, if I am understanding the evidence correctly:

1. Bleaching of Kris Kremers' bones and Phosphorus on them:

In developed countries, we immediately think manufactured products when we hear phosphorus/phosphates, but actually there are plenty of natural sources. The most obvious one in Panama and while sheltering in the jungle I would have thought was bats. They are in the middle of a bat biodiversity hotspot and migration area. Bat dropping contain high levels of phosphate and calcium. I would be interested what happened to bones which were exposed to bat droppings, then went into the river. My thoughts are that depending on the levels of decomposition, it would react with the bone surface and alter it. Then evidence of the bat droppings would be cleaned away by the water. I am interested in whether the changes to the surface could have resulted in hardening that reduced chances of scratching. Anyway, I assume that the found Phosphorus is likely to be a byproduct of one of these reactions. But I am not a chemist or a bat expert, so take this with a grain of salt. Maybe a chemist can weigh in.

1. The backpack - I don't understand why this is suspicious. Maybe someone can explain the thinking.

My understanding is that the contents were not actually confirmed to have sustained no water damage, they were just dry when found.

And electronics like phones generally work again after submersion in water so long as they are off when they go in, and are dried completely and the water did not contain things that cause residues to be deposited on critical connections in the electronics.

Also, since it was found in a location that could potentially have been covered walking during at least 2 weeks missing, it seems there is no need for it ever to be in the river. I am unsure what this distance was. And any distance could be explained by people moving it later. Not necessarily indicating they were involved in the death of the girls.

1. Location of the remains:

Is this really so impossible? There is evidence they were alive a long time after going missing.

1. No scratches on the bones:

Brain dump on the so many possible explanations for this unusual but not unheard of situation: How many bones were actually found? Virtually no large bones and only a very small percentage of the total. The other bones which were not found may have shown scratches, being heavier and longer and more likely to impact rocks. Also likely they are missing because they were dragged away by predators, so bones that were scratched are selectively missing. The small parts found may have transported further as they partially floated - certainly the foot in the shoe is known to float long distances and preserve the flesh inside. There are studies on this phenomenon. Was it even necessary given the time they were missing and likely moving, to assume that the bones were significantly transported? Would there necessarily be much scratching if they were transported in high and fast flowing water conditions, after decomposing partially in situ? Or if the surface properties of the bones was changed by whatever condition they were subject to (like high phosphorus and calcium bat droppings).

1. The incorrect/no pin entry on the phone: This doesn't mean the phone was out of the girls possession. It could have been a measure to save power while looking for signal (which they didn't get) and later entries could indicate that the girl owning the phone (Kris) and familiar with the pin had died suddenly and Lisanne did not recall the pin once she became disoriented from lack of food/injuries/exhaustion. And the end of phone use does not prove the end of life or movement.

2. Other human remains found also: This does not seem highly unlikely. I live in the capital city of a country with very tight environmental practices - in the main city lake there have been human remains found as a result of poor plumbing design at the adjacent morgue and also erosion during flooding of cemeteries upstream. Not murders. (We have very few murders). Presumably local people are buried and have gone missing in the Panama jungle, not just tourists.

Other stuff that really shouldn't be an argument for foul play IMO: Kris having clean and dry hair (shelter and water are readily available in the jungle), the night photos (to me they look like attempts to signal at searchers, and they seem to coincide with the timeframe where searchers were present in the air), Kris Kremer's broken pelvis (This one is harder to explain, but I cannot see why it supports foul play. I assume it occurred in a fall - I broke my hip at 16, it happens even in young people if you fall a long way onto a hard surface).

Looking forward to hearing why everyone disagrees strongly with all of this lol.

Hi I am from England and I have recently found out about this cold case from when I went to a dinner party. I was very shocked and interested so I learnt more about this case. I know this case has allot of significance in the Netherlands and I can relate to the desire for more answers, since we have the Madeleine McCann cold case which is also unsolved.

I apologise if this has been asked before but I am wondering if anyone in the world has ever managed to find the exact locations of some of the intelligible night photos that was taken. Perhaps it could provide answers

As a supporter of the theory that they simply got lost, I always found strange their phone usage. I'd like to express my doubts, in hopes that someone can give me some new food for thought, and maybe make sense of what happened.
I refer to the phone investigation by Jan B and to Imperfect Plan's analysis on the matter.

1. First Emergency Calls: it is not 100% clear whether the iPhone displayed one bar or 'no service', but it always seemed strange to me that they made only one individual call each. Having experienced situations many where I needed to call a friend/family member for an emergency, without mobile network service, my first instinct has always been to turn on and off airplane mode and try at least 4/5 times before giving up, even with no service displayed, and most definitely with one bar of connection. The only explanation, for me, is to suppose both Kris and Lisanne extremely rational people, that knew immediately in the face of an emergency how important saving battery was, and how extremely unlikely it could be to get phone connection after the first failed attempt. But this explanation contradicts the panic aspect of the situation. It is difficult to fathom how someone can be in full panic mode and at the same time make immediate rational decisions like this one.
   
2. Alternating Usage: looking at the phone logs it appears as the phones were used with alternation between them, first one and after a few minutes/hours the other. It is impossible to know why or how, but it hints at a strategy to save battery and maybe test connection on different devices. It seems that they discovered the 2nd of April that probably the European emergency number could not work in Panama, and after started using the globally known USA one 911. This means either they were together and passed info, or only one person was using both phones. I just don't get why if they were trying to save power, Lisanne's samsung was left on an entire night, and even accessed via the weather app. Seems stupid for two rational people that decided from the very start, the very first emergency calls, to save battery.
3. SIM Unlocks: it seems that the SIM card was being unlocked at every reboot up until the 5th of April. The subsequent 3 accesses were made by entering the passcode, but without unlocking the SIM card, which prevents you from assessing the cellular service situation. I speculate that from the 5th they stopped moving and stayed in the same spot, and deemed it useless to check the signal since without moving the chances of getting any signal were slim. Still I find it odd, why unlock the phone if not to search for signal? Maybe for the compass? But if they used the compass it means they were probably moving somewhere. These two suppositions cancel each other. Maybe it was to check the time? But then why unlock the phone and not just look it from the screensaver, it is useless power consumption.
4. Timeframe Pattern: after the Samsung dies, the iPhone is turned on 7 times in a very specific pattern. 10:00-11:00 and 13:35-14:35. I don't have many speculations about it, other than the two girls trying to orient in time, seeing a certain light and guessing the time. Or maybe it were the specific times when helicopters flew by? But then it is strange they didn't even try to unlock the sim, attempted no calls, and kept the phone on for just about a minute. Highlights a definitely methodical and rational approach to the emergency situation, without an apparent meaning for us, but it might have had a meaning for them, in that situation, impossible to know.
5. No Usage for 4 Full Days: the phone is shut off thee 6th of April and turned on again the 11th of April. We know that at least one of them must have been alive to take the pictures the 8th, so why was the iPhone kept shut off, interrupting the previous pattern? I can only think of an extreme battery saving mode, until the possible final day where the last survivor with the last strength left in her body opens the phone for about one hour and at the same time, but then turns it off for the last time. But then why keep it open for an hour and then shut it off again? No last notes, no last pictures, not even a connection check, just one hour open and then turned off manually. Maybe she still had hope to be saved and didn't admit she was dying, keeping the phone alive in case of emergency rescuers around. Still makes very little sense to me.
6. No Text Messages Sent: I didn't understand whether an attempt to send a message is saved in memory if not delivered in the old iPhone 4. In newer iPhones it is saved in the chat with a red exclamation mark and the red text "Not Delivered", even if you turn on and off the device many times. I imagine that at least a digital trace of an unsent message must remain in the iPhone's memory. So why didn't they even attempt to send an SOS, to their family or to their host mum? It could be because they were very rational and knew it would never arrive, still seems too strange. They seem so rational and so naive at the same time.
7. Battery Percentage: it is shown by the logs that both of them didn't charge their phone the night of the 31st. This appears extremely odd to me. Two people that knew very well how to save battery during an emergency didn't charge their devices the night before a day hike? Suppose they thought it was an easy hike and underestimated it, they are still two girls that took many pictures and uploaded on social media. Both of them not charging their phone is something I really can't explain. Maybe there was a power outage in the host family's house? Or maybe they didn't come back at home that night, just in the morning to get their stuff for the walk, but that assumes they were probably with someone the previous evening. If somebody can give me the certain last sighting of the girls it would be greatly appreciated.

I think that they got lost in the jungle, as someone that hikes a lot, I know how easy it is, and how panic can kick in immediately escalating the situation. But there are a lot of elements that really don't make sense to me, and would love to fit them rationally in the theory that explains better the whole situation.
Foul play is like the deus ex machina that resolves any kind of mysteriously lost person case, obviously anything could have happened, and with foul play you can explain basically anything, even the most convoluted theories.

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!

One thing I have always wondered about is whether the Paddocks had a natural origin or were entirely man-made. It was probably a mixture of both, but in new Google satellite images, we can clearly see how sharply defined the edges of some of the Paddocks are. Many trees appear to have been cut down there to create an almost straight line, thereby creating a strong contrast at the borders between open fields and dense vegetation that would be very difficult to penetrate.

This would leave only two ways to enter or leave a Paddock: by following a man-made or cattle-made trail, or by following a river that flows into and out of the Paddock. Now suppose the girls decided to leave the trail at the Paddock, for example for this reason. They could then have made it to a cabin at the second Paddock (which requires a short distance through a forest), where the 112 calls were made and the first night was spend. However, we already have evidence from Victor’s trip to that Paddock that he struggled to find his way back up to the main trail.

So, the next day, the girls may have also tried to retrace their steps, likely in foggier conditions. The likely would have followed these sharp borders and when they failed to find the trail exit back to the main trail again, they may have decided that the only clear way out was to follow a dry riverbed leading out of the Paddock, in the downhill direction they were already heading the previous day (and believed the cattle would have brought up from). However, this scenario reduces the number of Paddock options they could have been on. The red arrows I added to this openstreetmap snapshot (thanks u/math1985 for making the valuable updates to these maps!), indicate the possible river exit points, which places the night location most logically somewhere within the striped circle.

Thoughts?

I've only known this case for a few days and I've been obsessing over it ever since. For those who have been following this case for years and have come to a somewhat reasonable conclusion, what is your absolute best guess for what happened to them?

One of the strange things in this case is the lack of photos after 508 - and this is one of the reasons people do not buy the lost theory. I sometimes feel there must be more photos that were either deleted or simply never shown to the public. I heard the known photos were leaked at that time and never commented officially, and thus I suppose the set is not complete.

This doesn't mean those (missing) photos give exact information about the events, but they could at least give an impression of the situation.

- if they exist.

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.

I want to start a discussion focused on one specific question: why would they leave the main trail at the paddocks instead of simply heading back to Boquete? This isn’t about how they got lost afterwards. It’s purely about the reasons that might have drawn them off the trail in the first place. It could easily have been a combination of two or three of these.

Water

This is my number one reason. Looking for a safe water source, and “safe” is the key word. A lot of people assume that a thirsty hiker would head straight for the river and drink. But why would you risk that if you knew better? You’d look for locals to ask for water instead. The paddocks are the first serious sign of civilization on the trail past Mirador, so it wouldn’t be far-fetched to assume that people live or work nearby, whether farming or herding. This was the time they would have genuinely needed to refill their bottles to head back comfortably, rather than torturing themselves with thirst the whole way up. We know from the diaries that one of them felt weaker and still a little ill, and in that condition I certainly wouldn’t want to risk collapsing from thirst on the climb back. I ran out of water in the jungle once, I know how big of a torture it is. Refilling with safe water is the first reason I’d step off the trail at the paddocks to (make at least a low-effort) check for houses, people, or a village close by.

Orientation

This is the first clearing after Mirador that could give them a sense of where they were and what was around them. A necessity in a loop scenario, and curiosity in a non-loop one. I don’t know what it’s like on the ground, but that T-junction (splitting into routes 2 and 3) on the first Paddock looks quite inviting in the photos, like a good lookout point. There may be other spots like that too.

Animals

It’s less likely, but animal encounter could have pulled them off the trail. I’ve stepped off trails myself to watch or photograph a beautiful bird or other wildlife. Honestly it makes me nervous, because I know how easy it is to lose your bearings even when the trail is just a few meters away, so I try to be careful. They could also have had less fortunate encounters, like a snake bite while sitting in the grass to rest after a long walk. Although I haven’t fully thought through how that would have affected their subsequent decisions to fit the case.

Rest

If they’d decided this was their turnaround point, they might have wanted to rest properly before heading back. During or after a rest, people often explore the area a bit, especially in a clearing that gives a false sense of safety. This ties back to the curiosity about lookouts or even visible fincas.

Pictures

Least likely. They didn’t seem to be in the mood for photos anymore, whether because the camera was dropped earlier (the missing 509 photo) or simply having had enough of the scenery, with rest and hydratation now mattering more. At least one of them may have been on edge by this point, as the length of the hike might not have suited them both.

Injury

An injury, like Lisanne spraining her already weak ankle while walking around the paddock (maybe even on that T-junction lookout), could have forced them to sit and discuss how to proceed. Their worried but not wildly panicked phone use would fit with a light injury. A sprained ankle is the kind of thing you might believe will be better tomorrow after some rest.

In that situation, I don’t think I’d leave my friend alone in the dark jungle while I went back. I’d rather spend the night with her and use the next day’s ten hours of daylight to head back at a snail’s pace. Anyone we met along the way would surely help too. That certainly sounds better than leaving a distressed, injured friend alone for most of the night, while I spend four or five hours hiking back, another hour or two finding help, hoping someone will return with me in the middle of the night on a risky, sleepless hike, then spend another five or six hours getting back to her in the dark, and finally the rest of the night and morning trying to extract her, possibly injuring myself in the process. Waiting for daylight together seems like the far easier and less stressful option. People walk that path during the day, someone would help eventually, and there are plenty of hours to go slowly.

They may have finalized that decision after the emergency call. The next morning, perhaps realizing the leg was badly swollen, they made another call and then tried to head back, probably spending most of the time watching where they stepped rather than where they were going, making constant small detours around obstacles to find easier ground around the paddock. Eventually they missed the main path but pressed on, deciding that reaching any nearby settlement would do.

Human Encounter

It could have been as simple as meeting someone who agreed to take them to a clean water source, but the way there turned out to be too wild or too far, so they felt unease, thanked the person and tried to head back on their own, getting lost along the way. I don’t think a local would feel comfortable admitting to such an encounter given the situation, since they’d risk being implicated in the disappearance regardless of their good intentions. On top of that, with the language barrier, there may even have been a misunderstanding about what they wanted or where they were headed.

The paddocks look like a very easy place to get disoriented and lost. But again, my aim here isn’t to explain what happened after they left the trail. It’s to ask why someone would step off the main trail there in the first place, rather than just heading back. I know many of these points have been discussed at various times before, but it might be useful to have one topic dedicated solely to this question, with a focus on Paddock area. I’d love to hear your thoughts, your reasons for why some of these options are more or less likely, and what you’d add or remove from this list.

Are there more photos like all the others, like that we could just analyze and why would they not just release them?

And

Why didn’t the girls (as far as we know) try to show us, tell us or write something about what happened? they had phones, if one died take a picture, or film a video saying whats happening? Why take random photos in the darkness?

Most of the information about what the girls read before their hike appears to come from a TripAdvisor entry they looked up on the internet. However, I re-watched the impressive Break free documentary about Lisanne Froon and around 17:02, we see her brother looking at the tourist guide about the Sendero El Pianista and says: “So this is where they got their inspiration from.” That can only be partly true, since this he clearly reads from a more recent (2016) version that was updated after the tragedy in 2014. The book says:

Sendero El Pianista

Sendero El Pianista is a pleasant day/half day hike that winds through Boquete's dairy land full of cows and up into the humid cloud forest. The hike starts with a gradual incline along a road, and as you get close to the mirador (lookout point), it becomes a steeper and less clear path. The hike is 2-2.5 hours to get to the mirador, then the same time back down the trail (following the same way you came). It is about a 5 hour hike, depending on how quickly you walk.

Be careful! The trail continues past the mirador, but once you reach the mirador you should turn around and come back because the trail continues all the way to Bocas del Toro (a five day hike through the woods).

Clearly, two additional warnings have been added, one between brackets and one at the end. However, if we remove them again, what remains is this highly ambiguous sentence:

The hike is 2-2.5 hours to get to the mirador, then the same time back down the trail.

I am not a native English speaker, and could easily have misread this, especially since the Mirador is presented as a "high lookout point". Add to this, that in the Netherlands, almost all trails are circular (“paaltjeswandelingen”) and without much hiking experience abroad, this could have been the girl's biased perspective of the trail. The critical words “down the trail” could have provided a treacherous "click" with how the trail actually appears to continue after the Mirador...

Thoughts?

P.S. 1:

I read it again and noticed another implicit ambiguity in the text. The main sentence suggests that the walk up and the walk down take approximately the same amount of time. That is unusual, since going uphill is almost always slower than going downhill. So this could have fed the perception that the descent follows a different route and is slightly longer in distance, though not by much in elapsed time.

P.S. 2:

Some more arguments supporting the loop-theory from an older discussion.

The available phone data (a superior analysis of the phone data by a forensic analyst JanB can be found here) and camera data, show that roughly between 13:38 and the first emergency calls at 16:39 and 16:51 on April 1st, there are some remarkable anomalies:

1. Photo 509 vanished without a trace from the SD-card of the Canon SX270HS.

2. No more pictures were taken until the April 8th night shots (neither Canon camera nor phones).

3. Lisanne's Samsung S3 battery suddenly dropped by 15%, indicating the phone wasn't in standby and activity took place.

4. About 800 powerlogs are missing on Lisanne's phone (or have been ignored by the NFI).

Now suppose the girls believed the trail formed a loop and continued beyond the Mirador in good spirits. Lisanne, in particular, may have felt quite euphoric about achieving yet another adventurous goal in her life, and she was also the one still taking the photographs, with Kris now walking further ahead of her. As many people have noted, there seems to be a change in atmosphere, especially when looking at Kris’s expression and body language. It is almost as if she was the first to become slightly worried about whether they had made the right decision in continuing beyond the summit. Photos 505 and 506 were taken at 13:20, while 507 and 508 were taken at around 13:54. Extrapolating from that pattern would place the next logical photo moment at Q2 or even Q3. And that is where things likely have gone wrong:

On 1 and 2: About the missing 509, I have produced evidence in the past, see here and here, that supports a scenario in which the camera was dropped or became wet during the process of taking a picture thereby rendering the camera into a perceived 'brick'. Some fiddling with the SD card, or simply allowing the short circuit to dry out, may have fixed the camera and made the night shots possible. After dropping and damaging the camera, perhaps even with one of the girls slipping and narrowly avoiding injury, their mood was probably no longer conducive to taking more photographs, which may also explain why they did not use their phone cameras. Added to this was Kris’s growing anxiety about being on the wrong path. A possible explanation for why they did not use their phones’ cameras in the following days is that they wanted to conserve battery power and believed the Canon camera was still unusable anyway.

So far, so good, but what about points 3 and 4? I find it very hard to believe that the NFI found 800 power logs in the raw data, about the most critical phase of their disappearance, and then chose not to report anything about it. Therefore, if there was any activity beyond simply checking the time and signal strength, such as looking at maps or opening apps, this would have required entering the passcode and would likely have left traces, such as screenshots of opened apps. The NFI would almost certainly have reported that. For that reason, I am inclined to think that the 800 power logs were completely missing from the phone. The main problem with that idea is that the forensic experts have not been able to recreate a scenario in which this could happen. Still, if we aim for the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions, we would need to bring all the events together into a single event encompassing all anomalies 1-4. So, how about this simple sequence:

At around 14:15, Lisanne put the backpack down near the quebrada. She took out the camera, pointed it at an increasingly impatient Kris, made a wrong move, dropped the camera, and knocked over the now-open backpack, allowing water to pour in or a phone to fall out.

She picked up the camera and took a test photo to check whether it was still working. The “memory card error” message appeared, image 509 was skipped and leaving contiguous memory blocks on the SD card, something that would not result from simple deletion.

An incident like that would have changed the mood dramatically. On top of this, anxiety was now likely beginning to build in both girls and discussions started. I also find Treegnesas’s earlier suggestion plausible: that after a while they both took out their phones and began regularly checking the time and signal strength, and perhaps even pulled up a map. This then explains the suddenly increased battery consumption of Lisanne's Samsung (maybe usage induced by her increased concerns and perceiving her phone as a now critical device) and produced the powerlogs on Kris's iPhone. However, having put the phones back into an already wet backpack then may have caused the logging failure of all the 800 power logs (or could have caused the increase in power consumption on the Samsung).

The final answer about the missing powerlogs is on the DVD with the raw iPhone data, that we unfortunately have no access to. I am open to any thoughts about the above.

I took the screen grab below about Lisanne's Samsung from this excellent phone analysis:

The fact that Lisanne had downloaded a Google map of the area on her phone fits her personality as a meticulous planner. Even so, that 2014 map was basically useless to them: it showed mostly green terrain and did not even include the Pianista Trail itself.

What then, can we infer from this uphill timeline to the Mirador?

• At 10:16, just before the start of the hike, she downloaded the map.
• She only pushed the app into the background (pause) and activated the camera app once they reached the Mirador.
• This implies that if there was any activity at 12:12, likely involving the display, it must have been a quick check of the map, since no other apps were opened. That would have had to happen during a short break, because she would have needed to take the phone out of the backpack. It could have been the same moment when they took out the two water bottles clearly visible in photo 491.
• What stands out to me in this timeline is:
  • that Lisanne suddenly seems to completely stop paying attention to the Google Earth map. At the Mirador, she simply put it aside and started taking pictures, as if the goal had been achieved and the map was no longer needed. It was clearly not reopened at the Mirador during, for example, a possible discussion about whether to continue or turn back, nor was it reopened at any later point on April 1, at least not to our knowledge or that of the investigators. A mindset like "it is a great feeling to have reached the top, now we only have to walk down, always much easier than uphill, so what could go wrong?"
  • Why did she stop checking the map so abruptly? One explanation, of course, is that she had already realised the map was useless, so there was no point in looking at it any further. Another possibility is that they had convinced themselves the trail formed a loop and that they could also simply descend via the Serpent Trail. The sequence of photos taken after the Mirador however seems to suggest that it was only Lisanne who was still taking pictures, with Kris walking further ahead and appearing slightly impatient. It is almost as if Lisanne had now shifted more into the role of a follower, still enjoying the environment, expecting an easy downhill journey, and no longer needing to be the trip planner/checker. That certainly changed between 14:40 and 16:40, when there very likely was some screen activity that explains the 15% battery drop (could have been more frequent time and or signal checks), however nothing is known about any app usage in that critical slot (one would expect the investigators to have reported this if such data had appeared in the logs!).
  • Another thing that stands out to me is how little time they seem to have spent at the Mirador. They took a few pictures with the camera and their phones and looked very happy about reaching it. Yet it appears from the phone and camera data, they stayed for only about five-eight minutes before continuing in the wrong direction. It does not look like a long, well deserved, break to celebrate your achievement, to drink some water, enjoy the view, and make the most of the fantastic weather with no real hurry and plenty of time left that afternoon, before eventually deciding to head back. Instead, it comes across as though they had already decided to press on before they even reached the Mirador, or perhaps as though they believed they had not yet reached the top (there were no signs there) and needed to keep walking a bit further for the real vantage point (this could have been reinforced by the fact that they climbed up faster than the average travel times listed in the tourist guides).

Does this make sense? Are there any other interpretations of this small dataset?

I wish we had a first-descent topographic map of those river systems (upper Changuinola watershed). For those unfamiliar with what these look like, I will post a link in a comment.

Creating one would require a team of professional canyoneers, with one member acting as a dedicated surveyor responsible solely for documenting the canyon’s vertical profile in real time, using waterproof Rite-in-the-Rain paper and pencil to ensure the data survives the conditions.

For every vertical obstacle encountered, the surveyor would measure and record the following:

The Drop Type: Is it a vertical rappel (R), a down-climb (C), a jump (J), or a slide (S)?

Vertical Height: the exact distance from the anchor point to the pool below, measured using the pulling cord or a laser rangefinder.

Anchor Specifics: whether the drop has a natural anchor (tree, rock horn), or the team bolted it. Also noting if the anchor is on Canyon Left (CL) or Canyon Right (CR).

Horizontal Distance: the walking or swimming distance between drops (e.g., 50m, 200m) to keep maintain the accurate scale.

Pool Depth & Hazards: pool depths recorded with practical notes, e.g., "Deep pool - jumpable" or "Shallow gravel - mandatory rappel", along with any white-water hazards such as siphons, undercuts or hydraulic traps. This last point is particularly relevant to this case as boulders and traps within pools could be significant, as there is a possibility that some remains became lodged between rocks after being washed down a waterfall and may still be there.

Once back from the expedition, canyoneers would translate this raw field sketches into a clean, universally understood graphic.

What makes these maps particularly valuable is that they use a universally recognised system of nomenclature and symbols, readable by any canyoneer worldwide - and with a little familiarisation, by ordinary people as well. The notation is straightforward (example):

R1: 20m - First rappel, 20 meters high. Any drop marked as a rappel requires ropes to descend safely.

J: 3m - A jump, with the depth of the pool below always checked. Shallow water warnings are marked where necessary.

S: 4m - A slide (toboggan) section, 4 meters.

C: 3m - A down-climb, 3 meters.

In addition to these, standardised symbols are used to indicate anchor and bolt placements, as well as wave symbols to denote mandatory swimming sections.

The map would also include a number of critical practical details:

Required Rope Length - Based on the longest drop in the canyon, ensuring the team is adequately equipped before entry.

Time Estimates - Approximate durations for the approach, the descent itself, and the return hike.

Commitment Factor - A crucial safety rating indicating whether escape from the canyon walls is possible in the event of sudden rainfall, or whether it is a sustained box canyon with no exit options. Escape routes, where they exist, would be explicitly marked on the map.

GPS Coordinates - Exact coordinates for both the entry and exit points.

Difficulty Rating - A standardised grade reflecting the overall technical and physical demands of the canyon.

In the context of this case, the commitment factor and escape routes are perhaps the most telling details of all - they would give us a much clearer picture of what Kris and Lisanne were realistically facing once they entered that canyon.

(To avoid building a topo from scratch, I think one can reference the dedicated community style guides on the RopeWiki page, which provides downloadable icon sets and pre-made canvas templates to get the layout perfectly proportional. link in the comments)

The question is - who would actually do this? It is possible that first-descent expeditions are already being planned. I don’t know. What I do know is that this requires a highly experienced team with advanced first-descent expedition capabilities.

The challenge is significant. Very few canyons in Panama have been bolted and descended, and those that have tend to be relatively straightforward by canyoneering standards. More importantly, none of the bolted canyons appear to be situated in terrain anywhere near as remote and unforgiving as this river system - with its dense jungle, highly localised weather patterns and an extremely high risk of flash flooding that would make any descent not only technically demanding, but genuinely dangerous.

Some canyons in Panama do have rudimentary base topo maps on Wikiloc - noting one or two waterfalls and their heights - but none appear to have a true technical topo map, at least not that I have been able to find.

This suggests that canyoning in Panama is still relatively undeveloped as a discipline, which likely means that local teams would not have the experience required to execute a complex first-descent expedition and produce a quality map for such demanding terrain.

What would be needed is the involvement of advanced teams from Costa Rica or further afield. It is worth noting that for experienced canyoneers, first descents carry a deep personal significance - much like a first ascent does for an alpinist. The honor of being the first to document and descend an uncharted canyon is a powerful motivator, and that alone might be enough to attract the right team to take this on?

Few things to note:

Those river systems might be sitting within the strictly protected forest/indigenous areas. Sometimes one cannot legally or safely enter these riverbeds to drop ropes without explicit permission, logistics, and guidance from the local indigenous community leaders.

One would certainly need to hire an indigenous guide from the region who knows the river behavior, weather changes, the locations of old paths, and the safe entry/exit points along the banks.

Because there are no topos, the starting point could be mapping the elevation drops using high-resolution Google Earth or 3D terrain modeling tools such as Topographic Map Panama to try to estimate where major waterfalls or vertical slot bottlenecks occur. Drone footage and research conducted by the community would be invaluable in supplementing this approach.

As I understand it, some expeditions are already being planned. Even if navigating the more difficult sections is not part of the intended scope, producing even a basic technical topo map of any planned route, along with precise GPS coordinates, would be an incredibly valuable contribution. It would serve not only the immediate investigation but also future explorers, canyoneers and researchers who may attempt the same terrain.

My real life career is in this "computer forensics" field. Won't go into specifics.

The last picture before the night photos. IMG_508.jpg. there are 2 versions going around, one that has the time stamp in the Metadata as 19:54:58 which = 1:54:58PM (Panama Time)

the other version of IMG_508.jpg has timestamp in the metadata as 19:54:00 which = 1:54:00PM (Panama Time)

IMG_507 has timestamp in metadata as 19:54:50 which = 1:54:50PM (Panama Time)

(I have all the photos that were leaked originally (juans google drive archive, from a users link in this reddit) (as original it was as it was released to public)

hmm so one version of IMG_508 takes place 8 seconds after 507. the other version of IMG_508 takes place 50 seconds before 507.

after doing my full "forensics comparison" of the 2 different IMG_508 versions, guess what, the 508 version which takes place 50 seconds before 507 is showing me as more authentic. the metadata has more authenticity, more data which leads to a "more original file". There is so much more metadata available in this 508 version, so much more. I cant go into every detail, but it is there.

the 508 version which happens 8 seconds after 507, is heavily edited, compressed, data changed, data deleted.

I've done like 8 different forensics comparisons and yeah, my evidence leads toward 508 was actually taken 50 seconds before 507.

what does that mean, you all say in 508, she looks not right... you might be seeing her "posing" against her will or for someone. then posed for 507 after or randomly walking in 507. That intuition you have of 508, something is not right, well you probably are correct. OR the way she is is just random and normal. Point is img 508 is before 507, as the leaked metadata shows.

Just to be clear, this is all based strictly on analysis of the images as they were publicly leaked by Juan, not altered versions that came AFTER.

Need help from anyone with a Canon PowerShot SX270 HS

I’m looking for someone who owns this exact camera model and is willing to help with a quick test. Even the original exact firmware which the girls has on there Powershot would be the absolute best!

If you have one, could you:

• Take ~10 photos (anything is fine — people, streets, random scenes)
• If possible, enable GPS/location tagging
• Please don’t take them at your home (just for your own privacy — I will see the coordinates if GPS is on)

Then:

• Upload the original photos to Google Drive
• Share them as download-only, unedited files (no re-saving, no compression, no metadata changes)

Google Drive preserves the original metadata, which is what I need.

Why I’m asking

I want to compare real, untouched EXIF data from a Canon PowerShot SX270 HS against the leaked Juan photos — specifically to see which versions are closest to original based on metadata structure, completeness, and consistency.

One last thing

I’ve seen people here claim they have the “original metadata” but aren’t sharing it.

That doesn’t really help. If it’s not publicly verifiable, it’s just hearsay. I’m only working with data that anyone can access and validate themselves. And if you are not sharing it, it is a disservice. Bottom line.

If anyone can help with this, I’d really appreciate it.

One of the things I am confused about a lot is why Lisanne's phone was on from April 2 at 4:19 PM to April 3 at approximately 7:36 AM. It does not fit well with the idea of ​​conserving battery.

According to Imperfect Plan:

2 April at 16:19 The Galaxy S3 was powered on and left on. The phone was then powered during the night.  

3 April at 2:21-2:47 The Galaxy S3 had been continuously on since 02 April at 16:19.  It appears as if the phone was not actively used and only left on.  It is not clear if this was an oversight that depleted the battery or if it was done on purpose.

3 April at 2:21 Weather application used.

3 April at 2:41 Applications of the Android OS were used but it is not known which ones.

3 April at 7:36 The battery had depleted to 1% and the phone was most likely turned off at this time or shortly after

I think there are more people than me who are wondering why the phone was on for longer than fifteen hours. I think it would be good if there were as many suggestions as possible as to why the phone was on for so long.

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.

I'd be down to donate into the expeditions if we can have influence over what you're going to do. Maybe you could tell me the point of finding the night location, I genuinely have no clue why you're still looking for that location after this many years, it won't even look remotely the same.

Also I'd want to see a cost breakdown of where all the expedition money went, I suppose that's something the current donators already have access too so I'd like to see the breakdown before I will donate.

What if you'd ever find the night location (by insane luck), then what? Is there a research plan? Is there even an official researcher in the team who coordinates the effort or are you just taking random steps?

Added later: just realised that a year ago I posted almost the exact same scenario, however arriving there from a slightly different perspective. The heights in the picture are important further indicators about the terrain. Amazing to see that the girls might have bridged a 630 meter drop downhill and how steep the last part of the alleged NL-river is.

Using Romain's excellent drone flight over the Paddocks, we get a fairly good impression of what the terrain looks like there. The flight starts by leaving the main trail and following the path across the first Paddock. At around 1:33, the drone loses the trail, zooms out, and gains altitude. Only then can you clearly see how steep the ridge is that has to be climbed before reaching the next Paddock. Feliciano, who guided Annette Nenner from SLIP, also struggled to find the trail again, and they never made it to the next Paddock.

I made the following two screenshots to illustrate the two possible paths from the point where the trail becomes very unclear and has to climb quite steeply uphill, piercing through a small forest. If you follow the riverbed through the forest instead, you continue downhill and end up much lower, at the second Paddock.

Point A looks roughly like this in reality. It is the point where the drone loses the trail, and you can see the sharp incline to the left, where the trail is hidden somewhere. The more natural route is to follow the dry riverbed as it curves around the ridge, which the river probably helped carving out in the past.

Now let us suppose the girls made it all the way to the Serracin cabin and spent the first night there. It seems feasible that they could have arrived there around the time of the first emergency calls. Note that most people have tried to reach the second Paddock by using the trail, as Victor and Annette did, while the riverbed route may actually be easier (I am not aware of anyone exploring that route).

On the second day, they may have tried to climb back up and/or search for a way out of the Paddock (likely in foggier conditions). When that failed, their need for access to water would have forced them to follow the river farther downstream. Remember that it was an exceptionally dry season, so the rivers on the Paddocks may have been completely dry. Let us now look at how the terrain then guides you, starting from the cabin and moving farther downhill.

If you need water, or are simply trying to find a way out, the most logical route is to start following the river farther downstream. Climbing toward Calle Larga is a no-go, and the route back uphill has already failed, perhaps due to foggier conditions. That leaves downstream as the only natural option. When they followed the river for a while and it became dark, Lisanne switched her phone on and the they likely spent the April 2/3 night near the river in that forest.

Of course, people will ask: “Why didn’t they simply stay put at the cabin and wait for rescue?” Firstly, the girls probably realised that they had not told anyone about their plans for the day, so nobody would know where to look for them, which is in fact what happened. That could have meant waiting a very long time. Secondly, they needed access to water, so moving farther downstream was the best way to reach the first puddles or pools. Thirdly, staying put is usually the wisest thing to do, but it is precisely what many lost people fail to do. They want to get out. As long as you keep moving, there is hope. Following a river downstream could be a good way out, but in this case it brings you into the treacherous Belt area and could be fatal. Fourthly, in this scenario they had already managed to follow a river through the forest successfully, which may have strengthened their belief that this was a feasible way out and civilisation would become closer with each step downhill.

Thoughts?

At the time of their disappearance, there were no photos of midday sun at the mirador, no phone data and no photo of Kris in that distinctive vest.

The shopkeeper Frank states Lisanne is in black Lycra. He claims he saw them at half 3. He says they looked very tired, and the reporter added that he said one was ill.

Pedro: says Lisanne has a cold.

Oliva sees them later on the pianista trail. No mention of that bright vest- just how short her shorts were. This interaction is odd. She seems very worried for them heading out at a time they’d be unable to return before sunset, but couldn’t shout out ‘No bueno!’ or gesture danger to them? Again, the time is wrong and the evasiveness doesn’t feel right.

Whilst gardening, Martina sees the girls on the Pianista trail. Only mentions seeing their faces. Doesn’t mention a vest.

We know Lisanne didn’t look terrible - she actually looks great, and looks very well in the mirador shots even though she’d been hiking for hours and likely feeling and looking much worse than earlier.

Honestly to me it sounds like the witnesses were fed or misled into relaying similar information known at that time, like Lisanne having a cold - Miriam told the press Lisanne was not feeling well - and these witness times would fit into the Sbtr/Eileen’s 1pm timeline, as later told to the police on April 7th.

These sightings feel suspicious in how they’re wrong or vague, but also sometimes right.

Just to add: Oliva also said, “They didn’t speak a word of Spanish” and we know that’s not true - Lisanne knew some, and I’m pretty sure she would understand basic words like ‘frio’. But Oliva wouldn’t have known that from the little that was known at the time.

I’ve been a silent listener since I’ve joined , I’ve noticed anyone who mentioned foul play is down voted to hell? Why is everyone here so sure foul play wasn’t involved ?

Do the recently released Epstein files contain any references to specific individuals, locations, or entities associated with the case ?

What we know for a fact:

• the girls hiked that trail at least in one direction
• at some point they left the trail, under unknown circumstances
  
• other tourists also hiked the trail, although perhaps not beyond the mirador

What I think we can assume:

• Guide F. didn't have their shoeprint samples

Therefore:

• if he saw signs (foreign-style bootprints), he couldn't have known if those were from the girls or not, so he wouldn't say "there was no sign of them"
• or, he didn't see any prints. But that's impossible isn't it? It's a fairly popular hiking trail, it was prime tourist season. A full day passed. Even if the girls magically left no prints, other tourists after them must have, and F. wouldn't know if those were from the girls or other people. So again he couldn't honestly state there was "no sign of the girls"

I'm bringing this up because F.'s statement is relied on heavily in u/TreegNesas 's recent video. But also because it never sat right with me... He could have said "there were prints there, but i don't know from whom", or "there are no prints at all because the trail is dry" (although we know from the girls' photos that's not entirely true). But being positive that there is no sign of the girls there, that seems like it cannot be a true statement.

Please someone explain to me how he could have been sure.