This is by far one of the most bizarre cases Unsolved Mysteries have ever profiled. I am not sure how these kids met there fate.. I can't put a spill on it.. Maybe Unsolved Mysteries should have dug a little deeper into there past to see if any of these two had any enemies or a reason for any one to want them dead.. I almost want to say maybe they both did die that night in the ditch.. but why weren't there bodies discovered during the search? Who could have known they were traveling that route.. I doubt that it would have been a random act of violence.. why would the killer only take Arnold and Ruby and leave Tracy behind.. none of this makes any sense to me but the more and more I watch this segment on the Bizarre DVD set the more intrigued I become.. it is a sad case but a really good one at the same time.. full of questions.. unfortunately none that have any answers,, Any ideas? Kane what is your take.. Please let's discuss

I agree this is a baffling case. I don't think Arnold and Ruby met with foul play. It just doesn't make any sense. Their bodies were found fairly close to the accident scene and no signs of foul play on them. It is strange that it took so long to find them. I don't think that was a credible sighting of Arnold after the accident though. They were both pretty good sized so is it possible that they broke through the ice and then it froze back on top of them making them not visible until the Spring thaw? It makes as much sense as any other explanation in my opinion. Plus I believe their causes of death were exposure so that would jive with my theory. I still don't understand why they would leave the cousin upside down in the car. Unless since she was talking and alert they figured she would be able to get out without assistance. Considering they were drinking that night (and Arnold possibly faced with a DUI) no doubt they were afraid they would be in trouble and probably disoriented as well and wandered off in different directions and collapsed due to the cold. No theory really makes 100% in this strange case but there are some thoughts.

I haven't ruled out the possibility that Arnold and Ruby were victims of foul play. Nevertheless, there are other theories to consider. Exposure to the cold might have been a factor.

I haven't ruled out the possibility that Arnold and Ruby were victims of foul play. Nevertheless, there are other theories to consider. Exposure to the cold might have been a factor.
But I even have problems with the exposure theory even though this is what has been said to have killed them.. if it was that dann cold they should have went back to car with Ruby.. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER THAT BEING IN THE COLD this is really A STRANGE CASE!!

But I even have problems with the exposure theory even though this is what has been said to have killed them.. if it was that dann cold they should have went back to car with Ruby.. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER THAT BEING IN THE COLD this is really A STRANGE CASE!!

Let's see...if they got disoriented or were in shock either from being in a car accident or from hypothermia it might be a little difficult to see things clearly. Plus, falling into an icy ditch may have made it hard to get back to the car. Plus, the car was turned over, thus making its appeal as a cozy shelter a little hard to believe.

Let's see...if they got disoriented or were in shock either from being in a car accident or from hypothermia it might be a little difficult to see things clearly. Plus, falling into an icy ditch may have made it hard to get back to the car. Plus, the car was turned over, thus making its appeal as a cozy shelter a little hard to believe.
Perhaps so.. but we don't know that to be the case.. the police walked the entire lake and none of there weight broke the ice while looking for the couple, not mention there would have been evidence of them falling through the ice.. None was ever found. and there bodies where not that far from the crash site, so this means that radius would most certainly been searched in the following days after the accident.. I also doubt the validity of the claim that Arnold and Ruby was wondering around disoriented , Arnold didn't seem to be so out of it to come back for Ruby and open the car door and then even take time to close the door back.. doesn't sound like the actions of a disoriented person to me.. foul play is somewhere in this case.. proving it will probably be impossible.. and if they both fell in the ice wouldn't you think there would have been together frozen in the ice huddling together? NO there were found a good distance apart.. then there is the state of decomposition they were found in.. none of this makes sense.

I also doubt the validity of the claim that Arnold and Ruby was wondering around disoriented , Arnold didn't seem to be so out of it to come back for Ruby and open the car door and then even take time to close the door back.. doesn't sound like the actions of a disoriented person to me.. foul play is somewhere in this case.. proving it will probably be impossible.. and if they both fell in the ice wouldn't you think there would have been together frozen in the ice huddling together? NO there were found a good distance apart.. then there is the state of decomposition they were found in.. none of this makes sense.

But you forget that the WITNESS who reported what happened was disoriented as well. And there are plenty of drunk-drivers out there who have managed to close their car doors while they were disoriented, then went out on the roads.

Also, their bodies were not found far apart. Anyone who has the segment on tape can correct me, but I thought that their bodies were found no more than 20 feet from each other. I've said this in another thread that it's conceivable that their bodies were well hidden that night (i'm not sure exactly how) because of the fact that they were found so close together: they found one body but they actually had to drain the ditch before they found the other body close by.

But you forget that the WITNESS who reported what happened was disoriented as well. And there are plenty of drunk-drivers out there who have managed to close their car doors while they were disoriented, then went out on the roads.

Also, their bodies were not found far apart. Anyone who has the segment on tape can correct me, but I thought that their bodies were found no more than 20 feet from each other. I've said this in another thread that it's conceivable that their bodies were well hidden that night (i'm not sure exactly how) because of the fact that they were found so close together: they found one body but they actually had to drain the ditch before they found the other body close by.
So you are saying Arnold and Ruby are wondering around disoriented .. and Arnold is disoriented but he wonders back to the car open the door only to allow Ruby to get out and close the door back on the cousin Traci.. then he and Ruby just wonder around on a ice frozen lake only to get 75 feet away from the car to fall through 15 feet apart into the lake and freeze to death only to be found three months later in two different stages of decomposition. I am sorry I have a problem believing this could have been even a theory of what happen to them.. It just does not add up.. I am thinking that the car once it crashed on the lake would have been enough to crack the ice.. but it didn't. But Arnold and Ruby just by walking on it broke it and fell through??? When Arnold's body was found it was completely intact.. I would have thought that if they were wondering around in the cold the would have soon wised up to the fact that they are in the middle of no where and head to the main road to flag down help.. the car only ran off the road so there was not any serious physical injuries to them obviously if they where alert and able to get out of the car and move about.. neither of them must have not had any head injuries.. no bleeding looks like there would have been forensic evidence left behind has they moved about in the area.. But none of these things were ever found.. THEY DID NOT DIE THAT night.. maybe some time later for some strange reason the ended back there.. but they were alive just as Ruby's cousin was alive and found sometime later. I don't mean to sound like a know it all but base on the facts publicly noted on this case.. It does not support the claims that the died that night in that ditch!

I think this is a really good analysis, SoftentheSilence. I can buy that the police botched the investigation. There was probably nothing intentional or malicious, they just probably weren't doing as thorough a search as they wanted to believe.

Last summer, a car was pulled from a relatively small lake near where I live. It had been at the bottom of the lake since the 1950s. There were 2 men inside that had been declared missing for the same amount of time. They had driven out onto the frozen lake, fallen through the ice, and no one knew it had happened. Maybe ice and water are trickier than we might think.

I think this is a really good analysis, SoftentheSilence. I can buy that the police botched the investigation. There was probably nothing intentional or malicious, they just probably weren't doing as thorough a search as they wanted to believe.

Last summer, a car was pulled from a relatively small lake near where I live. It had been at the bottom of the lake since the 1950s. There were 2 men inside that had been declared missing for the same amount of time. They had driven out onto the frozen lake, fallen through the ice, and no one knew it had happened. Maybe ice and water are trickier than we might think.

Wow, since the 1950s? That's amazing. If you don't mind my asking, what general area are you from?

This case is incredible. I've always been facinated by it. I do agree though; I think what UM portrayed was the mysterious and bizarre angle of it, when in all honesty it was probably a botched police job. While it is interesting to note that the 2 bodies were found in completely different levels of decomp., it's more than likely explainable.

"When you screw up, you cover up......" has never sounded so true.

Excellent analysis SoftentheSilence. I have to agree with you......I think Arnold fell through the ice (which could help to explain the condition of his body) while Ruby stumbled off and fainted/passed out or something in the open.

As to their friend.....I don't know why she'd have a reason to lie other than the fact that they were all mildly drunk and she just didn't want to get in trouble......

Well, I live about 150 miles from Lake Andes, SD and have been to the site where the accident took place. I have to say that I agree with the "no foul play" argument based on my knowledge of this area and the facts of the case. Although Lake Andes is the county seat and home of the county's courthouse (this would make them the headquarters for the county sheriff) they are a small county, with relatively few police resources. Now, while my view is not as ominous as SoftentheSilence's of a cover-up, I do believe that it is distinctly possible that the search for them was not as thorough as was presented. In addition to the size of the sheriff's dept, some people also still treat Native Americans like they are second class citizens in this part of the country so it is possible that the sheriff's dept just didn't care to do a thorough search. Given the weather we experience in this part of the country it is very possible that they fell through the ice and it re-froze before the search. To give you an idea, the high for today here in this area is 8 degrees and this is the warmest day we've had all week. Falling through the ice also explains the differing states of composition of the bodies as well. Even two spots that are as little as a few feet away from each other can thaw at drastically different times due to the cold weather up here. All that would be needed was for Ruby to be 3-4 feet closer to the edge of the ditch under the ice for her to have thawed out sooner and begun to decompose earlier. Although the story makes for very interesting and mysterious viewing, in the end I believe Arnold and Ruby simply died due to accidental circumstances.

SoftentheSilence, you're theory makes a lot of sense. However, the one piece of evidence that comes to mind that contradicts your theory is the pieces of Ruby's hair found on the road the day the bodies were found. If the bodies were there all along, why would the piece of hair suddenly appear on the side of the road? I'm assuming of course that this was found before the bodies were removed from the water, and that the hair did not fall out during this time. That would show a total lack of competence on the police's part. Anyways, anyone have any explanation for why the hair was found on the road the day the bodies were recovered? Also (I may have missed it) is there any explanation for why the states of decompositions were so varied? This is a very perplexing case.

SoftentheSilence, you're theory makes a lot of sense. However, the one piece of evidence that comes to mind that contradicts your theory is the pieces of Ruby's hair found on the road the day the bodies were found. If the bodies were there all along, why would the piece of hair suddenly appear on the side of the road? I'm assuming of course that this was found before the bodies were removed from the water, and that the hair did not fall out during this time. That would show a total lack of competence on the police's part. Anyways, anyone have any explanation for why the hair was found on the road the day the bodies were recovered? Also (I may have missed it) is there any explanation for why the states of decompositions were so varied? This is a very perplexing case.

The states of decompostion being varied can be explained very simply actually. Ruby was found floating near the surface of the ditch while Arnold was submerged deeper in the water. They actually had to pump water out of the ditch to find him. This means that Ruby's body would have thawed first had they been trapped under the ice and would have started decomposing first. Since the wreck happened in November, it is possible that Ruby's body thawed during a warm spell early in the winter and was decomposing the whole winter while Arnold's body was frozen solid until spring.

ok this case is extremely baffling. having first heard about this case on a unsolved mysteries episode and living no where near south dakota i still think there is something off about this whole case. think about it: arnold wasnt in the car when it finished rolling down into the icy ditch, we know this because tracy (ruby's cousin) told us this very fact so the onli factor that makes sense would be that arnold was thrown from the car during the crash. there was also no way that arnold opened the door to get ruby out, she got out herself, if he was able to do that he would have been able to get tracy out too. y did ruby shut the door in tracys face? who knows maybe she was scared and unsure about where arnold was coz she knew where tracy was and she wanted to go see if arnold was ok. what happened after that? there are some seriously sick people out there so who knows...someone or some people could have attacked them taken them back to their hideouts or house or whatever and drugged them and **** and then dumped them back around the area. just because the bodies didnt look like there was any foul play doesnt mean stuff didnt happen to them before they died? weather conditions can also do alot to bodies- maybe the coldness of the area covered up the fact that there actually were drugs in their systems?

or maybe they did die out there due to exposure of coldness?? but y was arnolds body very decomposed and ruby's was in good condition? again u can blame the weather for that depending how exposed there bodies were to the open, how far the bodies had travelled due to natural environmental factors. but why werent they discovered sooner? the detectives searcheed a million times and other people who had nothing to do with the case had searched it too...but hmmm maybe they DID have something to do with the case...hmm maybe im being to suspicious here..

Also did anyone hear the part of the episode that states...' there is a questionas far in our investigation if arnold was wearing the same clothes he was the night of the accident'?? what the??? that could mean one of two things....that no one can remember what he was wearing that night and so the police cant rule it out...meh fair enuff...or it could mean what else??? that he changed clothes sumtime between the night of the accident and when his body was found???? it just doesnt make sense...argh i am so frustrated by this case its just so confusing with so many questions unanswered...will it ever be solved???

I remember the use of the word "you know" from the girl that survived the crash.

If, as the theories state, Ruby's body was near the surface, quite possibly it was found by animals shortly before it was recovered. Predators such as wolves and coyotes will spread things, and hair often stays pretty well-preserved. So the clump of hair appeared shortly after Ruby's body thawed out enough for animals to discover, and its appearance led to a closer look which led to the discovery of her body. Arnold took longer to find. The alleged sighting of him after the accident is beginning to sound very Keri Lynn Nixonish now.

I think the answer to this case is very simple. They missed them while searching the first time. Yes the cop said he searched and searched, but he IS human and could miss something. There's just no logic to taking bodies away for the winter and bringing them back. The tuft of hair being misplaced is easily explained by forraging animals.

Perhaps so.. but we don't know that to be the case.. the police walked the entire lake and none of there weight broke the ice while looking for the couple, not mention there would have been evidence of them falling through the ice.. None was ever found. and there bodies where not that far from the crash site, so this means that radius would most certainly been searched in the following days after the accident.. I also doubt the validity of the claim that Arnold and Ruby was wondering around disoriented , Arnold didn't seem to be so out of it to come back for Ruby and open the car door and then even take time to close the door back.. doesn't sound like the actions of a disoriented person to me.. foul play is somewhere in this case.. proving it will probably be impossible.. and if they both fell in the ice wouldn't you think there would have been together frozen in the ice huddling together? NO there were found a good distance apart.. then there is the state of decomposition they were found in.. none of this makes sense.

There is often a tendency to believe that foul play must have occurred in a mysterious case such as this but the likelihood of foul play in any such case is actually slim. There was a much-publicized case of a missing boy here in Canada (the Barrie, Ontario area) recently. The boy was missing for a few weeks before they finally found his body a week or so ago. Upon finding his body, some locals were interviewed on TV proclaiming that this boy MUST have been the victim of foul play (the boy had left his home willingly, by the way, after a dispute with his parents over his excessive X-Box play). Well, not surprisingly, there was no foul play involved as it is now thought that the boy fell from a tree to his death. I suspect that no foul play was involved in the case being discussed in this thread as well for many of the reasons that have already been given.

"Go get some healthy outdoor exercise! Climb a tree or something!" :(

I think Tracy should've been questioned more, or at least had more screen time on the segment. Now, she was in the car with Ruby and Arnold...WHAT DID SHE SEE DURING THE ACCIDENT? I know car accidents are very sudden and shock inducing, but did she SEE Arnold get ejected from the car? I wish she had given more details of what she witnessed during the actual accident.

"Go get some healthy outdoor exercise! Climb a tree or something!" :(


I think he may have been lost and was trying to get a better vantage point so he could figure which direction was home. The boy's name was Brandon Crisp.

For your information the police did a fine investigation. This lake everyone is talking about is a ditch along side the lake. It had 10" of water and ice in it when the accident happened. People said they seen them but someone has them scared. I remember the day they found Ruby. She was floating in that same ditch the car wrecked in face down badly decomposed. So they drained the ditch (at this time with the thaw it was fuller than before). Then they found Arnold (he was not as decomposed as Ruby) he was submerged in the water at the bottom of the ditch. The police did a really good job with this investigation. This happened on a unallotted indian reservation. Where the car wrecked was on state land. But just to the south is tribal land. I know at the time State and tribal police did work together on this but if you have never spent time on the reservation you would never know. No one will rat anyone out.

Ten inches of water is not much but could he have been submerged in mud?

This just aired again today on Spike TV. While watching the episode and then coming to these boards because I was intrigued enough to do a Google search on "Arnold Archambeau" I have had a few thoughts I would like to share.

Sherlock Holmes was a fan of deduction. He said that if you rule out the impossible, then whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Applying deduction would be impossible here. We simply cannot know enough of the facts about this case based on a 10-minute, edited for TV segment that ran on a populist entertainment program. There are too many unknowns to make good educated guesses even.

If I were an outside investigator I would assume that everyone involved with the case was lying, simply to avoid having my beliefs tainted by their assertions of what is or what was.

There are a few glaring reason that would suggest this was not a case of foul-play, and more likely just a case of inept and botched investigation. The primary one being that the cause of death found by the coroner upon autopsy was exposure. Even if you assume there was foul-play, how would you kill someone in a way that would look like exposure? There may be a few:

1) Lock them in a deep freezer.

2) Submerge them in freezing water, but not all the way lest they die by drowning.

3) Restrain them outside in sub-freezing to freezing weather.

But it seems to me that if any of these methods was employed then there would have been some evidence of them on the bodies once they were recovered.

Let's assume that the impact of the crash has enough force to throw Arnold Archambeau out of the car and propel him through the ice. Maybe his head hits the ice with enough force to daze or concuss him. Maybe it even outright kills him. He stops breathing once he become submerged so he does not take water into his lungs thereby not drowning. After the accident, Ruby is dazed and comes to. In shock she leaves the car looking for Arnold, leaving her cousin behind and shutting the door. She finds the hole where he went through the ice and thinking to save him she jumps in after him. She cannot find him however because his body was propelled down into the creek bed. She becomes trapped in the hole she jumped into because the water is deep enough that she cannot gain enough purchase to remove herself from the water. The cold saps her strength quickly and she soon dies of exposure, slipping beneath the ice to join Arnold in death, but much closer to the surface since she was not "thrown" into the creek. Finally, during the course of the night while Ruby's cousin is waiting to be rescued, the ice re-freezes over the hole made by Arnold's impact, hiding both Arnold and Ruby from discovery until the spring thaw.

This is a very sketchy theory at best and relies on a lot of improbable events, however, I would submit it as being far more likely than a scenario involving foul-play and body relocation.

As to the hair being found on the side of the road. According to the show's edited time-line the hair was not found until after Ruby was removed from the water. Therefore, it could have easily fallen or been placed there after or during the body's recovery.

Just Jen said:

"this lake everyone is talking about is a ditch along side the lake. It had 10" of water and ice in it when the accident happened"

This would probably squash my theory if it was true. How do you know this? And can you support it with evidence? The fact is pertinent enough to the story that I am surprised it did not make it into the segment. I knew it was a ditch and not a lake but I have seen some very deep ditches before. My theory was based on the assumption that the ditch contained at least 4-5 feet of water and ice.

Ruby's shoes were off. This leads me to believe that she had been walking around for a while and starting to suffer from severe hypothermia. Hypothermia victims can get so disoriented that they start removing their clothing and are often found partially clothed. UM never said if her shoes were ever found.

I think the tuft of her hair was found after she was removed from the ditch because of the level of decomposition and no one noticed that it fell from her body.

The cop said he has the suspicious keys found in Arnold's pocket, belonging to an unidentified vehicle and home, in his possession, but has he ever taken them to friends and family to see if they can identify which vehicle or home they belong to?

This is a very sketchy theory at best and relies on a lot of improbable events, however, I would submit it as being far more likely than a scenario involving foul-play and body relocation.

By default, since there is not enough evidence to prove foul play it must be considered natural causes.


IMHO, there is some information that is incorrect here, that may be why nothing makes logical sense; either

1. Someone is lying
2. The time line is incorrect
3. Crime scene has been contaminated.

i have to watch this episode again, and get baqck to you guys.

Watched the segment...made a complete 180 on this case!:D

1.There is a piece of evidence on this case that is on the Unsolved.com website that was not featured in the segment. (at least i think it wasn't shown)

Soon there was another startling revelation. A witness claimed to have seen Arnold, accompanied by three other people on New Year’s Eve, almost three weeks after he was reported missing. Authorities brought the witness in for a polygraph exam. She passed.

This becomes interesting since there is a possibility that Arnold was not wearing the same clothes when his body was found.

Regarding the keys... it's important to keep in mind that they were BOTH car keys and house keys. Like you and i would carry. People usually don't give both their house and car keys to an individual. They give on or the other depending on whether they need the house or the car.

This leads me to think that the keys were stolen, or picked up by mistake. Which means most likely he was at some point at the house of the keys owner.

Or he was given the keys by the owner who was driving with him, and for some reason Arnold stopped the car and left or was killed and the owner of the keys ditched the car and left the keys with Arnold.

sorry if this is a little confused, im thinking while typing. :p

3. If you take this as a murder case. The ultimate target of this murder would be Ruby. From what the segment said Ruby and Arnold were having difficulties. If Arnold wanted to get away from his life with Ruby, this would be a good opportuinity. Arnold might have been killed by the people he was hiding out with.

4. I could understand the police overlooking one body....but missing two bodies? And it wasn;t like they both were two of the smallest people in the world.

5. The fact that Arnold was not frozen to the ground tells me that Arnold definitely did not die in the ditch around the time of the accident. He died much later and was thrown into the ditch by someone privy to the circumstances of the case.


This is definitely foul play!!!!!:mad:

Soon there was another startling revelation. A witness claimed to have seen Arnold, accompanied by three other people on New Year’s Eve, almost three weeks after he was reported missing. Authorities brought the witness in for a polygraph exam. She passed.

She might have honestly thought she saw Arnold, yet it was someone else. This could be why she passed the lie detector. It's not a lie if you think you are telling the truth. But I still think she saw someone else.

She might have honestly thought she saw Arnold, yet it was someone else. This could be why she passed the lie detector. It's not a lie if you think you are telling the truth. But I still think she saw someone else.

Always a possibility, but you couple this with the possibility that Arnold was not wearing the same clothes and the fact that his body was not frozen to the ground and was in excellent condition as opposed to Ruby.

Also with the bizarre reason why Arnold was not in the car and rescued one person but left the other...

Also pair that with the tuft of hair of Rubys found.

..the evidence starts to lead to to the bodies being place in the ditch at different times.

Not to mention how the heck could several police and volunteers they miss TWO heavyset people in that ditch?

Keep in mind the only witness we have to the events of the accident is the cousin(?). For all we know the car may have been run off the road by someone.

The woman who said she saw arnold in the car passed her polygraph (believing that she really saw him) and the people who were actually in the car with "arnold" failed their polygraphs.

What does that mean? Did the cops ask, "Was arnold in the car with you?" and they lied and said, "No." when arnold really was with them. Or did they lie and say "Yes" when they knew that the guy with them really wasn't arnold. I'm confused on why they failed their polys.

Arnold and Ruby were found only 75 feet from where their car crashed. Yet Ruby was supposedly already showing signs of extreme hypothermia (imo) by having her shoes off. Unless she had been walking around for a long time, and then finally ending back near the car, that wouldn't make any sense.

For Ruby to be suffering from extreme hypothermia, she would have to have been outside a lot longer than it takes to walk just 75 feet from the car. If the hypothermia doesn't explain the missing shoes, what does? Could she have been walking around in deep snow and they were pulled off her feet?

Unless extremely deep snow fell between the accident and the search, it's hard to see how those bodies could have stayed hidden. I had heard that Arnold was sighted in company of others sometime after, but didn't realize the others were identified and failed polygraph tests. :eek:

I've been watching Unsolved Mysteries for a while, and this case really baffles me!

For Ruby to be suffering from extreme hypothermia, she would have to have been outside a lot longer than it takes to walk just 75 feet from the car. If the hypothermia doesn't explain the missing shoes, what does? Could she have been walking around in deep snow and they were pulled off her feet? I would need to see this episode again, but I can tell you that one sign of hypothermia is your body begins to feel very very hot. Often when bodies are found they are naked, as people have stripped their clothes off as they feel like they are burning up. Now that certainly does not explain everything but it could explain her shoes being off.

But then again I am in the camp of it being two kids, drunk and wandering around and they probably slipped and fell and died of exposure. I have a lot of respect for the police but there were probably some police oversights in this case.

But it is still an unsolved mystery!

But then again I am in the camp of it being two kids, drunk and wandering around and they probably slipped and fell and died of exposure. I have a lot of respect for the police but there were probably some police oversights in this case.


Again, it wasn't one person they missed. The police missed two heavyset individuals and one of them who wore a bright red coat.

Question?
How soon was she found compared to the approx.. time of the accident?

Best I can remember, the accident happened on December 12, 1992 and Ruby was found floating in the ditch the next year in the late winter or early spring, approximately 3 months. That's when they realized how close she was to where the accident happened, only 75 feet. They then began looking for Arnold, but had to drain the ditch to find his body.

I might be willing to again entertain the thought that there was foul play in this case if someone would come forward with a suspect, a motive, a plausible scenario where all the pieces fit, anything that would point in that direction. :confused:

This was one of those cases where it always seemed to me that the police were so intent on calling it foulplay because they didn't want to admit that they had royally screwed up when they didn't find the bodies that night or the next day.

As for how one of them could have had such severe hypothermia that she stripped off her shoes when she was only 75 feet from the car, the simple answer to me is that she was wandering around out there.

I might be willing to again entertain the thought that there was foul play in this case if someone would come forward with a suspect, a motive, a plausible scenario where all the pieces fit, anything that would point in that direction.

Its important to keep in mind that the car keys are an important piece of evidence. A lot of the accident theory hinges on those keys not being of significance. If the owner of vehicle or house they belonged to where to be identified -that introduces a whole new element to this case as well as a potential suspect/witness.

For example if the keys belong to a local tough or drug dealer. That opens a whole new angle on the case.

Regadless what your theory is there is still a mystery of who is the owner of the keys that needs to be solved.

Suspects?

Well, for the murder of Ruby, that would most likely be Arnold or person(s) on the behest of Arnold.

As for Arnold, most likely he was killed by the persons who helped hide him or commit Rubys murder. Perhaps the people that were seen with Arnold months later after the accident. Has to be a reason why all of them failed a polygraph. They were nervous about something.

How about the owner of he keys? I think having your keys in a dead person pocket is pretty suspicious.

Motive?

Arnold was having trouble with keeping a child and taking care of Ruby. An opportunity was afforded him to walk away from those responsibilities. Maybe he murdered Ruby, maybe he just simply walked away and asked for help from local criminals to hide him, till he can go to Canada or wherever.

They even gave him keys to a house to use and a car that he could use if he was going to drive to the Canadian Border.

Something goes wrong, and these criminals either killed Arnold or maybe Arnold dies of a drug overdose. The criminals take his body and dump it in the same area that the crash occured. (not a mean feet since that area was overed by police so often, it's probably very easy to find the)


There won;t be a theory that fits all the pieces, for the reason that we don;t know all the pieces. Evidence is missing and in the case of the keys, evidence is incomplete)

The accident theory is a theory based on incomplete or missing evidence.

If you follow the evidence as is, it leads more to foul play

1. Two bodies found separate times in different conditions of decomp, and potentially in Arnold's case with different clothes. In Arnolds case, his clothes were not frozen to the ground whereas Ruby's was.
2. Witness to the crash, cannot verify Arnold's whereabouts at the time of the crash. Unknow individual rescued Ruby, but failed to rescue witness. No real proof that it was Arnold who opened the car door. No real proof that witness story is true.
3. After rigorous search by law enforcement of two heavy set individuals, no bodies where found near crash site.
4. Reports by witness of Arnold seen months later after the crash with a group of individuals. Witness passes polygraph, suspected individuals do not.
5. Keys for both a car and house are found in Arnolds body. Keys have not been matched to any vehicle or house.

Mastermind,

Just to clarify, I believe that Arnold was supposed to have been seen 3 weeks after the accident, around or on New Years, but not months later.

Also, I'm confused about whether or not either one of the victims was frozen to the ground. I thought Ruby was found floating in the recently thawed ditch.

Arnold was found submerged in the same ditch. They said that he wasn't frozen to the ground, yet he's fully under the water. I wonder if the ditch was only partially thawed and Arnold was under a layer of ice, keeping his body from being discovered.

I think it's really odd that a heavy set young man like Arnold would not be floating, but a quite badly decomped body like Ruby was.

In Ruby's case, was it just her clothing that was frozen to the ground? Maybe she was originally in the same condition as Arnold, but in a freeze/thaw cycle she ended up with her body floating and some of her clothes frozen to the ground.

Since they had to pump a lot of water out of the ditch to find Arnold, yet Ruby was supposedly frozen to the ground, I think a freeze/thaw cycle could explain some of that. Especially since she was at the top of the ditch and that's where it's going to freeze first, as soon as cold temperatures come back, and Arnold was found fully underwater, not frozen to anything.

Also, I'm confused about whether or not either one of the victims was frozen to the ground. I thought Ruby was found floating in the recently thawed ditch.

According to the episode, they mentioned in regards to Arnolds body, that Arnold clothes were not frozen together or to the ground. At least that's what i thought they said. I think it's also on unsolved.com

In any regards i still point to the keys as being an important part of the case.

Yep, I wanna know about those keys too. Why were they not matched to anyone known to Arnold or those known to his circle of friends? Are they really connected to someone who was a stranger to Arnold?

And now that I'm thinking about it, this is a lot like the Dick Hansen murder. All we have on this story is Tracy's account of what happened. We can't really be sure that Arnold was even driving the car when the accident occured.

It's reported that all three in the car had been drinking. The intersection where the accident happened is supposed to be somewhat isolated. Tracy says something that I think is a bit odd.

In her recollection of the events, she says that Arnold pulled up to the stop sign, he said, out loud, that there were no cars coming, and then he spun out from the stop sign and wrecked the car.

What kind of drunk driver is talking out loud about the road conditions at an out of the way intersection in the middle of the night? Wouldn't most drivers, drunk or sober, just kinda notice that there are no headlights around them and then keep on driving, without giving oral commentary? I think it's weird that Arnold is supposed to have made a statement about the fact that there were no oncoming vehicles.

Unless, they were out fishtailing and doing donuts on purpose. Then, they would have a reason to be looking for oncoming traffic and would mention out loud to each other that there were no cars in the area and it was clear to take off doing wild street tricks. OR if Tracy is making up her story to fit the conditions and is filling in details that she thinks makes sense.

Here are Tracy's words:

We came up to that stop sign. That’s all I remember is just him looking and, saying there are no cars and him spinning out from the stop sign. And it was just like the snap of a finger and the next thing you know, we ended up in the ditch.

I was upside down in the ditch and Ruby and I was in the car you know. Arnold wasn’t in the car. I don’t know where he was. Ruby was crying. She was saying oh my God, oh my God. She just kept hitting the car.

The next thing I know, the door, it was open a little ways and she had enough room where she slid out. And then so I was going to reach over and then it was just like that, the door went shut.

Yep, I wanna know about those keys too. Why were they not matched to anyone known to Arnold or those known to his circle of friends? Are they really connected to someone who was a stranger to Arnold?

And now that I'm thinking about it, this is a lot like the Dick Hansen murder. All we have on this story is Tracy's account of what happened. We can't really be sure that Arnold was even driving the car when the accident occured.

It's reported that all three in the car had been drinking. The intersection where the accident happened is supposed to be somewhat isolated. Tracy says something that I think is a bit odd.

In her recollection of the events, she says that Arnold pulled up to the stop sign, he said, out loud, that there were no cars coming, and then he spun out from the stop sign and wrecked the car.

What kind of drunk driver is talking out loud about the road conditions at an out of the way intersection in the middle of the night? Wouldn't most drivers, drunk or sober, just kinda notice that there are no headlights around them and then keep on driving, without giving oral commentary? I think it's weird that Arnold is supposed to have made a statement about the fact that there were no oncoming vehicles.

Unless, they were out fishtailing and doing donuts on purpose. Then, they would have a reason to be looking for oncoming traffic and would mention out loud to each other that there were no cars in the area and it was clear to take off doing wild street tricks. OR if Tracy is making up her story to fit the conditions and is filling in details that she thinks makes sense.

Here are Tracy's words:

We came up to that stop sign. That’s all I remember is just him looking and, saying there are no cars and him spinning out from the stop sign. And it was just like the snap of a finger and the next thing you know, we ended up in the ditch.

I was upside down in the ditch and Ruby and I was in the car you know. Arnold wasn’t in the car. I don’t know where he was. Ruby was crying. She was saying oh my God, oh my God. She just kept hitting the car.

The next thing I know, the door, it was open a little ways and she had enough room where she slid out. And then so I was going to reach over and then it was just like that, the door went shut.

I think Tracy should've said more on the Unsolved Mysteries segment...Maybe Tracy is hiding something? ... That does seem odd that Arnold would say that at the intersection. The keys seem to be an important part to the case...

Yeah but to me the whole case is strange..I mean they were most likely drunk driving in icy weather ( as according to the grandparents who stated they had had too much to drink to take their baby home that night) and flipped the car over. It really is weird that a killer would be waiting in freezing temps outside in the middle of essestially nowhere to kill them. Plus, what's the motive? Rudy's cousin whom they left in the car never heard any screams or noises after they both exited the car. When recuse personal came to the scene, no blood was found in the area or signs of a struggle. There's just no motive. Random killings usually have a motive such as robbery, rape, ect. Yet, nothing was taken and to rape someone outside in freezing weather ( below 0) doesn't make any sense. Again, the fact that some killer was walking around in that weather in the middle of nowhere, where they flipped the car over is a little odd to me to say the least. Remember, when that happened forensic technology and things like that were in their infancy. I'v been reading some things online about it and I believe that in all probability this is what happened....All 3 were intoxicated from a long night of partying. They chose to drive. The grandparents noticed they were intoxicated and advised it would be better to pick up their daughter in the morning. I believe it was a combination of icy weather and being intoxicated that the car flipped into the ditch. Arnold freed himself from the car and went over to help Rudy get out. Why did they not help their cousin? Well, there's a few explainations...1) If they're drunk they aren't thinking in a rational state of mind. 2) Panic, they knew the cops would be to the crash scene soon and they had been drunk driving. I believe they fled the crash scene and again, as they were intoxicated weren't thinking clearly to judge where the ice was too thin and they fell threw. Anyone who's fallen into freezing water in below 0 temps knows that your body goes into shock right within seconds. Plus all the heavy winter clothes they had on would weigh them down and make it very hard to pull themselves out. Even if they pulled themselves out, hypothermia with those temps would set it immediately. Remember they were in the middle of nowhere..this was not a populated area. The medical examiner stated they died from exposure. If you research this case further..no signs of stabbing, strangling, ect was found on the bodies. Nothing. Even with just bones left many medical examiners have been able to detemain strangulation (e.i the hyoid down is broken) or stab wounds that struck the bones. However, in this case the bodies were decently preserved because of the cold. Nothing was found. In recent years, more technology and research (The Body Farm, which specializes in decomposition of bodies for investigators (thats where Caley Anthony's body was sent) has found that even 2 bodies in the same place might not decay the same depending on many factors. The hair found on the road might have blown there after the spring thaw. Their friends who stated they saw arnold after the crash and passed polygraph tests in all probability were just mistaken about the date. So, in that case they weren't lying and would've passed the lie detector. Consider Arnold was found wearing the same clothes he had on the night of the crash, it seems that his friends were just mistaken of the date. Why would he have been walking around in the same clothes for that many days? and the friends NEVER saw Ruby. So, does that mean that Arnold was spared by the killer but Ruby wasn't? And that Arnold never said anything and just went to a party with his friends? And somehow the killer came back for Arnold later? Highly doubtful. That has happened in many investigations were witnesses were mistaken about the date. Also, the police department was very small and did not have the resources that larger agencies have or the technology we have today. So they might have combed the area in the winter but in area's like that until the spring thaw many things can go unnoticed especially with as little man power as that had. Honestly, this just seems like a horrible tragic accident. Questions can always remain like "Why didn't they just stay in the car"? "Why didn't they help Ruby's cousin?" ect But like I said being drunk and being in a panic state of mind can alter rational thinking.

Umm, you don't have to post in every thread....

Let's stick to the original post here.

Again as said previously..

How do you explain the unidentified car and house keys that were found on Arnold?

It looks like "sioux indian reservation car accident" is on the lifetime schedule for tomorrow. Anyone know if this the Ruby and Arnold case, just listed by lifetime under a different segment name that I'm unfamiliar with?

If anything good has come out of what happened to this couple and their cousin, I guess it would be that the grandparents convinced them to leave the baby at home with them instead of taking the child out on their drive that night. That decision could have very well prevented another death.

OK i alway thought Arnold cousin was kinda cute but neither here nor there! Tracy looks innocent but for a moment think about it tracy is driving she goes head long into the ditch killing the other two or hurting them very bad, Now were in the middle of nowhere so a car or two max go by late at night and miss the car all the while tracy has called mom dad and some other folks to help her clean up Chapaquita style but it works and now the bodies are gone so too are Arnold and Ruby. Both now missing and most people think they are drunks anyway so its easy for the community to believe they were driving and crashed and left Tracy.Tracy gets back in the car turns the lights on and is found in no time. And the bodies are stored till spring when it would be safe to put them back. I believe the Indians are treated worse then most ethnic groups in the USA and as such have little respect for the law the same law that for the last 400 yrs told them they are heathens and inferior , now this is a double edged sword drinking and drug use are high on Indian Reservation .As well as drinking and drugs, clanishness is a problem on Reservations its like the Indian version of "Stop The Snitching" this allows problems to be dealt with by indians alone. If you want to read a good book about the "Res" read Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven by Sherman Alexie it is great!

Why is this case even considered a "mystery?"

1) Everybody involved was intoxicated.
2) In below freezing weather.
3) They were stunned after a car accident.
4) They were found in a nearby body of water after a thaw.
5) The police performed a less than thorough search in frigid weather.

The details about the unknown keys,the "changed clothing" and people "seeing" Arnold at a later time are all distractions.
The keys could have come from anywhere and Arnold may have even found them much earlier than the accident.

The clothing being changed could have either happened while they were out...or maybe it never happened,and he was just wearing something that nobody really noticed.

And people stating that they have "seen" someone is usually not a very reliable source of information.
People can conflate the details of of one more more situations or they even lie to bring attention to themselves.
W/O video or photographic evidence, eyewitness statements,IMHO,are usually worthless.

Bottom line:This was likely the case of people who got drunk,got into accident and died from exposure or drowning or both.
They then weren't found until much later after a less than thorough police search when the body of water that they were located in, thawed.

Again,not much of a "mystery" here.

If you want to read a good book about the "Res" read Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven by Sherman Alexie it is great!

That's actually a good point. Even though it is fictional, I'd recommend it to anyone who's gone on a moral tirade about some of the elements involved in this case.

Why is this case even considered a "mystery?"

1) Everybody involved was intoxicated.
2) In below freezing weather.
3) They were stunned after a car accident.
4) They were found in a nearby body of water after a thaw.
5) The police performed a less than thorough search in frigid weather.

The details about the unknown keys,the "changed clothing" and people "seeing" Arnold at a later time are all distractions.
The keys could have come from anywhere and Arnold may have even found them much earlier than the accident.

The clothing being changed could have either happened while they were out...or maybe it never happened,and he was just wearing something that nobody really noticed.

And people stating that they have "seen" someone is usually not a very reliable source of information.
People can conflate the details of of one more more situations or they even lie to bring attention to themselves.
W/O video or photographic evidence, eyewitness statements,IMHO,are usually worthless.

Bottom line:This was likely the case of people who got drunk,got into accident and died from exposure or drowning or both.
They then where found until much later after a less than thorough police search when they body of water that they were located in, thawed.

Again,not much of a "mystery" here.

My thoughts exactly.

My thoughts exactly.

Mine too.

Yeah I agree

I don't think its that simple here. If the police officer lied then it could have happened this way. He claims there was a complete search of this area and there is no way they could have been there.

Here's my sticking point, if it's so cold and frozen that the ice will support the weight of a vehilce that weighs over a ton then how does the ice not support the weight of the two people?? Also how do you explain the hair from Ruby being found months later on the road?

Also how do you explain the hair from Ruby being found months later on the road?


If she'd been in the vicinity all that time, animal foraging or just plain decomposition is an easy explanation for that. I don't remember if that was touched on in the segment or not; it's been a long while since I've seen it.

I think in other previous posts I have leaned to the other side of this, or at least been on the fence, but yeah, I have to admit that the more I think about this one, I agree it was likely just an accident. I think some details are perhaps not being divulged by the surviving member of the accident, and this in turn might be making the case seem more enigmatic, but either way it seems that their bodies were just likely missed during the search. As far as the ice being able to support a car and not two people, only thing I can say is that they were found some distance from the car. Maybe that area just was not as strong and they broke through.

does anyone know what happened to Arnold and Rubys daughter Erica? She would be 18 or so now.

I don't think its that simple here. If the police officer lied then it could have happened this way. He claims there was a complete search of this area and there is no way they could have been there.

Here's my sticking point, if it's so cold and frozen that the ice will support the weight of a vehilce that weighs over a ton then how does the ice not support the weight of the two people?? Also how do you explain the hair from Ruby being found months later on the road?


Let's see:

1) The police officer/deputy sheriff probably didn't lie. They probably did the best search that they could in subzero weather. W/O ground penetrating radar or IR equipment, it might be very easy to miss two bodies floating under thick ice.
It seem to have been easy.

2) Supporting the vehicle would have depended on the thickness of the ice, which wouldn't have been uniform across its breadth. Some spots (like the one where the car landed) may have been many inches to a foot or more thick. Other spots may have only been a fraction of an inch thick,especially near the banks.

In fact, IMO, they were very lucky (at least at first) that the car landed where it did. If it had landed on a portion of the ice that was thinner, they would have all drowned and there wouldn't have been a "mystery."

3) The hair can explained far more easily than the bodies. It's likely that snow/ice was on and around the road. The hair may simply been overlooked during the initial search. It wasn't a large amount of hair, so it being missed isn't (to me at least) an enigma.

If it's indeed Ruby's hair, then she may have made it out the pond and then went back for Arnold or her cousin. Or maybe it was tracked up to the road by one of the searchers.

Why is this case even considered a "mystery?"

1) Everybody involved was intoxicated.
2) In below freezing weather.
3) They were stunned after a car accident.
4) They were found in a nearby body of water after a thaw.
5) The police performed a less than thorough search in frigid weather.

The details about the unknown keys,the "changed clothing" and people "seeing" Arnold at a later time are all distractions.
The keys could have come from anywhere and Arnold may have even found them much earlier than the accident.

The clothing being changed could have either happened while they were out...or maybe it never happened,and he was just wearing something that nobody really noticed.

And people stating that they have "seen" someone is usually not a very reliable source of information.
People can conflate the details of of one more more situations or they even lie to bring attention to themselves.
W/O video or photographic evidence, eyewitness statements,IMHO,are usually worthless.

Bottom line:This was likely the case of people who got drunk,got into accident and died from exposure or drowning or both.
They then weren't found until much later after a less than thorough police search when the body of water that they were located in, thawed.

Again,not much of a "mystery" here.

I agree too.

I think in other previous posts I have leaned to the other side of this, or at least been on the fence, but yeah, I have to admit that the more I think about this one, I agree it was likely just an accident. I think some details are perhaps not being divulged by the surviving member of the accident, and this in turn might be making the case seem more enigmatic, but either way it seems that their bodies were just likely missed during the search. As far as the ice being able to support a car and not two people, only thing I can say is that they were found some distance from the car. Maybe that area just was not as strong and they broke through.

I agree.
The survivor was in an accident and was intoxicated at the time. That means, IMHO, her memories of the incident and its aftermath are probably not the most accurate,

Let's see:

1) The police officer/deputy sheriff probably didn't lie. They probably did the best search that they could in subzero weather. W/O ground penetrating radar or IR equipment, it might be very easy to miss two bodies floating under thick ice.
It seem to have been easy.

2) Supporting the vehicle would have depended on the thickness of the ice, which wouldn't have been uniform across its breadth. Some spots (like the one where the car landed) may have been many inches to a foot or more thick. Other spots may have only been a fraction of an inch thick,especially near the banks.

In fact, IMO, they were very lucky (at least at first) that the car landed where it did. If it had landed on a portion of the ice that was thinner, they would have all drowned and there wouldn't have been a "mystery."

3) The hair can explained far more easily than the bodies. It's likely that snow/ice was on and around the road. The hair may simply been overlooked during the initial search. It wasn't a large amount of hair, so it being missed isn't (to me at least) an enigma.

If it's indeed Ruby's hair, then she may have made it out the pond and then went back for Arnold or her cousin. Or maybe it was tracked up to the road by one of the searchers.

But how thick could the ice be if two large bodies had just went through it?? These people where fairly large. Would there not be some tell tale sign that that something had went through the ice in that spot?

The hair was found on the side of the road whereas the body of ruby was found in the frozen ditch. This was months later. There is no way it could have stayed there that long. The idea that one of the searchers tracked it up there is a possibilty I suppose.

I just don't get why the officer as well as ALL family members interviewed are convinced there was foul play involved here. Makes me wonder if they don't know for a fact that someone was out to get them or maybe they where tangled up in something that would have caused someone to want to get rid of them. Reservations are no immune to drug trafficking or other illegal activities.

But how thick could the ice be if two large bodies had just went through it?? These people where fairly large. Would there not be some tell tale sign that that something had went through the ice in that spot?

The hair was found on the side of the road whereas the body of ruby was found in the frozen ditch. This was months later. There is no way it could have stayed there that long. The idea that one of the searchers tracked it up there is a possibilty I suppose.

I just don't get why the officer as well as ALL family members interviewed are convinced there was foul play involved here. Makes me wonder if they don't know for a fact that someone was out to get them or maybe they where tangled up in something that would have caused someone to want to get rid of them. Reservations are no immune to drug trafficking or other illegal activities.

1) The thickness of the ice wouldn't be uniform. It would probably be thinner nearer the bank. Which is where the bodies were found,although they may have drifted there.
And no, there may not have been a "sign" that someone fell through the ice; in below freezing weather any breaks in the ice would freeze over again shortly after they were made.

2) Animals don't usually eat hair by itself, so unless it blown away by wind it's possible for it to have been in the area for an extended period.

3) I can't speak for either group as to "why" they think that this was a "murder" but here are two possibilities:

a) The families - They showed a scene in the segment where the family prevented the group from picking up their children due to the fact they had been drinking. I have to imagine there was (and is) a tremendous amount of guilt because no one took the keys away from the driver and stopped them from leaving.

Guilt makes it easy for people to do and believe things that may not be true just because those things may assuage that guilt.

b) The police - The officer shown during the segment seemed to have a lot invested in the quality of the search that was performed. It seems to have gone past what was needed for the segment and seemed to completely dismiss the most logical explanation:they missed the bodies during the search.

There are numerous cases where DNA has proven the innocence of a suspect and members of LE still consider their judgment to have been correct. Once they think they are correct, LE are very difficult people to convince that they are wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
Why is this case even considered a "mystery?"

1) Everybody involved was intoxicated.
2) In below freezing weather.
3) They were stunned after a car accident.
4) They were found in a nearby body of water after a thaw.
5) The police performed a less than thorough search in frigid weather.

The details about the unknown keys,the "changed clothing" and people "seeing" Arnold at a later time are all distractions.
The keys could have come from anywhere and Arnold may have even found them much earlier than the accident.

The clothing being changed could have either happened while they were out...or maybe it never happened,and he was just wearing something that nobody really noticed.

And people stating that they have "seen" someone is usually not a very reliable source of information.
People can conflate the details of of one more more situations or they even lie to bring attention to themselves.
W/O video or photographic evidence, eyewitness statements,IMHO,are usually worthless.

Bottom line:This was likely the case of people who got drunk,got into accident and died from exposure or drowning or both.
They then weren't found until much later after a less than thorough police search when the body of water that they were located in, thawed.

Again,not much of a "mystery" here.

I agree that there is not much of a mystery here, either. I have never been a fan of eyewitness testimony as people's memories can play tricks on them.

When I saw this episode I thought - drinking, late at night, questionable judgement and bitterly cold weather.....not good.

I don't understand why the family is so convinced of foul play. I don't know why ANYONE would be out looking for trouble in the middle of the night on a South Dakota winter night. Lifelong Minnesota gal here - stay inside where it is warm!!!

1) The thickness of the ice wouldn't be uniform. It would probably be thinner nearer the bank. Which is where the bodies were found,although they may have drifted there.
And no, there may not have been a "sign" that someone fell through the ice; in below freezing weather any breaks in the ice would freeze over again shortly after they were made.

2) Animals don't usually eat hair by itself, so unless it blown away by wind it's possible for it to have been in the area for an extended period.

3) I can't speak for either group as to "why" they think that this was a "murder" but here are two possibilities:

a) The families - They showed a scene in the segment where the family prevented the group from picking up their children due to the fact they had been drinking. I have to imagine there was (and is) a tremendous amount of guilt because no one took the keys away from the driver and stopped them from leaving.

Guilt makes it easy for people to do and believe things that may not be true just because those things may assuage that guilt.

b) The police - The officer shown during the segment seemed to have a lot invested in the quality of the search that was performed. It seems to have gone past what was needed for the segment and seemed to completely dismiss the most logical explanation:they missed the bodies during the search.

There are numerous cases where DNA has proven the innocence of a suspect and members of LE still consider their judgment to have been correct. Once they think they are correct, LE are very difficult people to convince that they are wrong.

Well Im curious as to how, if they fell through near the bank (which would be shallow) how did they drowned? Both these people where fairly tall and I cant figure out how they could drowned in a few feet of water. Consider these people had lived in this area their entire lives. They would have been well aware of the dangers of walking on a frozen over ditch. Its not like they where some out of towners who didnt realize they where walking on frozen water. Also consider that the ditch had to be pumped out before they found one of them. That would tell me they where in deeper water.

As far as the hair goes, there is no way you could take a handfull of hair and drop it on a road and have it still be there months later. Its light and would blow away. They did say that was Ruby's hair so like I said before your theory that it could have been tracked up there by one of the rescuers may make sense but I cant imagine it happening any other way unless foul play was involved.

I understand that we have people intoxicated who where just in a roll over accident and they have have been disoriented and wandered out into the water. That could be the end of it. I just think its worth looking into as the families and the police officer are convinced that something else was at work here. I understand why the officer may want to cover for himself as any of them would. He did state though that there was no way they could have been there and that makes me curious.

I agree that there is not much of a mystery here, either. I have never been a fan of eyewitness testimony as people's memories can play tricks on them.

When I saw this episode I thought - drinking, late at night, questionable judgement and bitterly cold weather.....not good.

I don't understand why the family is so convinced of foul play. I don't know why ANYONE would be out looking for trouble in the middle of the night on a South Dakota winter night. Lifelong Minnesota gal here - stay inside where it is warm!!!

Ya I dont buy into the sightings of Arnold at all. I have watched enough UM to know that many times there are multiple sightings of people that turn out to have been dead all along.

Ya I dont buy into the sightings of Arnold at all. I have watched enough UM to know that many times there are multiple sightings of people that turn out to have been dead all along.

Yeah I just found those sightings so unbelievable. It was clearly an oversight by the police missing his body in the ditch.

I agree that there is not much of a mystery here, either. I have never been a fan of eyewitness testimony as people's memories can play tricks on them.

When I saw this episode I thought - drinking, late at night, questionable judgement and bitterly cold weather.....not good.

I don't understand why the family is so convinced of foul play. I don't know why ANYONE would be out looking for trouble in the middle of the night on a South Dakota winter night. Lifelong Minnesota gal here - stay inside where it is warm!!!

While it is puzzling that Ruby thought she saw them open the door and leave the car without her I really can't buy it. She was drunk. How many times do we imagine things when we are drunk? How many things do people not even remember happening because of being plastered and everything is blacked out? I imagine things in the middle of the night when I am half awake WITHOUT alcohol. I can never be sure it actually happened (ie: did my wife get up and go to the bathroom in the middle of the night?)

It was poor judgement by them and it was an oversight by the cops. Nobody will admit either of these and it really makes little sense otherwise. Someone mentioned who in their right mind would be on the prowl for a murder in the freezing cold? Not me, and I am from Canada.

While it is puzzling that Ruby thought she saw them open the door and leave the car without her I really can't buy it. She was drunk. How many times do we imagine things when we are drunk? How many things do people not even remember happening because of being plastered and everything is blacked out? I imagine things in the middle of the night when I am half awake WITHOUT alcohol. I can never be sure it actually happened (ie: did my wife get up and go to the bathroom in the middle of the night?)

It was poor judgement by them and it was an oversight by the cops. Nobody will admit either of these and it really makes little sense otherwise. Someone mentioned who in their right mind would be on the prowl for a murder in the freezing cold? Not me, and I am from Canada.

Well Im not saying that anyone was simply out on the prowl looking to kill someone in the freezing cold. However they could have been getting chased by someone. The cousin could be keeping her mouth shut about what happened out of fear of the same happening to her. This would explain her odd recolection of events and why she doesnt seem to know anything.

The investigating officer flat out says that there is no way possible they could have been there all along. He goes so far as to state that Ruby's hair had to have been left on the road when her body was brought back and dumped. Both Ruby's father and Arnolds aunt said they knew foul play was involved. The cousin's father that didnt stop them from driving drunk is never interviewed so we dont know what he thinks. Now when these relatives claim these kids where killed we have to wonder why? If this is some peacefull indian reservation where violence is rare, why would they be so convinced that someone murdered these kids?

I also find it odd that Ruby's shoes where missing as well as her glasses. If these items where never found I would think that would show that she possibly died somewhere else. Surely she wasnt going around barefoot in the freezing cold.

In the segment it is stated that they where at the cousin's place at 6 am. So the accident was shortly after that. In the re-enactment we see a motorist stopping to help before daylight. Which seems to indicate they couldnt have been there very long before help arrived. It is also stated that police where searching for them at daybreak which again indicates the search was no long after they went missing. I would think that if there where weak spots in the ice for these to large people to go through that there would be some indication that the ice had been distured. Especially when you consider they where found 75 ft from the accident site.

Well Im not saying that anyone was simply out on the prowl looking to kill someone in the freezing cold. However they could have been getting chased by someone. The cousin could be keeping her mouth shut about what happened out of fear of the same happening to her. This would explain her odd recolection of events and why she doesnt seem to know anything.

The investigating officer flat out says that there is no way possible they could have been there all along. He goes so far as to state that Ruby's hair had to have been left on the road when her body was brought back and dumped. Both Ruby's father and Arnolds aunt said they knew foul play was involved. The cousin's father that didnt stop them from driving drunk is never interviewed so we dont know what he thinks. Now when these relatives claim these kids where killed we have to wonder why? If this is some peacefull indian reservation where violence is rare, why would they be so convinced that someone murdered these kids?

I also find it odd that Ruby's shoes where missing as well as her glasses. If these items where never found I would think that would show that she possibly died somewhere else. Surely she wasnt going around barefoot in the freezing cold.

In the segment it is stated that they where at the cousin's place at 6 am. So the accident was shortly after that. In the re-enactment we see a motorist stopping to help before daylight. Which seems to indicate they couldnt have been there very long before help arrived. It is also stated that police where searching for them at daybreak which again indicates the search was no long after they went missing. I would think that if there where weak spots in the ice for these to large people to go through that there would be some indication that the ice had been distured. Especially when you consider they where found 75 ft from the accident site.


Hmm...

1) It's possible that they were chased or attacked by someone. But if that was the case, why not kill all three of them? It was more than a few minutes before somebody came along and rescued the survivor. That left ample time to take care of all the witnesses to a crime.

Her "recollections" can easily be explained by the fact that she'd been drinking and that she was injured in a car accident. Her memories of the incident would have had to been affected by those two incidents. In fact, I'm actually surprised that she remembered what happened just before and after the accident, as most people do not.

2) The investigating officer is almost certainly wrong. The evidence doesn't lend itself to the bodies being anywhere but in the pond where they were found after the accident. If it did, then I'm certain that the officer could have pressed to have the investigation reopened. But since this hasn't occurred,it's obvious that even he believed at some point that this wasn't really a "mystery."

I think that you may want to re-watch the segment. Unless they used an actor, the person that talked w/ them about not picking up the children after they were drinking was the same person that they interviewed for the segment. The guilt of them not doing more to prevent this from occurring may be overwhelming and that may be the reason they believe that foul play is involved.

3) Actually the glasses and the shoes are explained quite easily. The glasses came off during or after the accident and were lost in the pond (perhaps when the car was towed). Her shoes would have come off when her body decomposed after the thaw. Not knowing what type of shoes they were, it's hard to say how difficult that would have been.


4) You probably don't live in an area where water freezes over in the winter. When you break through ice in below freezing weather, the ice slowly begins to refreeze. Any openings will freeze over shortly after they are made and within an hour there will not be a hole where one may have existed before.

Also, it takes several hours or longer to start a search and even then, in such a rural area and in well below freezing weather any initial search is probably going to be half-hearted at best.In fact, I'd be surprised if it wasn't until the next day that they seriously began searching for the two.

The fact that they were more than a few feet from the accident can be explained by where Arnold landed after the accident and where Ruby fell through the ice. The bodies almost certainly floated and drifted under the ice, especially during the thaw.


Let's say that this wasn't the accident that it appears to be. Why would a killer:

a) Remove two victims from a car accident that he/she didn't know was going to happen?
b) Leave a potential witness alive?
c) Hide the victims in a manner that wouldn't cause them to found if alive and would prevent decomposition if they were not.
d) Return the bodies to a location near where they would be found if they were the victims of an accident?

If they had found Mr. Archambeau and Ms. Bruguier on the ground around the pond or a significant distance from the pond, this might seem more suspicious. However, they found them in the area where the accident occurred.

That tells me that they were there all of the time and simply overlooked during a less than thorough search of the area.

I agree that this really isn't a mystery. Everyone in the car was intoxicated, so the survivor's testimony of what happened can be challenged based on that fact alone. People do some very strange things when their drunk, this could account for Ruby's shoes being off of her (or maybe she was suffering from hypothermia). As for Arnold having someone elses keys, couldn't this have been a mistake made by a drunk man who thought he was picking up his keys, when they were someone elses? They may have been at a party and he inadvertently picked up the wrong keys. Why would a unknown killer spare Arnold's cousin, and kill both Arnold and Ruby without the cousin hearing or seeing anything? I don't really buy the foul play angle at all.

I've expressed the opinion many times before in other threads that there is no mystery here, but I reiterate it again.

I too am on the side that there is no mystery here. Their bodies were there all along. The cops, for whatever reason, didn't see them.

Hmm...

1) It's possible that they were chased or attacked by someone. But if that was the case, why not kill all three of them? It was more than a few minutes before somebody came along and rescued the survivor. That left ample time to take care of all the witnesses to a crime.

Her "recollections" can easily be explained by the fact that she'd been drinking and that she was injured in a car accident. Her memories of the incident would have had to been affected by those two incidents. In fact, I'm actually surprised that she remembered what happened just before and after the accident, as most people do not.

2) The investigating officer is almost certainly wrong. The evidence doesn't lend itself to the bodies being anywhere but in the pond where they were found after the accident. If it did, then I'm certain that the officer could have pressed to have the investigation reopened. But since this hasn't occurred,it's obvious that even he believed at some point that this wasn't really a "mystery."

I think that you may want to re-watch the segment. Unless they used an actor, the person that talked w/ them about not picking up the children after they were drinking was the same person that they interviewed for the segment. The guilt of them not doing more to prevent this from occurring may be overwhelming and that may be the reason they believe that foul play is involved.

3) Actually the glasses and the shoes are explained quite easily. The glasses came off during or after the accident and were lost in the pond (perhaps when the car was towed). Her shoes would have come off when her body decomposed after the thaw. Not knowing what type of shoes they were, it's hard to say how difficult that would have been.


4) You probably don't live in an area where water freezes over in the winter. When you break through ice in below freezing weather, the ice slowly begins to refreeze. Any openings will freeze over shortly after they are made and within an hour there will not be a hole where one may have existed before.

Also, it takes several hours or longer to start a search and even then, in such a rural area and in well below freezing weather any initial search is probably going to be half-hearted at best.In fact, I'd be surprised if it wasn't until the next day that they seriously began searching for the two.

The fact that they were more than a few feet from the accident can be explained by where Arnold landed after the accident and where Ruby fell through the ice. The bodies almost certainly floated and drifted under the ice, especially during the thaw.


Let's say that this wasn't the accident that it appears to be. Why would a killer:

a) Remove two victims from a car accident that he/she didn't know was going to happen?
b) Leave a potential witness alive?
c) Hide the victims in a manner that wouldn't cause them to found if alive and would prevent decomposition if they were not.
d) Return the bodies to a location near where they would be found if they were the victims of an accident?

If they had found Mr. Archambeau and Ms. Bruguier on the ground around the pond or a significant distance from the pond, this might seem more suspicious. However, they found them in the area where the accident occurred.

That tells me that they were there all of the time and simply overlooked during a less than thorough search of the area.

Ok I did watch the segment again and the guy that had their daughter was Tracy's father. They never interviewed him in the segment that I watched. They only interviewed Tracy, Arnold's Aunt and Ruby's father.

As for why someone didnt off all three of them? Well if this is what happened then it could be that they didnt know she was in the car. The other two bailed out and ran so whoever was after them may have given chase and never thought to go back to the car and look for someone else. Could this possibly explain why theY seemed to be running away from the road instead of up to it?? I mean I don't care how messed up you are you would surely know how to get up to the road and go for help or walk back home. Instead they both run into a frozen ditch?

Id really like to know how deep that water was. They call it a frozen ditch which implies to me its not a very deep body of water. In the re-enactment its shown the Ruby's body is just laying out basically in a very shallow pool of water. Again this indicates the water wasn't that deep to begin with. So if the water isnt that deep then how could they drowned in it and how could the searchers not see them when if they where just 75 ft from the crash site?

Ok I did watch the segment again and the guy that had their daughter was Tracy's father. They never interviewed him in the segment that I watched. They only interviewed Tracy, Arnold's Aunt and Ruby's father.

As for why someone didnt off all three of them? Well if this is what happened then it could be that they didnt know she was in the car. The other two bailed out and ran so whoever was after them may have given chase and never thought to go back to the car and look for someone else. Could this possibly explain why theY seemed to be running away from the road instead of up to it?? I mean I don't care how messed up you are you would surely know how to get up to the road and go for help or walk back home. Instead they both run into a frozen ditch?

Id really like to know how deep that water was. They call it a frozen ditch which implies to me its not a very deep body of water. In the re-enactment its shown the Ruby's body is just laying out basically in a very shallow pool of water. Again this indicates the water wasn't that deep to begin with. So if the water isnt that deep then how could they drowned in it and how could the searchers not see them when if they where just 75 ft from the crash site?

I thought the police officer in the segment said the water they was found in was not that deep. I could be wrong on that though. I still do not believe that this is a simple case of 2 people intoxicated falling through ice & drowning. I believe there is more to this case then we know & I think the cousin knows more then she told in the segment. Her story IMO just does not add up.

I thought the police officer in the segment said the water they was found in was not that deep. I could be wrong on that though. I still do not believe that this is a simple case of 2 people intoxicated falling through ice & drowning. I believe there is more to this case then we know & I think the cousin knows more then she told in the segment. Her story IMO just does not add up.

There is alot here that doesn't add up to me. I realize on the surface it looks like one of these that is no mystery but I think if we had more info such as, the depth of the water in the ditch then maybe opinions might change. I do agree it would be very odd for someone to take both bodies and keep them somewhere for a few months and then bring them back.

Here's a few reasons I don't see this as an open and shut case

> First why didnt these people go up to the road instead of running along a frozen ditch? They had lived there since birth and Im sure where well aware of the dangers. From what I got from the segment It didnt seem the accident happened very far from where they lived. Could have just walked home.

> The cousin seems to have such clear recolection of events but when it comes to why they left her she is clueless. If they went in the ice just 75 feet from here did she not hear any screams? Did she not hear the ice breaking and these large people going through? Apparantly not.

>Ruby's hair being found on the side of the road months after she is suppose to have fallen through the ice and died. I can't possibly imagine what could make her hair come out or how it would get up to the road let alone how it sat there that long. The officer flat out states that it had to have happened when her body was brought back. That is a pretty bold statement by a police officer. Normally police seem to want to go with the easiest explanation so they don't have to put much work into a case. The opposite seems true here.

> Both of the family members interviewed seem convinced they where murdered. Why do they think this? Do they know something we don't? Would they not have talked to the cousin that survived? Would she not have convinced them that this was a simple accident? Notice in the segment the cousin never says one way or the other as to her beilef that foul play was involved or not and she was the only witness.

>The accident itself. Again we only have to cousin's word to go on but according to her they where at a dead stop then next thing she knows they are upside down in a ditch. Something made Arnold drive in an unsafe manner in order for that car to end up in the ditch. The question is was he being chased or was he just driving like an idiot for no reason?

> The investigating officers statements. The officer states that it was impossible for their bodies to have been there all along. I realize that he may be trying to cover his ass for not conducting a complete search of the area but we still have to take into account what he is saying. He was there, he knows the depth of the ditch, he would probably know better then any of us as to whether they could have been there all along or not. If I was him I wouldn't be too worried about getting heat from the community for not finding them right off. If anyone should take blame here it is Tracy's father who made no effort to stop three teenagers from driving around drunk when he had the chance.

I dont beileve that the bodies in different states of decomposition, the keys or the sightings of Arnold tell us anything at all. I realize that what I noted above does not prove foul play was involved. Im only saying I don't think this is just a simple open and shut case.

There is alot here that doesn't add up to me. I realize on the surface it looks like one of these that is no mystery but I think if we had more info such as, the depth of the water in the ditch then maybe opinions might change. I do agree it would be very odd for someone to take both bodies and keep them somewhere for a few months and then bring them back.

Here's a few reasons I don't see this as an open and shut case

> First why didnt these people go up to the road instead of running along a frozen ditch? They had lived there since birth and Im sure where well aware of the dangers. From what I got from the segment It didnt seem the accident happened very far from where they lived. Could have just walked home.

> The cousin seems to have such clear recolection of events but when it comes to why they left her she is clueless. If they went in the ice just 75 feet from here did she not hear any screams? Did she not hear the ice breaking and these large people going through? Apparantly not.

>Ruby's hair being found on the side of the road months after she is suppose to have fallen through the ice and died. I can't possibly imagine what could make her hair come out or how it would get up to the road let alone how it sat there that long. The officer flat out states that it had to have happened when her body was brought back. That is a pretty bold statement by a police officer. Normally police seem to want to go with the easiest explanation so they don't have to put much work into a case. The opposite seems true here.

> Both of the family members interviewed seem convinced they where murdered. Why do they think this? Do they know something we don't? Would they not have talked to the cousin that survived? Would she not have convinced them that this was a simple accident? Notice in the segment the cousin never says one way or the other as to her beilef that foul play was involved or not and she was the only witness.

>The accident itself. Again we only have to cousin's word to go on but according to her they where at a dead stop then next thing she knows they are upside down in a ditch. Something made Arnold drive in an unsafe manner in order for that car to end up in the ditch. The question is was he being chased or was he just driving like an idiot for no reason?

> The investigating officers statements. The officer states that it was impossible for their bodies to have been there all along. I realize that he may be trying to cover his ass for not conducting a complete search of the area but we still have to take into account what he is saying. He was there, he knows the depth of the ditch, he would probably know better then any of us as to whether they could have been there all along or not. If I was him I wouldn't be too worried about getting heat from the community for not finding them right off. If anyone should take blame here it is Tracy's father who made no effort to stop three teenagers from driving around drunk when he had the chance.

I dont beileve that the bodies in different states of decomposition, the keys or the sightings of Arnold tell us anything at all. I realize that what I noted above does not prove foul play was involved. Im only saying I don't think this is just a simple open and shut case.

Hmm...let's see

1) The driver (Arnold) was intoxicated, making any decisions he would have made, flawed. Also, it was cold enough for water to freeze over to a depth that could support the weight of a car. I doubt that most people would walk miles in weather that cold unless they HAD to.

2) The cousin's recollections have to tempered by the fact that she was intoxicated, injured from the accident and was probably "helped" to "remember" by people wanting answers after the accident.i can see where it would easy to conflate several memories or even create new "memories" based on what happened.

3) Did they DNA test the hair (or blood found in it) to determine that is was Ruby's? Also, there's always the fact that it could have been tracked back up to the road by a searcher.

4) The family may simply be repeating what they were told by LE or may simply want answers that haven't been forthcoming.

5) The cousin's account is explainable by her intoxication and her injuries. Does anybody know if it makes the police report of the accident scene?

6) Not knowing the officer and his motivations, it's hard to say that he was incorrect. But when you are faced w/ the logistics involved in remove two people from the scene of an accident, doing something w/ them for an extended period of time and then returning their bodies to the exact area where they disappeared months earlier, you really have to consider the logical alternatives first.

The most logical was/is that the bodies were there (under the ice) and were overlooked during the search. Anything else requires scenarios that aren't consistent w/ how the segment was presented.

Blaming the family member for not stopping them from driving does no one any good. I don't see much point in doing it.

Hmm...let's see

1) The driver (Arnold) was intoxicated, making any decisions he would have made, flawed. Also, it was cold enough for water to freeze over to a depth that could support the weight of a car. I doubt that most people would walk miles in weather that cold unless they HAD to.

2) The cousin's recollections have to tempered by the fact that she was intoxicated, injured from the accident and was probably "helped" to "remember" by people wanting answers after the accident.i can see where it would easy to conflate several memories or even create new "memories" based on what happened.

3) Did they DNA test the hair (or blood found in it) to determine that is was Ruby's? Also, there's always the fact that it could have been tracked back up to the road by a searcher.

4) The family may simply be repeating what they were told by LE or may simply want answers that haven't been forthcoming.

5) The cousin's account is explainable by her intoxication and her injuries. Does anybody know if it makes the police report of the accident scene?

6) Not knowing the officer and his motivations, it's hard to say that he was incorrect. But when you are faced w/ the logistics involved in remove two people from the scene of an accident, doing something w/ them for an extended period of time and then returning their bodies to the exact area where they disappeared months earlier, you really have to consider the logical alternatives first.

The most logical was/is that the bodies were there (under the ice) and were overlooked during the search. Anything else requires scenarios that aren't consistent w/ how the segment was presented.

Blaming the family member for not stopping them from driving does no one any good. I don't see much point in doing it.

All good points.

Wouldn't you agree though that the situation would warrant that they "had to" walk some distance to get home? I mean if its between that and dying in a frozen ditch Im gonna walk home everytime.

On the subject of Ruby's hair. The officer simply states that forensics said it was hers. I don't know anything beyond that.

I also wasnt blaming the family member. I was just saying if I was the officer I wouldnt be worried about taking heat from the family when they made no effort to stop these kids from driving around drunk. The only reason I can see the officer lying about his belief in foul play would be so they didnt think that a proper search wasnt done.

The cousin may have been "helped" to "remember" but there again we must speculate as we have no knowledge of that.

The family may also be repeating what they where told by LE but once again that calls on us to speculate to that. We simply don't know

All good points.

Wouldn't you agree though that the situation would warrant that they "had to" walk some distance to get home? I mean if its between that and dying in a frozen ditch Im gonna walk home everytime.

On the subject of Ruby's hair. The officer simply states that forensics said it was hers. I don't know anything beyond that.

I also wasnt blaming the family member. I was just saying if I was the officer I wouldnt be worried about taking heat from the family when they made no effort to stop these kids from driving around drunk. The only reason I can see the officer lying about his belief in foul play would be so they didnt think that a proper search wasnt done.

The cousin may have been "helped" to "remember" but there again we must speculate as we have no knowledge of that.

The family may also be repeating what they where told by LE but once again that calls on us to speculate to that. We simply don't know

1) I agree. I would much rather walk home than stand around in below freezing weather waiting for someone to come along.

2) I'm not sure if the officer was lying or was unsure how to respond to a situation that potentially reflects poorly on him and his department.

3) I just thought about this: The most simple ways to tell how long Arnold and Ruby were in the ditch would be to see if they had injuries consistent w/ being in a vehicle accident and checking their stomach contents.If they had gone anywhere other than the pond where they were found, they would have likely had to seek medical treatment and almost certainly would have had to eaten within a few days or so.

If they had accident injuries and their stomach contents either matched what they last were reported to have eaten, then they were probably the victims of the accident.

1) I agree. I would much rather walk home than stand around in below freezing weather waiting for someone to come along.

2) I'm not sure if the officer was lying or was unsure how to respond to a situation that potentially reflects poorly on him and his department.

3) I just thought about this: The most simple ways to tell how long Arnold and Ruby were in the ditch would be to see if they had injuries consistent w/ being in a vehicle accident and checking their stomach contents.If they had gone anywhere other than the pond where they were found, they would have likely had to seek medical treatment and almost certainly would have had to eaten within a few days or so.

If they had accident injuries and their stomach contents either matched what they last were reported to have eaten, then they were probably the victims of the accident.

Well kind of on that note I thought about the cause of death given by the coroner. It was listed as death by exposure and not drowning. The officer states that they froze to death but they couldn't have froze to death at that spot. That makes sense because even in the bitter cold they couldnt have just been sitting there freezing to death in front of all the people looking for them. I could see "death by exposure" if they where wandering around lost in the wilderness but they where 75 ft away from the crash and people where on the scene not long after it happened.

Well kind of on that note I thought about the cause of death given by the coroner. It was listed as death by exposure and not drowning. The officer states that they froze to death but they couldn't have froze to death at that spot. That makes sense because even in the bitter cold they couldnt have just been sitting there freezing to death in front of all the people looking for them. I could see "death by exposure" if they where wandering around lost in the wilderness but they where 75 ft away from the crash and people where on the scene not long after it happened.

There are just too many variables in this case. I would have to believe that the coroner was correct about the cause of death he determined. However, I wonder if exposure came from their clothes being wet and the levels of alcohol in their bodies in addition to prolonged exposure to frigid temperatures.

Also, you have to wonder how soon the search for them really started. I'd have no problems w/ believing that a serious search didn't get underway for several hours after the accident and I also wouldn't be surprised that a more "thorough" search wasn't conducted until the next day given the frigid weather and the uncertainty about what happened.

Finally, I've never been certain what the police and the family are claiming. Are they claiming that at least Arnold was alive, left scene and then returned and died? Are they claiming that both Arnold and Ruby were taken away and then returned dead? And, if so, by whom and for what purpose?

Or are they claiming that this was a two vehicle accident and that the driver and/or passengers in the other vehicle (which,BTW would have been damaged in the accident and left traces of that damage on the scene) did something to Arnold and Ruby? And not the third passenger in the car?

I think is an example of a clear cut case but with a twist. The autopsy reports say that both Arnold and Ruby died of exposure. That eliminates them from being murdered. Who kills someone by exposure??

The twist is that their bodies were found in the same place they disappeared some time later. Even if the police did screw up and not investigate that area thoroughly, I have to assume the family and maybe some friends did their own snooping around int hat area and came up with nothing. Therefore, how the hell did their bodies show up there after it had already been searched. Add in that the detective said that the water in which their bodies were found was not deep and that makes it even more weird.

There was a case of a woman in Illinois who was found deceased yesterday. She and her husband went to a Christmas party a few weeks ago. He drove them home drunk and hit a tree. The husband died in the crash, but the wife walked away (there were footprints in the snow leading to the road) but never turned up. There was a massive search for her. She was wearing a red evening gown, so you'd think it would be easy to find her even in the snow. The were unable to find her until the snow thawed this past weekend and she was found near the crash site. It just made me think of Arnold and Ruby. Even with a thorough search, in winter it has to be very very difficult.

There was a case of a woman in Illinois who was found deceased yesterday. She and her husband went to a Christmas party a few weeks ago. He drove them home drunk and hit a tree. The husband died in the crash, but the wife walked away (there were footprints in the snow leading to the road) but never turned up. There was a massive search for her. She was wearing a red evening gown, so you'd think it would be easy to find her even in the snow. The were unable to find her until the snow thawed this past weekend and she was found near the crash site. It just made me think of Arnold and Ruby. Even with a thorough search, in winter it has to be very very difficult.

Actually the husband was NOT drunk; he was the designated driver. Everything else that you stated is correct.

I think is an example of a clear cut case but with a twist. The autopsy reports say that both Arnold and Ruby died of exposure. That eliminates them from being murdered. Who kills someone by exposure??

The twist is that their bodies were found in the same place they disappeared some time later. Even if the police did screw up and not investigate that area thoroughly, I have to assume the family and maybe some friends did their own snooping around int hat area and came up with nothing. Therefore, how the hell did their bodies show up there after it had already been searched. Add in that the detective said that the water in which their bodies were found was not deep and that makes it even more weird.
You say that you think the family and friends did their own snoping. Well its the family and the lead investigator that are convinced they where murdered.

You say that you think the family and friends did their own snoping. Well its the family and the lead investigator that are convinced they where murdered.

I know and that's what puzzles me. Why are they so convinced of murder when the bodies showed no signs of murder? No gunshots, stab wounds, strangulation marks. At least, none were mentioned in the segment and if there were signs of murder, I have to think it would have been mentioned.

I know and that's what puzzles me. Why are they so convinced of murder when the bodies showed no signs of murder? No gunshots, stab wounds, strangulation marks. At least, none were mentioned in the segment and if there were signs of murder, I have to think it would have been mentioned.

And they never presented a clear cut motive anyone would have in killing Arnold and Ruby.

Actually the husband was NOT drunk; he was the designated driver. Everything else that you stated is correct.
Unfortunately, I am correct about the husband being drunk (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-shannon-search-0104-20110103,0,1232395.story):
The car had spun out, hit a telephone pole and veered about 20 feet off the road. Dale Shannon died of a broken neck. His blood-alcohol content was 0.266, more than three times the legal threshold for drunken driving, according to the LaSalle County coroner's office.

Unfortunately, I am correct about the husband being drunk (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-shannon-search-0104-20110103,0,1232395.story):

I stand corrected. I was reading an earlier statement from a family member that said the husband was the designated driver.
When I'm wrong, I have no problems w/ admitting it.

And they never presented a clear cut motive anyone would have in killing Arnold and Ruby.
Well like I have said many times here, there are illegal activities that go on with Indian reservations like meth manufacturing and drug trafficking. If there was more behind this then these people are not going to get on national tv and talk about it. They have to live with the people they may feel where behind this.

Well like I have said many times here, there are illegal activities that go on with Indian reservations like meth manufacturing and drug trafficking.

Oh, so like...everything that goes on outside reservations? :lol:

Well like I have said many times here, there are illegal activities that go on with Indian reservations like meth manufacturing and drug trafficking. If there was more behind this then these people are not going to get on national tv and talk about it. They have to live with the people they may feel where behind this.

There's drug trafficking in every area in the US, not just reservations. Why would criminals use an intentional car accident (if this is what this was) as a method of execution?There are far better methods that ensure that there are no witnesses left to testify what happened.

There's drug trafficking in every area in the US, not just reservations. Why would criminals use an intentional car accident (if this is what this was) as a method of execution?
There are far better methods that ensure that there are no witnesses left to testify what happened.

Exactly. If someone were trying to run them off the road they almost certainly would have checked the cab of the car for other witnesses. The fact that Arnold's cousin was still alive tells me this was not the case.

And they never presented a clear cut motive anyone would have in killing Arnold and Ruby.


This may be a case of a family who will not accept an accidental death and is dead set on murder being the only motive. Plus, and I don't want this to sound harsh, the parents knew Arnold was drunk and did not attempt to stop him from driving that night. They may feel guilty for that as well.

Oh, so like...everything that goes on outside reservations? :lol:
Yes exactly but its more confined to a small community

There's drug trafficking in every area in the US, not just reservations. Why would criminals use an intentional car accident (if this is what this was) as a method of execution?There are far better methods that ensure that there are no witnesses left to testify what happened.
Good question, I really don't know the answer. Only entertaining possiblities. Like I said it could be that they where being chased and crashed. Then someone took advantage of the situation and didnt realize the other witness was in the car.

Good question, I really don't know the answer. Only entertaining possiblities. Like I said it could be that they where being chased and crashed. Then someone took advantage of the situation and didnt realize the other witness was in the car.

But if someone were truly chasing them trying to silence them for whatever reason, they would want to check to car to see if there were any other potential witnesses/survivors.

Good question, I really don't know the answer. Only entertaining possiblities. Like I said it could be that they where being chased and crashed. Then someone took advantage of the situation and didnt realize the other witness was in the car.

Plus if they were being chased, wouldn't the survivor of the crash have said something about that by now?

Plus if they were being chased, wouldn't the survivor of the crash have said something about that by now?
I have covered this before. If foul play was involved then I doubt the cousin is going to set her self up to be next. If someone got away with killing them I highly doubt she is going to risk her own life by talking. Maybe thats why she seems to have such a clear recolection of events until they exit the vehicle at which point she seems to know nothing.

But if someone were truly chasing them trying to silence them for whatever reason, they would want to check to car to see if there were any other potential witnesses/survivors.
This happened on a public road. Obviously its not a desolate road because someone came along to help not long after it happened. If someone was chasing down Arnold and Ruby then maybe they wanted to get out of there quick before someone else came along.

Just watched the segment for the hundredth time... there isn't a doubt in my mind that fowl play was involved. I truly believe they died that night following the crash.

If they were murdered, then why? What is the reason? It's bizarre how they were found in different stages of decomposition. Arnold was found deeper in the water than Ruby was. Why was her body only found in shallow water and his wasn't? Something also tells me that someone held onto their bodies until they were dumped in the ditch because police searched that area thoroughly before their bodies were found. I have a feeling that someone might've used Ruby for necrophilia after she died and before her body was dumped, but that's just my opinion.

If they were murdered, then why? What is the reason? It's bizarre how they were found in different stages of decomposition. Arnold was found deeper in the water than Ruby was. Why was her body only found in shallow water and his wasn't? Something also tells me that someone held onto their bodies until they were dumped in the ditch because police searched that area thoroughly before their bodies were found. I have a feeling that someone might've used Ruby for necrophilia after she died and before her body was dumped, but that's just my opinion.

If they were murdered, this would mean that several people would have had to have been involved in their deaths. Arnold was a big guy, so one person alone would not have been able to haul his body away from the pond to then bring it back to the exact location of the accident and dump it for some unknown reason. It would have been difficult for two people. Same with Ruby. It would have been extremely difficult for one person to move bodies back and forth for some nefarious purpose. So that begs the question, how many people were involved? Why would more than one person want Arnold and Ruby dead? And why would several people be hauling Arnold and Ruby's bodies around all the while leaving the one surviving witness alive and well in the car? It just doesn't make any sense. I'll have to use Occam's Razor on this one. There was an accident involving drunk occupants, so any decision Arnold and/or Ruby made would have been impaired by alcohol. I think it's as simple as an accident that resulted in Arnold and Ruby walking away from the crash site, probably in a drunken disorderly state, and they died shortly after near the crash site. Their bodies were simply missed initially by investigators.

When I watched this segment as a kid, I thought it was quite the mystery. Now, I definitely think that it was an accident. It's telling that even after they found Ruby's body, they still could not see Arnold's body with the naked eye - they had to drain the ditch, and then they found him! Does this not suggest that his body was, in fact, difficult to see? It stands to reason that Ruby's body would have been similarly difficult to see before the ice thawed to the extent that it had when she was found.

It's also interesting that the coroner found the cause of death to be exposure. This fits the accident scenario like a glove. As other posters have asked, who kills people by exposure? Even if someone did kill them in this way, the coincidental timing is literally unbelievable.

When I watched this segment as a kid, I thought it was quite the mystery. Now, I definitely think that it was an accident. It's telling that even after they found Ruby's body, they still could not see Arnold's body with the naked eye - they had to drain the ditch, and then they found him! Does this not suggest that his body was, in fact, difficult to see? It stands to reason that Ruby's body would have been similarly difficult to see before the ice thawed to the extent that it had when she was found.

It's also interesting that the coroner found the cause of death to be exposure. This fits the accident scenario like a glove. As other posters have asked, who kills people by exposure? Even if someone did kill them in this way, the coincidental timing is literally unbelievable.

I entirely agree with everything you've mentioned in your post. As has been stated at the beginning of this thread, the differing stages of decomposition can easily be explained as well for the very reasons you mentioned--the two were in different points in the water, especially when the spring thaw came.

Earlier in this thread was a post by someone who seemed to either live in the area or had people close to the investigation. He or she stated the two were found in something like ten inches of water. That's enough to slow decomposition--the cold weather itself is enough to slow it considerably (and the Dakotas are COLD in winter). Tissue breaks down more slowly. There's little to no insect activity. The body itself will freeze.

As absolutely tragic as the accident was, this never seemed like much of a mystery to me. They were driving drunk, there was a wreck, they wandered out into a freezing winter night, and were found dead from exposure. That's the simplest explanation, and IMO the most likely.

I think the biggest mystery is why they left their cousin sitting in the upsidedown car. Is it possible they fell through the ice right after Arnold got Ruby out and Tracey's yelling caused her not to hear? Or is it possible they were so intoxicated that they didn't even realize they were leaving her behind (and this I doubt because Ruby and Tracey were sitting together yelling for help according to Tracey). They were all close so what happened? Disorientation? It seems difficult to believe that they would willfully abandon her.

I think the biggest mystery is why they left their cousin sitting in the upsidedown car. Is it possible they fell through the ice right after Arnold got Ruby out and Tracey's yelling caused her not to hear? Or is it possible they were so intoxicated that they didn't even realize they were leaving her behind (and this I doubt because Ruby and Tracey were sitting together yelling for help according to Tracey). They were all close so what happened? Disorientation? It seems difficult to believe that they would willfully abandon her.

My assumption was always that they really were just that intoxicated, and no doubt incredibly frightened to boot. For whatever reason, when people are involved in vehicle accidents, they typically want out of that vehicle immediately. It's almost reflexive. I think that was simply the main priority for the two who could struggle out. Ruby managed to get out because the door nearest her was partially open; Arnold did not help her out, according to the segment. The door somehow shut on Tracy--it's not clear how it closed--and that's how she was trapped. I don't think they willfully abandoned Tracy; I think they were just acting on a flight response with inhibited, toxed brains.

My assumption was always that they really were just that intoxicated, and no doubt incredibly frightened to boot. For whatever reason, when people are involved in vehicle accidents, they typically want out of that vehicle immediately. It's almost reflexive. I think that was simply the main priority for the two who could struggle out. Ruby managed to get out because the door nearest her was partially open; Arnold did not help her out, according to the segment. The door somehow shut on Tracy--it's not clear how it closed--and that's how she was trapped. I don't think they willfully abandoned Tracy; I think they were just acting on a flight response with inhibited, toxed brains.
Sorry, I thought I remembered the segment saying Arnold had opened the door for Ruby but I must have forgotten. I totally agree that being in a scary accident like that getting out would be the main priority and they probably just were drunk enough to go off. It seems like they had a good relationship with Tracy and weren't being deliberate in running off without her. If they were the ones who closed the door, it was probably just reflex and out of fear. When one is afraid, they're not thinking that clearly.

I think this was just a very tragic accident and there were no murders committed. It was just unfortunate timing, body positions, and weather conditions that caused them not to be found and for one to be more decomposed than the other. How awful for them and their families. It's very lucky that Tracy was ok and probably- ironically- for the best that she was trapped in the car because that way she couldn't go running off with them to also fall through the ice.

Sorry, I thought I remembered the segment saying Arnold had opened the door for Ruby but I must have forgotten. I totally agree that being in a scary accident like that getting out would be the main priority and they probably just were drunk enough to go off. It seems like they had a good relationship with Tracy and weren't being deliberate in running off without her. If they were the ones who closed the door, it was probably just reflex and out of fear. When one is afraid, they're not thinking that clearly.

I think this was just a very tragic accident and there were no murders committed. It was just unfortunate timing, body positions, and weather conditions that caused them not to be found and for one to be more decomposed than the other. How awful for them and their families. It's very lucky that Tracy was ok and probably- ironically- for the best that she was trapped in the car because that way she couldn't go running off with them to also fall through the ice.

Yes, agreed in full.

I definitely agree with anyone who says that on first glance, this seems like one of the baffling mind-blowing mysteries UM has ever presented. I used to feel the exact same way, but the mysterious elements do start to fall apart once you analyze this case thoroughly. I actually saw a thread about this case on Websleuths and one poster from South Dakota probably said it best when they wrote: "It's obvious that none of the producers of 'Unsolved Mysteries' ever experienced a winter in South Dakota". Hell, the Bizarre Murders DVD set actually has a commentary track from the director of this segment who still goes on about what a baffling mystery this is, but it seems that anyone who's actually lived in South Dakota doesn't find too surprising that two bodies could freeze over that quickly and remain undiscovered for several months.

I guess the key difference between this and a lot of other suspicious death cases on UM is that this time, it's the POLICE who actually push the foul play theory harder than anyone! Usually, LE are the ones writing off mysterious deaths as accidents or suicides while the family is pushing murder, but the sheriff interviewed here seemed very passionate about solving this case (or, more likely, covering his own ass because he kept missing the bodies all winter).

Wow, first time commenting on this case. There is no mystery here, it was an accidental death. The tuft of hair thing is meaningless. it proves nothing. It reminds me of the church bulletin in the Aeileen Conway segment and how some were certain that it must have been on her car! How would anyone know that? Wind blows things everywhere all the time. They're just meaningless nuggets of info.

I don't know exactly how much they had to drink, but the father says "you been drinking pretty hard!" It's clear to me that all of them were pretty heavily intoxicated and as such, were not making sound judgments. Furthermore, Stack says they had gone out on an "all-night party spree" so it can be rationally assumed that everyone had more than a few drinks.

It's important to listen to what Tracy Dion herself says what happened shortly before the accident: She says "there ain't no cars." That dispels the theory that they were being followed and/or chased right there. Case closed. This is 6 a.m. in one of the least populated states in the nation.

Tracy says Arnold had stopped for a stop sign. So just prior to the accident, the car was motionless. Tracy then says she remembers Arnold "spinning" out from the stop sign. Now even though the roads didn't help the situation any, Tracy's comments, coupled with the fact they had an accident, suggest to me that Arnold was simply going too fast. It's difficult to crash your car when you're only going a few miles an hour. Arnold was apparently drunk and drove the car faster than what it should have been and crashed.

Some posters have suggested that Tracy's comments of Arnold and Ruby leaving her in the dust may have been a figment of her imagination due to her intoxicated state. But that's hard to believe and here's why: Tracy was positively SCREAMING her head off the whole time. I doubt Ruby, for example, wouldn't have heard that. She must have. Tracy says Arnold wasn't even in the car when it crashed which I find to be even more suspicious on Arnold's part. I get the impression he felt a crash was inevitable, bolted the car and left Ruby and Tracy to die. No matter which way you slice it, I feel Arnold's actions that night were truly reprehensible. He shouldn't have been driving and he absolutely shouldn't have tried to take his baby daughter with him. The baby would have very likely died had he taken her with him, thus giving us 3 victims in this circumstance. The baby is defenseless and couldn't seek help on her own accord.

It has been mentioned that the police should have found the bodies because they searched the area several times. But I would say not necessarily. It's important to remember that this is ice. It's not easy to see through ice as it is crystal clear water. There is also black ice. It's telling that their bodies were found March 10 and March 11, which says to me they were found once the ditch thawed out. It makes sense.

Regarding the keys, the investigator says "a car or vehicle key and what *appears* to be 2 house keys." How in the world does the investigator know what the keys go to? They could belong to anything in the world. You can't look at a key and definitively says it unlocks a house. It's impossible.

Arnold and Ruby were 2 heavy people. If this was a homicide of some sort (which is a very big if because I don't believe they were killed) it would have taken the work of at the very least 2 and possibly more people to move their bodies, kill them, and then move them back to the ditch. But there isn't a single, solitary suspect in this case. There's also no motive. And it's important to keep in mind Tracy's statement of no cars being around. So unless someone happened on them after the accident and took advantage of them (and that's stretching quite a bit there), this ranks as one of the least mysterious cases profiled on UM.

I find the actions of Arnold and Ruby here to be truly horrible, I don't care if they were drunk or not. Arnold's mistakes lead to the deaths of 2 people, and could have killed more. Ruby left Tracy to the wolves and made zero attempt to get Tracy out. If Ruby let Tracy out, she could have sought help and maybe everyone would still be alive today. Arnold and Ruby are dead today because of their own irresponsible and selfish actions.

Reading through the early pages of this topic reminds me of why I found Mastermind's posts so frustrating, yet oddly intriguing. They were like the exact opposite of the way I feel. "This was clearly foul play!" Umm... no it wasn't.

Reading through the early pages of this topic reminds me of why I found Mastermind's posts so frustrating, yet oddly intriguing. They were like the exact opposite of the way I feel. "This was clearly foul play!" Umm... no it wasn't.

Mastermind was extremely thorough and routinely was able to "think outside the box" about many cases. That being said, MM viewed the criminal element of society through the eyes of someone who had seen too many B movies and bad crime TV shows. There were nuggets of truth to many of MMs ideas but they often came dressed up in naivete.

I think the only reason this was featured on UM was because of the officer who said something like, "If they had been in that ice we would have found them." Without that one little remark, this case is so obviously an accident.

I've always been intrigued by the supposed eyewitness sighting of Arnold on New Year's Eve. Since she knew Arnold personally and actually engaged in conversation with him (as opposed to seeing him from a distance), it seemed a bit more credible than some eyewitness sightings. And while it's not too unbelievable that she'd pass a polygraph (since she probably really believed she saw Arnold even if she was mistaken), it's pretty strange that the three people Arnold was supposedly with all failed their polygraphs.

However, this section is edited out of the DVD version for some reason, so I wonder if the lead was eventually dismissed and ruled out.

However, this section is edited out of the DVD version for some reason, so I wonder if the lead was eventually dismissed and ruled out.

That's interesting. I didn't know that portion was missing because it's been awhile since I've even watched the DVD's. Either they took new polygraphs and passed, or they were investigated more and dismissed as you said. I still think the investigators just chalked it up to an unfortunate accident and figured the witnesses were mistaken.

Strange case. I never read this thread but I always thought they fell into the ice and it froze back over before they could be found. Because the cold weather would have been the biggest factor of all. I don't think there was foul play just think it was an accident. We will likely never know the exact facts and how it played out. Anything could of happened. Arnold could have been dislodged from the vehicle and fell into the ice. The girlfriend could have fallen in trying to help him. Or they could have fallen in together. Who knows. The hair is weird though. And I do respect the law enforcement perspective. That's what makes the case baffling.

On another note in one of the most incredible rescues I've ever seen was in the Dakotas. Showcased on rescue 911. A young boy fell into a frozen river. It took rescuers over 30 minutes to find him. Miraculously he survived but the fact that they knew when and where he fell and how tough it was to find him goes to show how hard the cold weather can be.

On another note in one of the most incredible rescues I've ever seen was in the Dakotas. Showcased on rescue 911. A young boy fell into a frozen river. It took rescuers over 30 minutes to find him. Miraculously he survived but the fact that they knew when and where he fell and how tough it was to find him goes to show how hard the cold weather can be.

Good point. It's amazing that the boy survived!

This is one case that has always baffled me. Part of me thinks they both died of natural exposure, the other part of me thinks they died because of foul play.

Could it be possible that Arnold left Ruby and made it to safety ? (Him being drunk and not really thinking) Then Ruby followed him out of the car (not thinking about her cousin still in the car) and got lost ? Her missing shoes might be from her suffering from hypothermia. She died from exposure. Arnold scared that he might be in trouble with the cops and his family, hides out until things have calmed down. (Maybe that might explain why he was seen at a party) Ruby's family angry that he doesn't seem to care that she's missing, kills him and dumps him at the same crash site. (This may explain why he had on a different set of clothes then when he went missing) and the keys.



Arnold & Ruby lived on an Indian Reservation. I don't know about the city around where they lived, but I live near a few and they do not like cops.I have friends that live on them and they really don't like outsiders. Unless you have family, friends or are buying smokes, etc, they do not like outside visitors. I know this really has nothing to do with the case, but I can see their loved ones doing their own investing and searching.

I just find it hard to believe that they missed two bodies when they were searching. I hope we do get answers one day.

I agree totally with what you wrote!

I use to buy into the idea that they crashed, got to safety and where later killed and dumped back there. However in. Ow more of the belief that the police simply did not search for them at the time. They assumed they got back to the reservation and where avoiding law enforcement. When the bodies were found the police simply lied and said they had searched the ditch . Probably lied about ruby hair being found in road also. Just trying to cover up for the fact that they did not search for them at the time

this is the prime example of something made to look sinister when it is not.


They clearly died from exposure that night, and their bodies floated up at different times

no foul play whatsoever


also, that scene with the witness who claims to have seen Arnold (think she was probably drunk and thought she saw him) that was missing from the DVD is back on the Amazon version

No doubt they died near where they crashed. They probably both sunk through the ice and just weren't discovered by the authorities even though the area was 'thoroughly' searched.

this is the prime example of something made to look sinister when it is not.


They clearly died from exposure that night, and their bodies floated up at different times

no foul play whatsoever

Yep, it was also made to look sinister because the police didn't want to admit that they screwed up and made an oversight. That's all it was. They missed their bodies, and instead of apologizing and admitting that they made a mistake, they kept on tooting the "murder" angle because they didn't want to admit they were wrong.

A bunch of idiots, and a complete waste of time. Make their families suffer more with the idea that their killer is still out there, when it was an accidental oversight is pretty low. Ego's are bigger than their brains.

If this was just police incompetence why go on national tv and put their family through untold extra misery. This is one I feel their could be more then meets the eye.

If this was just police incompetence why go on national tv and put their family through untold extra misery. This is one I feel their could be more then meets the eye.

Because of arrogance, and the fear of backlash. Some people don't like to admit that they made a mistake. What more could meet the eye? Both bodies were found in the pool of water, but one was frozen/glanced over. What would be the point of taking two heavy set teenagers elsewhere and bringing them back? The police screwed up plain and simple and didn't want to admit that they made a mistake.

Some people just suck. Even some law enforcement. That's life.

I can't recall if it was on this thread or another, but a poster who was familiar with the area and the political culture at the time indicated there was some contention between the police and various tribes in the area. The murder investigation and the segment may have been an attempt to placate certain parties and smooth over some community relations problems. I mean, it is blatantly obvious the police grossly mishandled the case.

Occam's razor would have it that they both died of exposure that night near the crash, and the police simply missed their bodies (either due to poor searching, because the bodies sunk below the ice, or both). I've always felt that to be the most likely scenario. That they would happen to be abducted/killed after the car accident, their bodies kept in storage for months, and then deposited back at the crash site during the spring thaw seems absurd to me. Winters in the Dakotas are extreme, and it wouldn't take long to die in those conditions on a February night. I don't recall if it was mentioned or not in the segment, but was it possible that they had been covered by snowfall?

Occam's razor would have it that they both died of exposure that night near the crash, and the police simply missed their bodies (either due to poor searching, because the bodies sunk below the ice, or both). I've always felt that to be the most likely scenario. That they would happen to be abducted/killed after the car accident, their bodies kept in storage for months, and then deposited back at the crash site during the spring thaw seems absurd to me. Winters in the Dakotas are extreme, and it wouldn't take long to die in those conditions on a February night. I don't recall if it was mentioned or not in the segment, but was it possible that they had been covered by snowfall?

Excellent point, and I don't remember the answer.

I agree-- they both died at the scene. The police chalked it up as "two more drunk Indians" and didn't investigate further. I have always been very supportive of police (as you all know) but they really screwed the pooch on this one.

Ruby and Arnold were very drunk and disoriented from the car crash. I'm guessing they panicked being underage minors and left as fast as they could and probably fell into ice.

Why don't we do what some people were doing in the Korzillius thread: make all sorts of baseless and unfounded accusations about what was obviously an accident and not a mystery at all?

Why don't we do what some people were doing in the Korzillius thread: make all sorts of baseless and unfounded accusations about what was obviously an accident and not a mystery at all?
My point exactly.

Occam's razor would have it that they both died of exposure that night near the crash, and the police simply missed their bodies (either due to poor searching, because the bodies sunk below the ice, or both). I've always felt that to be the most likely scenario. That they would happen to be abducted/killed after the car accident, their bodies kept in storage for months, and then deposited back at the crash site during the spring thaw seems absurd to me. Winters in the Dakotas are extreme, and it wouldn't take long to die in those conditions on a February night. I don't recall if it was mentioned or not in the segment, but was it possible that they had been covered by snowfall?


I've come around to the obvious conclusion in a number of other cases somewhat quickly. With this one, I guess the reason it took me a while is because I couldn't wrap my head around how they (Arnold at least) got out of the car. Regardless though, if they managed to escape or got thrown out in the crash, I'm pretty sure they died of exposure and the police, in their incompetence, missed them during the initial search.

Did the segment ever say how Ruby's cousin was rescued and by whom? And how long did it take for the help to arrive after the crash?

Occam's razor would have it that they both died of exposure that night near the crash, and the police simply missed their bodies (either due to poor searching, because the bodies sunk below the ice, or both). I've always felt that to be the most likely scenario. That they would happen to be abducted/killed after the car accident, their bodies kept in storage for months, and then deposited back at the crash site during the spring thaw seems absurd to me. Winters in the Dakotas are extreme, and it wouldn't take long to die in those conditions on a February night. I don't recall if it was mentioned or not in the segment, but was it possible that they had been covered by snowfall?

I had to go back to an old post of mine from 2015 to find this, but here it is.

A few years ago I did research on this case because I live in South Dakota within an hour or two from the scene. The accident happened on December 12th, not in February. Early December, while cold, is technically still fall and not winter. The bitter cold of South Dakota winters doesn't usually set in until later in December or (more commonly) January. Going one step further than that, I previously obtained weather data from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) for a monitoring station seven miles from Lake Andes that determined that early morning December 12th when the accident took place the temperature was 25 degrees Farenheit. While that is cold, it is not "freeze to death in a matter of minutes or even hours cold." Also, the high temperature for December 11th was 48 and the high for later in the day on December 12th was 37. That means the ditch would not have been frozen solid enough for anyone to have been walking on ice and fallen through. The weather data I pulled was for the whole week and the high temperatures for almost every day in the seven day period with December 12th at the center was above freezing.

The reenactment in this case shows the car flipping into the ditch on a frozen solid surface, but, based on the weather data, that scenario is just not realistic or possible.

I can't realistically state that this is a case where foul play was involved, but the explanation that they simply froze to death in the ditch and were missed is easy to accept either.

As we have seen with many searches bodies are often found at a later date in areas that were supposed to have been searched, it indicates that either that area was not searched or not searched in depth-often people think that area has already been searched &so a mix-up occurs. The idea of murder put forward by the family is taking denial to ludicrous extremes-there was no sign of violence on the bodies, no sign of sexual assault on the female etc. The reality is they were all drunk & behaving like fools & were so far gone they couldn't behave rationally after the crash.

The families didn't even seem to be pushing any foul play scenario. It seemed to be all that police guy who was suggesting it. Like the Korzilius case, this one was an obvious accident and not really a mystery.

The families didn't even seem to be pushing any foul play scenario. It seemed to be all that police guy who was suggesting it. Like the Korzilius case, this one was an obvious accident and not really a mystery.

The father seemed to be very convinced. Wonder how much of it was guilt of not taking the car keys because he knew they were too intoxicated to be driving?

this is the prime example of something made to look sinister when it is not.


They clearly died from exposure that night, and their bodies floated up at different times

no foul play whatsoever


also, that scene with the witness who claims to have seen Arnold (think she was probably drunk and thought she saw him) that was missing from the DVD is back on the Amazon version

I agree - this never seemed more to me than police not doing their jobs properly and trying to cover their butts. They were young, drink and making questionable decisions in the freezing cold. No mystery there.

I had to go back to an old post of mine from 2015 to find this, but here it is.

A few years ago I did research on this case because I live in South Dakota within an hour or two from the scene. The accident happened on December 12th, not in February. Early December, while cold, is technically still fall and not winter. The bitter cold of South Dakota winters doesn't usually set in until later in December or (more commonly) January. Going one step further than that, I previously obtained weather data from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) for a monitoring station seven miles from Lake Andes that determined that early morning December 12th when the accident took place the temperature was 25 degrees Farenheit. While that is cold, it is not "freeze to death in a matter of minutes or even hours cold." Also, the high temperature for December 11th was 48 and the high for later in the day on December 12th was 37. That means the ditch would not have been frozen solid enough for anyone to have been walking on ice and fallen through. The weather data I pulled was for the whole week and the high temperatures for almost every day in the seven day period with December 12th at the center was above freezing.

The reenactment in this case shows the car flipping into the ditch on a frozen solid surface, but, based on the weather data, that scenario is just not realistic or possible.

I can't realistically state that this is a case where foul play was involved, but the explanation that they simply froze to death in the ditch and were missed is easy to accept either.

I don't know if it was your post that prompted me or if I got the idea to look up weather data myself independently at some point in time, but I vaguely recall researching the same thing not too many years ago and finding the same information you did: the weather wasn't bitterly cold. I surmise it couldn't have sustained a ditch full of ice frozen through enough to support the weight of a car.

My assumption is that the recreation of the car accident was based on Tracy Dion's recollection. As she was presumably intoxicated at the time, one would have to take into consideration that her memory is especially compromised there.

I've also never understood why Arnold decided to "peel out" from the stop sign other than just being a stupid thing people sometimes do. I always thought that was a slightly weird aspect of Tracy's story for some reason.

I think there's a lot of missing pieces that may be forever lost in the haze of alcohol and the passage of a considerable amount of time. The "breaking through the ice" thing is questionable given the weather data, but in the absence of any reason at all whatsoever that anyone in that car that night had anybody who wanted to do them harm in the early morning hours in the immediate wake of a one-vehicle accident, I just don't understand what happened to these two people.

I do agree that contrary to what some people think, December is not the total Freeze Fest that January and February and early March can be in that region. (Lifelong MN gal here.) I do still believe it was an accident that the police dropped the ball on, it as an accident.

I can't believe the theories people are coming up with when the truth is slapping you in the face. How much more obvious can it be? Some mysterious circumstance sounds intriguing but why not this, Arnold was THROWN from the car, knocked unconscious, Ruby opened the door, the door shut because the car was UPSIDE DOWN, collapsed because she was in a car accident or even slipped on the ice,or even tried to save Arnold and collapsed, her hair was ripped out because she was in a car accident, the cops missed their bodies and found them when the snow and ice melted? Is that such a stretch?

I can't believe the theories people are coming up with when the truth is slapping you in the face. How much more obvious can it be? Some mysterious circumstance sounds intriguing but why not this, Arnold was THROWN from the car, knocked unconscious, Ruby opened the door, the door shut because the car was UPSIDE DOWN, collapsed because she was in a car accident or even slipped on the ice,or even tried to save Arnold and collapsed, her hair was ripped out because she was in a car accident, the cops missed their bodies and found them when the snow and ice melted? Is that such a stretch?

Welcome to the board? 🙄 Hell of a first post... Please let us know the solution to all of the other mysteries that UM ever showed. Most of us here is real dumb.

Welcome to the board? 🙄 Hell of a first post... Please let us know the solution to all of the other mysteries that UM ever showed. Most of us here is real dumb.

Welcome? No thanks, just pointing out the obvious among a sea of ignorance. If you call this story a "mystery", I'd question your IQ also. But anyway, thanks but no thanks, I'll let the keyboard investigators solve the real mysteries.

The average (https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ne/o'neill/KONL/date/1992-12-12) temperature that day was 35 degrees, with the low being 24. Since the accident happened at night, I think it's well within reason that it was below freezing. I still think they sustained injuries that left them in a daze, and they eventually wandered off and perished to the elements.

All of the alleged foul play scenarios have never made sense to me. If Arnold was alive for 3 weeks after the crash, where did he go, who did he stay with, and why did no other eyewitness other than 1 person come forward to say he didn't die after the crash? The cops simply overlooked their bodies and to try and save face nudged along the foul play scenario.

Welcome? No thanks, just pointing out the obvious among a sea of ignorance. If you call this story a "mystery", I'd question your IQ also. But anyway, thanks but no thanks, I'll let the keyboard investigators solve the real mysteries.

You must be fun at parties.

*you slam open the door*
You guys are all losers and this party sucks. Just came here to let you know.
*end scene*

The average (https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/ne/o'neill/KONL/date/1992-12-12) temperature that day was 35 degrees, with the low being 24. Since the accident happened at night, I think it's well within reason that it was below freezing. I still think they sustained injuries that left them in a daze, and they eventually wandered off and perished to the elements.

All of the alleged foul play scenarios have never made sense to me. If Arnold was alive for 3 weeks after the crash, where did he go, who did he stay with, and why did no other eyewitness other than 1 person come forward to say he didn't die after the crash? The cops simply overlooked their bodies and to try and save face nudged along the foul play scenario.
Not only that, but ice doesn't magically become water at over 32 degrees, especially if it is very close to freezing and the ice is thick, as it likely was here.

LOL! Necco, your burns are legendary and #LifeGoals.

Welcome, Lieutenant! I bet you'll find that we're a pretty fun group to be around if you don't jump out of the gate and call us unintelligent. I'd like to think we're a pretty eclectic group around these parts.

I'm not sure where you got so upset about poor Arnold and Ruby. I may be wrong, but it seems like the majority of us think they died at the same time and the police botched the investigation? Did I miss something?

Anyway, welcome. I look forward to civil and lively debate with you.

Though the deaths of Arnold Archambeau & Ruby Bruguier were tragic (especially given that they left a young child behind), I don't see why anyone would think that foul play was involved.

As with a lot of the original UM segments, the audience is made to think these "unexplained" deaths were the result of some big conspiracy, when the actual explanation is almost certainly much more mundane. I believe that AA & RB wandered out of the car after the accident; they were already intoxicated, and also injured due to the crash. And, they probably passed away somewhere close by soon after.

As to why LE didn't find their bodies until months later?! Very simple: because they missed them during the initial investigation.

The alleged sighting of AA by an acquaintance/friend on New Year's Eve (several weeks after the crash earlier in December) was a false lead/red herring. I don't believe that the person did see AA at that time; maybe just someone who looked like him.

I was actually just arguing with someone on this recently. I think they froze in the ditch and were simply missed in the search.

I was actually just arguing with someone on this recently. I think they froze in the ditch and were simply missed in the search.

They most certainly were.

I was actually just arguing with someone on this recently. I think they froze in the ditch and were simply missed in the search.

This has always been my opinion as well.

The worst of UM, no? A survivor making unfounded insinuations, Robert Stack at his most sepulchral wondering if Something Insidious happened, a cop way too involved in this case to acknowledge his own flaws (the couple couldn't have been under the ice because he walked the scene every day).

Though the deaths of Arnold Archambeau & Ruby Bruguier were tragic (especially given that they left a young child behind), I don't see why anyone would think that foul play was involved.

As with a lot of the original UM segments, the audience is made to think these "unexplained" deaths were the result of some big conspiracy, when the actual explanation is almost certainly much more mundane. I believe that AA & RB wandered out of the car after the accident; they were already intoxicated, and also injured due to the crash. And, they probably passed away somewhere close by soon after.

As to why LE didn't find their bodies until months later?! Very simple: because they missed them during the initial investigation.

The alleged sighting of AA by an acquaintance/friend on New Year's Eve (several weeks after the crash earlier in December) was a false lead/red herring. I don't believe that the person did see AA at that time; maybe just someone who looked like him.

This is exactly what I think happened. Unfortunately, I think the police failed to conduct a proper search of the area after the accident and thus, missed their bodies. There was no grand conspiracy here.

If this were a murder, it would have to be the most bizarre, unorthodox, and unnecessary murder ever. Who kills two large people by freezing them to death? What motive? And move their bodies around? Why? That's why I think it wasn't murder.