Solely from the Unsolved Mysteries original Episode from the early 90's it does sound very strange. Lets start with that is known 1) 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 three 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. The reason the grandparents did not stop them from driving any further was most likely a bad judgement call. 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 or Ruby freed herself after Arnold did. 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 drinking and 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 through.

Anyone who's fallen into freezing water or knows anything about hypothermia and it's affects on the human body knows that the body goes into shock within seconds. Plus all the heavy winter clothes they had on would weigh them down significantly and make it very hard to pull themselves out. Plus, if one of them had tried to pull themselves out if the ice was thin in that area it would make it extremely difficult as the surrounding ice would break due to their body weight. Why were their bodies found apart? Well, in their struggle one of them might have tried to get one way and the other the other way. Panic and their body's would go into shock.

In water under 32 degrees F which that water was well below, unconsciousness occurs in under 15 minutes. Normally between 5-10 mins. Considering not only the temp of the water plus the temp outside (in that area in the winter usually hovering around the 0 degrees at night or less.) It would've happened very fast. Death is expected at max in water 32 degree's or under in 30 mins or less. This might be a corny example, but remember Titanic? The weather outside that the night Titanic sank was 34 degrees F and the water was approx. 28 degrees F. So, the outside weather was more than 30 degree's warmer than the night Arnold and Ruby fell into the water. It did not say on the episode how cold the water was in the ditch, however Its safe to assume colder than 28 degrees. They also had walked some distance from the car before falling in. The ice, in those temps, could have easily frozen back over fairly quickly after they stop struggling to get out and became unconscious. Therefore, it is more than totally plausible the investigator's did not see any holes in the ice in the days following their search. Also, remember at first the police office being interviewed stated he first believed they were hiding out for awhile in fear of being in trouble for drunk driving.

Remember they were in the middle of nowhere, this was not a populated area by any means. 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 bone 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. The police department was very small and did not have the resources that larger agencies have or the technology we have today (This happened in December '92). 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. Also the jogger who told the officer giving the interview that he jogged that path throughout the winter and saw nothing is totally plausible also. Until the the warmer temps came in March, when the bodies were found, the bodies would've stayed under all that ice and snow.


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 just mistaken about the date. If you want any examples, just watch an a few episodes of Forensic Files or The FBI files. Now admittedly this is just an assumption but I'm sure his group of friends had been partying often within those few weeks and I'm sure with alcohol. So, that makes it even more plausible that they had been mistaken, as the car accident and the night they claimed to see Arnold wasn't that far apart.


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. Also, It's never been confirmed if Ruby's cousin was drinking too however being only 22 myself I'm pretty sure if the other two were she most likely was too. So being intoxicated plus being disoriented from the accident she didn't make the perfect witness. I'm not saying she's lying but just that I'm sure that played somewhat of an affect into her account.

A lot of Unsolved Mysteries Episodes also don't include all the information on the case because of the allowed time limits for each segment. As mysterious as it comes across within the original episode and believe me I use to think maybe they were killed but after further research on the case and common sense about situation. It doesn't seem likely at all.

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

Wow, awesome post. I used to think that Ruby and Arnold met with some manner of foul play, but I just don't buy it now and have not for some time. Falling through the ice and drowning seems like the most logical explanation here.

The one thing I do find odd is the police officer interviewed during the segment who feels so strongly that there was foul play. Was he trying to cover the fact that he did a crappy job searching for them, or what?

With segments like this, it's typically the family pressing the issue when official sources rule a loved one's death a suicide or accident, but here the police (or at least one police officer) suspects there is something sinister afoot.

I have not watched the segment in some time so I can't recall if the family suspected a more nefarious scenario, but I would assume they did as well.

Strange case, but I'm going to go with accidental death on this one.

Agreed, excellent post.

This was an accident. It's thankful that these irresponsible drunk drivers only killed themselves and not innocent victims, like most drunk driver cases on UM. This "mystery" was entirely preventable if anyone involved had exercised good judgment; i just hope Arnold and Ruby's daughter learned from her parents' sad and stereotypical example and has striven to achieve a better life for herself.

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

I must have missed your answer in the post..how do you explain the unidentified car and house keys found on Arnold?

Anybody out there? LOL

Doesn't seem like much of a mystery to me. The keys could be his friend's, he could have been carrying around some old keys, etc., etc. I think I have a couple keys on my keychain that I'm not sure what they open. I don't think it means much.

For the longest time, I had a key from a friend's old apartment still on my keychain. I just recently took it off. However, if I turned up dead under unusual circumstances with that key on my key ring, I suppose someone could make an issue out of it, as I'm probably the only person who still remembers what it was for.

Are the keys really the best evidence he was murdered?

The keys could be his friend's, he could have been carrying around some old keys, etc., etc. I think I have a couple keys on my keychain that I'm not sure what they open. I don't think it means much.

For the longest time, I had a key from a friend's old apartment still on my keychain. I just recently took it off



1. In both those cases, those were house keys on your OWN keychain. I'm pretty sure none of you had BOTH house and car keys on a separate chain that you carried around in same pocket as your SEPARATE car key chain.

2. You guys mean to tell me that your friends give you CAR Keys?:confused: What possible reason could someone have to give a non-relative keys to his car?

3. If you have someones car keys and house keys on a chain.....that means that your friend couldn't get into the house:confused: or car the same night that Arnold and Ruby had their accident. Someone called a locksmith. Someone was calling around or doing a mass search for their keys. Someone had to have a car jimmy'ed potentially.

4. Why would Arnold carry these keys THAT night? Why wouldn;t he leave them at home. He already has his car keys on the other chain???:confused:

5. With a little detective work, I'm sure we could find interview all your close friends and discover that the key belongs to you next door neighbor or your ex-girlfriend. Arnold;s keys have YET to be identified amongst his friends. AND WERE TALKING ABOUT CAR KEYS HERE!!


I suppose someone could make an issue out of it, as I'm probably the only person who still remembers what it was for

That's actually not the same issue. The difference is that those keys are on your own keychain. If we found a separate set of keys on your body, WHILE we have found your OWN car keys, those separate keys become a clue in your death. Wouldn't you do the same?

Are the keys really the best evidence he was murdered?

Here's the thing about the keys.
THEY ARE A PIECE OF EVIDENCE WAITING TO BE DISCOVERED WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACT OR EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE REVEALED. THE KEYS ARE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE INVESTIGATED AND REVEALLED> WE CANNOT DEVELOP A THEORY WHILE THIS LOOSE END EXISTS> THE REVELATION OF THE OWNER OF THE KEYS COULD CHANGE THE CASE RADICALLY!

There is a potential evidence chain and a witness/suspect to be interviewed about how those keys wound up in pocket of Arnold's dead body?

Wouldn;t you want to know who that person is and what his story and relationship is?

Suppose the police tomorrow find out the keys belong to:
1. One of the three men that was allegeded to have been seen with Arnold after the crash. The ones who failed the lie detector test?
2. What if the keys belong to a convicted felon?
3. Or someone who witnessed the whole "accident"?

The revelation of the owner of the keys could could potential create a whole new thread in this case.

Are the keys really the best evidence he was murdered?

No, but the unidentifed house and car keys combined with
1. The fact that Arnold cannot be traced by our live witness after the crash. Nor can she confirm that it was Arnold that opened the door.
2. The fact that Arnold's body was found a long time before the crash.
3. The fact that Arnold's body was found in a lesser state of decomp.
4. That there is a descrepency in whether Arnold had the same clothes on the day of the crash.
5. The fact that a witness saw Arnold after the crash with 3 people. All 3 whome failed a polygraph.
6. We only have one witness to the events that happened that night..and here story does not make sense due to Arnold not rescuing her.

This all leads to circumstantial evidence that Arnold may have been alive after the crash and was dumped in the crash site long before the crash.

Whether this ultimatly means murder is difficult too say.

But I do believe that the possibility that Arnold was alive after the crash is a suitable means for an investigation and that the deaths of Arnold and Ruby should be classified as UNEXPLAINED DEATH..pending investigation.

I also tend to believe this was a tragic accident (GREAT POST MissKrissy)..I hope you post more in the future. However, I can understand mastermind's reluctance to conclude this could only have been an accident. There are a few items that don't quite make sense (hence, why it was on UM in the first place).

But, having watched this segments many times over the years, it always struck me as though they were trying really hard to come up with something other than the accident... it appeared almost totally motivated by the cops claiming that they "could not have overlooked the bodies." I find that ludicrous, and more an issue of pride than trying to really solve this tragedy.

The car keys are strange, no doubt, but I'm not able to make the leap that such keys indicate he was alive after the crash; there could be so many reasons for Arnold having someone's keys.. reasons we may never know. Yes, it is not normal to have someone's keys, but what if he had found them on the ground that day/night, and put them in his pocket? That would explain none of his friends knowing where they came from. See my point?

The witnesses, I agree, they need to be taken like most witness accounts on UM... knowing that the human mind makes mistakes, and therefore the accounts aren't always reliable. They might have passed the lie detector because they thought they were accurate, and also, the guys who did fail the tests, I'd like to see the questions that were asked. It it was "did you kill Arnold?" that would be one thing, but if it was "do you know how they died?" I could see why the friends perhaps failed. Maybe their minds were made up that it was an accident, but when asked they said they didn't know, and therefore that would be measured as a lie.

I just feel that 95% of the evidence suggests accident (drunk driving and icy out, hello!), and the 5% of the evidence that is strange can be explained without one necessarily thinking that there was foul play.

Just my thoughts.

I've always felt that this segment was a true UM and was a very complex case. It has always left me scatching my head. But using logic there was an accident and drinking was involved. if it were heavy drinking combined with extreme weather conditions combined with serious injury....it probably led to the death of the people. if not directly indirectly somehow.

I've always felt that this segment was a true UM and was a very complex case. It has always left me scatching my head. But using logic there was an accident and drinking was involved. if it were heavy drinking combined with extreme weather conditions combined with serious injury....it probably led to the death of the people. if not directly indirectly somehow.

See my previous post regarding the keys.

Kudos

That was a very well thought out and very well written analysis of the Dakota Double Death segment. Impressive for a 22 year old, and a welcome voice on the forum. Keep it up!

I 100% agree with you, by the way and wanted to make one suggestion: perhaps neither Ruby nor Arnold went to assist the cousin due to head trauma sustained in the accident ((in addition to the probability of any and/or all of the aforementioned drunkenness, shock, fear, etc.))

Kudos

That was a very well thought out and very well written analysis of the Dakota Double Death segment. Impressive for a 22 year old, and a welcome voice on the forum. Keep it up!

I 100% agree with you, by the way and wanted to make one suggestion: perhaps neither Ruby nor Arnold went to assist the cousin due to head trauma sustained in the accident ((in addition to the probability of any and/or all of the aforementioned drunkenness, shock, fear, etc.))

What about the keys? Are we all going to just dismiss an undiscovered piece of evidence?

Interesting post, MissKryssy. However, the case still seems a bit enigmatic.

1-As Mastermind had said, the keys that Arnold had makes the chance of foul play possible. Once more, no one has identified who the keys belong to.

2-What about the lock of Ruby's hair that the police found? It could be evidence of some sort of struggle.

3-Although many people have said that Arnold and Ruby weren't murdered, I think there's a slight chance. Yes, there's no evidence of stab wounds, or strangulation. However, I wonder if someone purposely shoved both Arnold and Ruby into freezing cold water. If someone did kill them in such a fashion, it would be difficult to detect.

The car keys are strange, no doubt, but I'm not able to make the leap that such keys indicate he was alive after the crash; there could be so many reasons for Arnold having someone's keys.. reasons we may never know. Yes, it is not normal to have someone's keys, but what if he had found them on the ground that day/night, and put them in his pocket?

1. You don;t think it's too much of a coincidence that on the night that Arnold has this great accident, he just happnes to find a pair of keys?

2. Why would Arnold put these keys in his pocket? That creates the potential for those keys being mixed with his OWN house and car keys.

3. His sister does not remember Arnold mentioning picking up these keys, nor was she a witness to this. Where and when did Arnold pick these keys up from?

4. Someone that day or week wasn;t able to get into his car or house. Why weren;t there stories of a person asking around for his keys. Why wasn't there stories of someone having to call a locksmith or get a person to jimmy the car.

5. There are not that many locksmiths in that area. the police should be able to find records of someone who recently had to get replacement house and car keys.

6. Arnold had to have found these keys after he left home. He found them before he would not have brought them with him?

7. How did Arnold find a bunch of keys in the dark in a drunken condition?

8. When Arnold found the keys why did not go to the bar, liquor store or wherever and ask around or leave the keys with the bartender or store owner. A strangers keys have no use to you.

IMHO, we do not have all the info in this case.
1. The keys need to be identified to makes sure that they indeed belong to a guy that lost his keys or a friend that left his keys with Arnold. And not someone who potentially could be a suspect in murder.
2. The sisters story is not correct. She is either lying or has mis-interpreted circumstances. We need to find out what the total story.
3. There is a third party involved in this case. What and who that third party is


One theory that I am exploring is that Arnold and Ruby were never in the car to begin with. That someone else was driving the car with the sister. That person left the car after the accident and didn;t save the sister. I think it's possible that Arnold and Ruby were driving someone else's car, hence the reason why Arnold has someone else's keys in his pocket and why both could not be found at the scene.

I think you might be over-thinking this one :)

Yes, it's possible this could have been something other than an accident, but it's just not very probable. I gotta go with the occam's razor explanation on this one: there are just way too many innocent explanations for an innocent item that I just can't see it being very important, given the total lack of any foul play. Your theory proposes some criminal mastermind, waiting in the bitter cold in the middle of nowhere to kill a couple drunk drivers by pushing them into ice water... it's hard to believe.

I think you might be over-thinking this one

Yes, it's possible this could have been something other than an accident, but it's just not very probable. I gotta go with the occam's razor explanation on this one: there are just way too many innocent explanations for an innocent item that I just can't see it being very important, given the total lack of any foul play. Your theory proposes some criminal mastermind, waiting in the bitter cold in the middle of nowhere to kill a couple drunk drivers by pushing them into ice water... it's hard to believe.

No, what I;m suggesting is that we don;t have all the facts and that we are building a case of missing on incorrect information. We don;thave all the pieces here to come to a satisfactory conclusion.

What I'm saying is that we have no idea as to what happened and that this is an unexplained death of two individuals.

I'm suggeting that a possible explanation for why those keys are in Arnold;'s pocket is that he was driving

Egswano,
Ask yourself this question, what if it is found out that the keys belong to one of the individuals that failed the polygraph?

Your theory proposes some criminal mastermind, waiting in the bitter cold in the middle of nowhere to kill a couple drunk drivers by pushing them into ice water... it's hard to believe

Huh? when did I propose that theory???

There's not enough info to propose any theory, really. IMHO.

There is more that is needed to be revealed
1. We need to find the owner of those keys?
2. Once the owner is found, that person needs to be interrogated to find out the answers to how these keys got into Arnold's pockets. What his relationship is to Arnold? Did he witness or know anything? Does he have an alibi for that date? Could he be a suspect for murder if murder took place? The answers to those questions coudl RADICALLY alter this case and create a cascade of information.
3. The house or apartment those keys belong to..need to be searched(warrant permitting) to see if there is any belongings of Arnold.
4. The neighbors or friends of the houseowner need to be interviewed to find out if they saw anyone matching Arnold's description or some strange activity.
5. The car needs to be found and searched.
6. The people that were polygraphed need to be re-interviewed if the new information from the previous six steps provides new clues.

Your theory proposes some criminal mastermind, waiting in the bitter cold in the middle of nowhere to kill a couple drunk drivers by pushing them into ice water... it's hard to believe.

The only "master conspiracy" I'm proposing at this moment is taht one or two people conspired to keep Arnold hiding from the public after the crash. Not exactly Dealey Plaza. :rolleyes:

The theory I'm working on is that the only person that died at the time of the crash was Ruby.

Arnold was not even in the car, IMHO.

What I believe is that Arnold decided to go into hiding for these reasons
a. He saw this as an opportunity to escape the pressure of raising his son.
b. The driver of the car was a friend/relative and risked going to jail. Arnold obliged in helping him by staying
c. Arnold was involved in drugs (and may have believed he would go to jail if

Arnold;s reasons for hiding out further got bolstered when Ruby's body was found.

Arnold durng this time hid in the company of a friend and had the use of said friends car (hence the keys.)

At some point, Arnold may have died or a drug overdose, natural causes, alcohol poisining or a pneumonia.

Because Arnold's dead body represented a huge problem for the owner of the house. This person decided to dump Arnold's body in the crash site and protect his own skin.

It;s a startup theory that would radically change if the owner of the keys was found.

I also tend to believe this was a tragic accident (GREAT POST MissKrissy)..I hope you post more in the future. However, I can understand mastermind's reluctance to conclude this could only have been an accident. There are a few items that don't quite make sense (hence, why it was on UM in the first place).

But, having watched this segments many times over the years, it always struck me as though they were trying really hard to come up with something other than the accident... it appeared almost totally motivated by the cops claiming that they "could not have overlooked the bodies." I find that ludicrous, and more an issue of pride than trying to really solve this tragedy.

The car keys are strange, no doubt, but I'm not able to make the leap that such keys indicate he was alive after the crash; there could be so many reasons for Arnold having someone's keys.. reasons we may never know. Yes, it is not normal to have someone's keys, but what if he had found them on the ground that day/night, and put them in his pocket? That would explain none of his friends knowing where they came from. See my point?

The witnesses, I agree, they need to be taken like most witness accounts on UM... knowing that the human mind makes mistakes, and therefore the accounts aren't always reliable. They might have passed the lie detector because they thought they were accurate, and also, the guys who did fail the tests, I'd like to see the questions that were asked. It it was "did you kill Arnold?" that would be one thing, but if it was "do you know how they died?" I could see why the friends perhaps failed. Maybe their minds were made up that it was an accident, but when asked they said they didn't know, and therefore that would be measured as a lie.

I just feel that 95% of the evidence suggests accident (drunk driving and icy out, hello!), and the 5% of the evidence that is strange can be explained without one necessarily thinking that there was foul play.

Just my thoughts.
My Bold.

I totally agree with you. And I have a set of car keys that a friend gave to me, so while unusual, it's not unheard of.

I totally agree with you. And I have a set of car keys that a friend gave to me, so while unusual, it's not unheard of.

For what reason did he give you those car keys?

I'm also sure he didn;t give you his house keys along with the car keys on the same chain?

Are those car keys separate from your own keychain? or where they on a separate keychain. If they are on your own keychain, they are technically your keys. The keys found on Arnold WERE NOT PART OF HIS OWN KEYS. And for some reason he carried them that night in his pocket.

I'm also sure if you wound up dead (god forbid) a homicide detective could trace them to you, easily. None of Arnol

I just feel that 95% of the evidence suggests accident (drunk driving and icy out, hello!), and the 5% of the evidence that is strange can be explained without one necessarily thinking that there was foul play.

I disagree. I think we only have 45 percent of the evidence. Much of it based on the story of one eyewitness.

We're not even sure of how both of them died in the first place? How can we have 95% of the evidence?:confused:

There appears to be a few points people are not grasping about the keys found on Arnold.

They are two sets of keys belonging to Arnold. One of them his own car keys and house keys which was still in the ignition of the car when it was overturned. The second was a pair of unidentified keys that was found on his body. Apparently before Arnold got intot he car he was walking around with two sets of car/house keys! Two keys on different chains.:confused:

If a friend gave Arnold thses keys, for some unfathomable reason Arnold saw fit to take these keys when he was driving in his own car, rather than leave them at home. What the hell was so impotant about these keys that he needed to take them out that night????:confused:

This can;t be to close a friend consider that NOBODY'S been able to match the keys to this person.:mad:

This guys was entrusted with his f car keys and house keys!!!
Arnold though it important to bring these keys with him!!

How could this guy NOT be traced!!!

Another thing that people are forgetting is that Arnold;s sister, family don't know who the keys belong too!!

I woull imagine that somewhere in conversation, Arnold would have mentioned to someone that he had access to "what's his names" car?:rolleyes: That he drove around in another car or stayed at such and suches place every once in a while?

What did this guy just hand his keys to Arnold for safekeeping?

I would think that if those keys belonged to someone Arnold knew, surely by now they would have claimed them. IMO those keys are of importance given noone has claimed them & we have no clue as to why they was found on Arnold.

What about the keys? Are we all going to just dismiss an undiscovered piece of evidence?


Yes that's exactly what you should do. All they're evidence of is that he had a set of keys noone seems to be able to identify.

Egswanso,
Ask yourself this question, what if it is found out that the keys belong to one of the individuals that failed the polygraph?

I still wouldn't care about them, in a vacuum, at least. Keys aren't signs of foul play and polygraphs aren't reliable. There's still no evidence on the bodies of being murdered and that, IMO, is more important than mystery keys.

Huh? when did I propose that theory???

I might have been using hyperbole for the sake of argument, but it just seems that you're focusing on one minor thing (which, i will grant you, has no known explanation) when virtually everything else points in another direction. Using the Dealey Plaza analogy, it starts down that slippery path to David Lifton fake trees insanity.

If there was actually evidence of foul play, I would certainly give the keys more importance, but I just don't see that being the case here - just a bunch of drunks flipped over on an icy road and wandered off to die drunk in a ditch. It's sad as an example of wasted life, stupidity, and continued cultural self-immolation, but not murder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
Egswanso,
Ask yourself this question, what if it is found out that the keys belong to one of the individuals that failed the polygraph?


I still wouldn't care about them, in a vacuum, at least. Keys aren't signs of foul play and polygraphs aren't reliable. There's still no evidence on the bodies of being murdered and that, IMO, is more important than mystery keys.

You;d be doing a shoddy police work, IMHO. You would not be thorough in a case where so many unusual factors have occured. Something that you can;t afford to do when lives could be at stake. It's these types of mistakes that shoddy investigators committ that have allowed other people to get killed by murderers who should have been caught. I cannot abide by that.

1. you seem to be forgetting that this case was originally a missing persons case, hence the polices interest.

2. The cause of death has not been determined on either individual. Add to the fact that there has been quite some time from death and the time they were found.

3. You ignoring the information that comes from the discovey. Which could very well be a complete confession from the suspect about how he helped Arnold drown Ruby o whatever.

4. Your assuming the crash occured under normal circustances and they were'nt forced off.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
What about the keys? Are we all going to just dismiss an undiscovered piece of evidence?



Yes that's exactly what you should do. All they're evidence of is that he had a set of keys noone seems to be able to identify.

Woudl you like a detective to think the same way good forbid your son was abducted or a relative was found dead. It's very easy to be joking and glib until you find yourself in the same situation where you are dependent on a police officer's capabilities and desire in an investigation.

THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS IS A THOROUGH PROCESS. ALL LINES OF INVESTIGATION MUST BE FOLLOWED TO AN END.

I still wouldn't care about them, in a vacuum, at least. Keys aren't signs of foul play and polygraphs aren't reliable. There's still no evidence on the bodies of being murdered and that, IMO, is more important than mystery keys.

So you as the investigator,

1. Would not re-nterview the person that owns the keys.

2. You would tell Arnold and Ruby;s family that you "know who owns the keys, they failed the polygraph, but it isn;t necessary because it's not fould play. And if they said anything to the contrary you would

3. you would not review the notes of the case and relate it to this new information.

4. Would not ask the coroner again for a second opinion on the cause of death.

5. You would feel comfortable in telling your supervisor that the identity of the key holder is not relevant to the case and that against his protestations "I believe the keys are meaningless"

6. When the newspapers come to you and ask you abou the keys, your comfortable in telling them that "the owner of the keys is inconsequential, I have all the facts I need"

7. You are fine with looking directly into Arnolds daughters eyes and saying that you did a thorough job and say to her face "there is nothing of consequence to the owner of the keys"

Godspeed if you can do all that. I know I couldn;t.

What the heck are the odds of three innocent people failing a polygraph at the same time, anyway?

Three people seen together.

I would love to see the results of the polygraph. I;m willing to bet they all failed the same questions.

I'm also willing to bet they were all asked who the owner of the keys where as well.

I'm also willing to bet that that's one of the questions that all three of them failed. ;)

No way do I believe those guys had nothing to hide.:mad:

I watched this segment again, just to refresh my memory. It seems to me that the Sheriff did a pretty piss-poor investigation, as he seemed to have lots of questions without any explanations (of course, I concede that this could have just been the way the segment was portrayed).

There is still nothing in the segment that makes me think foul play; however, the segment does leave you, perhaps intentionally, with unanswered questions. These are questions that might not actually be unanswered, but the segment so portrays them.

1. I give Tracy's story little weight, given her intoxication. The scene (which should be well-preserved because of the temps) should give clear evidence as to the car being run off the road, blood, signs of a struggle, etc., etc. Nothing of the sort was mentioned, so either: (1) the scene was not properly processed or (2) such signs do not exist.

2. How long was the time-lag between the accident and discovery? Would this have been enough time to conceal falling into the ice? There are only two real possibilities: (1) the couple fell in the ice shortly after the accident and the police just missed the bodies; if this is the case, we merely have to assume the police made a mistake, or (2) they died elsewhere and were placed on scene.

If this latter scenario is true, obviously there's some sort of foul play involved. However, it would presume another car on the scene (given the temps and location, no-one could have walked away) for which they appears to be no evidence and that an unknown person or persons, for unknown reasons, killed arnold and ruby, in an unknown manner that left no trace, moved their large bodies via unknown means to one or more unknown sites, then, for unknown reasons and via unknown means, moved them back to the original crash scene three months later, all without leaving any trace evidence on the bodies, but being careless enough to change Arnold's clothes and put an unknown person's keys in his pocket.

That's alot to assume. If the sheriff suspects foul play, I'm sorry, but he has to supply some reasonable explanation to fill in at least some of these unknowns. Based on what is know to me, I have to apply occam's razor. The first scenario has one, reasonable, assumption. The latter, many, some of which start to strain credibility. Is it possible? Sure, it could be, but until and unless there's some evidence, it's just difficult to accept.

The segment portrays the Sheriff as doing an intensive investigation. I have no independent knowledge supporting or refuting this claim. Certainly, any investigation would have included a detailed accounting of the trio's locations that night, detailed background checks as to who might have motive to harm them, or, if arnold is suspected, his own motives for harming ruby, trying to find anyone who may have seen anything unusual that night, etc., etc. I understand that there tends to be ill-will between "the law" and native Americans, but if the sheriff felt people were stonewalling him, or if this investigation had revealed anything, why would it not have been mentioned?

As to the supposed sighting, all the polygraph tells us is that the witness was telling the truth in that she believed she saw Arnold. It says nothing as to the actual veracity of that claim.

As to the supposed sighting, all the polygraph tells us is that the witness was telling the truth in that she believed she saw Arnold. It says nothing as to the actual veracity of that claim.

What are the odds that three innocent people seen together would fail a polygraph? I can;t imagine it's too high.

1. I give Tracy's story little weight, given her intoxication. The scene (which should be well-preserved because of the temps) should give clear evidence as to the car being run off the road, blood, signs of a struggle, etc., etc. Nothing of the sort was mentioned, so either: (1) the scene was not properly processed or (2) such signs do not exist.

2. How long was the time-lag between the accident and discovery? Would this have been enough time to conceal falling into the ice? There are only two real possibilities: (1) the couple fell in the ice shortly after the accident and the police just missed the bodies; if this is the case, we merely have to assume the police made a mistake, or (2) they died elsewhere and were placed on scene.

:)

Your getting around to the point that I ultimatley want to make. In that this case is not clear cut. There are a lot of question marks here.

Would you agree that this case should be correctly classified as unexplained death, instead of accidental or homicide?

Would you agree that this case should be kept open in case other information comes to light?

I don;t know this is murder anymore than you do. We just don;t know all the facts in this case. If the keys are found out to belong to Joe Shmoe who lost them in the dirt at a bar, I'll completely buy that.

We just don;t have all the facts in this case.:(

Peace? :)

What are the odds that three innocent people seen together would fail a polygraph? I can;t imagine it's too high.

I only saw information re: the one witness, who passed her polygraph. Without knowing the details as to the others, I cannot say.

Your getting around to the point that I ultimatley want to make. In that this case is not clear cut. There are a lot of question marks here.

As presented, yes, there are. Whether or not there are actually answers in the case files is unknown to me.

Would you agree that this case should be correctly classified as unexplained death, instead of accidental or homicide?

I would consider it Probable accidental, but I would still include the qualifier; to the extent the qualifier indicates a level of uncertainty, it's unexplained.

Would you agree that this case should be kept open in case other information comes to light?

I don't think it is closed. To the extent these questions remain in the actual case file, then yes, it should remain open.

I don;t know this is murder anymore than you do. We just don;t know all the facts in this case. If the keys are found out to belong to Joe Shmoe who lost them in the dirt at a bar, I'll completely buy that. We just don;t have all the facts in this case.:(

No, we don't and I think our difference of opinion is merely epistemological; I admit not everything is know, but what I know about the case leads me to infer death are probably accidental; you have refrained from that inference.

Peace? :)

Never a war :) I'm just more skeptical of UM presentations in general (to create the appearance of mystery) and tend to imagine, perhaps naively, that most of the speculation has been investigated and found for naught. I can't ever get too emotionally involved in an opinion based on a 10 minute selective presentation... now, if you put the whole file in front of me and let me read it cover-to-cover, I'm sure I'd have a more forceful opinion.

I only saw information re: the one witness, who passed her polygraph. Without knowing the details as to the others, I cannot say.

I think Unsolved.com says that the witness who saw arnold with three people passed the polygraph. The three individuals seem with Arnold, all three of them failed.

I could be wrong about that. I'll take a look.

I think Unsolved.com says that the witness who saw arnold with three people passed the polygraph. The three individuals seem with Arnold, all three of them failed.

I could be wrong about that. I'll take a look.

I believe the "Dakota Double Death" version on the Bizarre Murders DVD is edited down versus the original segment that aired on Lifetime. Perhaps this portion was removed. I thought I remembered reading some scuttlebutt on that.

An unfortunate accident, the only people to blame here are Arnold and Rudy and to a lesser extent Tracy for going with them. No murderer just a accident which could have been prevented.

An unfortunate accident, the only people to blame here are Arnold and Rudy and to a lesser extent Tracy for going with them. No murderer just a accident which could have been prevented.

What happnes if they
1. find the owner of the keys
2. Find the cause of death
3. One of the three polygraphed people starts talking about the case.

Those factors would not interest you, at all?

An unfortunate accident, the only people to blame here are Arnold and Rudy and to a lesser extent Tracy for going with them. No murderer just a accident which could have been prevented.

You think Arnold was in the car when it flipped?

One of the many things in this case that has bothered me is that if Arnold was thrown from the car..why weren't there scratches, bruises or contusions on his body. He would have died within a short time of exposure, the fact that he was so well presevered, there should have been some damage still visable from being thrown from the car.

What's even more if Arnold is any condition to rescue Ruby, both him and Ruby probably know that Arnold needs a doctor amongst many things. You;d think they'd wait for help. Heck they still have their sister in the car.

You;d also think that Ruby or Arnold would pop their head into the car and tell his sister that help is on the way.

The only reason I could think of for Arnold not to save Ruby is that he thought the car was going to explode. Which is actually a reasonable thought. But that would also mean he was pretty sober at the time to be able to think that.

The one thing that continues to haunt me about this case is why did Arnold and Ruby abandoned Tracey? Perhaps they were drinking heavily yes, but as Tracey told the story, first Arnold escaped the car, vanished and later on when Ruby escaped she vanished as well without helping Tracey. I find it highly unusual that both Rudy and Arnold would be in such a intoxicated state that they would not be able to assist Tracey. Especially if Rudy was in the car earlier calling out for help.

The one thing that continues to haunt me about this case is why did Arnold and Ruby abandoned Tracey? Perhaps they were drinking heavily yes, but as Tracey told the story, first Arnold escaped the car, vanished and later on when Ruby escaped she vanished as well without helping Tracey. I find it highly unusual that both Rudy and Arnold would be in such a intoxicated state that they would not be able to assist Tracey. Especially if Rudy was in the car earlier calling out for help.

I never found Tracy's story to be too credible. Not that she is lying, but you are just in a car that flipped over, how can you be of a clear mind? Picture yourself waking up and imagining your loved one lying next to you. Only to come to a few seconds later and realize they got up to go to the bathroom. That is similar to Tracy's train of thought. She was very woozy at the time. We are going by her account, and solely her account at a time when her head was scrambled.

The person I blame almost as much as Arnold and Ruby is Arnold's father who saw nothing wrong with them driving a car while being intoxicated. He let them go! This was in the '90s. I can understand it being in the 1960s when there was a lot less exposure to drinking and driving but at that time there was no excuse not to be educated about those dangers

What happnes if they
1. find the owner of the keys
2. Find the cause of death
3. One of the three polygraphed people starts talking about the case.

Those factors would not interest you, at all?


"Hey Arnold, here's a set of keys, thanks for agreeing to feed my dog over the weekend"

or

"Hmmm, what are these keys doing on the ground, I'll put them in my pocket and turn them in tomorrow morning"


I see your point, it would be interesting to see who they belong to, but the possibilities are endless and most likely have little to do with the case

I never found Tracy's story to be too credible. Not that she is lying, but you are just in a car that flipped over, how can you be of a clear mind? Picture yourself waking up and imagining your loved one lying next to you. Only to come to a few seconds later and realize they got up to go to the bathroom. That is similar to Tracy's train of thought. She was very woozy at the time. We are going by her account, and solely her account at a time when her head was scrambled.

The person I blame almost as much as Arnold and Ruby is Arnold's father who saw nothing wrong with them driving a car while being intoxicated. He let them go! This was in the '90s. I can understand it being in the 1960s when there was a lot less exposure to drinking and driving but at that time there was no excuse not to be educated about those dangers

I thought about how much truth there was to Tracey's story earlier. But at the same time I don't think that still excuses the fact that she was apparently left in the car by herself. The only possibility I think may have happened is that Arnold and Rudy were never in the car in the first place...or there is another radical element to the story that Tracey isn't saying...although she didn't come off as a liar to me. She sounded like she remembered the events quite vividly though.

I thought about how much truth there was to Tracey's story earlier. But at the same time I don't think that still excuses the fact that she was apparently left in the car by herself. The only possibility I think may have happened is that Arnold and Rudy were never in the car in the first place...or there is another radical element to the story that Tracey isn't saying...although she didn't come off as a liar to me. She sounded like she remembered the events quite vividly though.

That is a radical spin for sure. The possibilities could be endless with that theory. But this has always seemed to be a case where the simplest explanation is the most plausible. Therefore I think the car crash happened

"Just when I thought I was out...they pulled me back in..";)

Just had to answer this one..


"Hey Arnold, here's a set of keys, thanks for agreeing to feed my dog over the weekend"

1.Why do you need to give Arnold your car keys to feed the dog? Wouldn't just your house keys suffice? Why do you need to hand both over to him?

2. This would be a friend that would trust Arnold to enter his house. Shouldn't we able to find the owner of the keys when the police asked everyone? Something that recent should easily be remebered. Especially considering the owner probably wants his keys back! How's he going to enter back into his house? Or if he has a spare wouldn;t he want the spare keys taken care off?

3. Why did Arnold carry them with him that night? Why not just leave them at home. Why confuse yourself by carrying them in the same pockets you carry your own keys? why would he need his friends keys to go drinking?

4. Why does nobody else in the family not know that Arnold was feeding a friends dog? Arnold just kept this to himself? It never came across in discussion at all?

5. Isn;t it a coincidence that the friend happens to ask him on the day of the crash? That he doesn;t tell him this days before and Arnold doesn;t feed the dog days before?



"Hmmm, what are these keys doing on the ground, I'll put them in my pocket and turn them in tomorrow morning"

The above is the only scenario that makes sense..but it has problems.

1. This would have had to have happened without his sister being privy to this. She must not have seen it or Arnold did not tell it to her or anyone else.

2. Nobody in town reported missing keys or not getting into their car or house. Apparently no local locksmiths were contacted around the time.

3. Considering Arnold has his own keys to think about...it's not a given that he would put them in his own pockets. (especially not the one that has his own keys in it). Drunkness aside...Arnold had other places to put the keys.

4. It's seems to much a coincidence that arnold happened to come across a strangers keys in the dirt along with all the other bizzare aspects of this case.


I see your point, it would be interesting to see who they belong to, but the possibilities are endless and most likely have little to do with the case


I see your point, it would be interesting to see who they belong to, but the possibilities are endless and most likely have little to do with the case

We won;t no till we find the owner. we would just be assuming that the keys have nothing to do with the case.

It's the car keys along with the other strange occurences:
1. Both bodies found days apart from the initial accident
2. The strange condition of Arnold's body
3. The report of arnold being seen with other individuals
4. Polygraph tests of the witness and the indivudals.

If it is revealed that the keys belonged to one of the individuals that failed the polygraph test. This opens the investigation to the possibility that this individual assisted in hiding Arnold after the crash and loaned him the keys for shelter and transportation.

MASTERMIND! *hugs* your back? Well anyway, I have always thought the keys were somehow important to this case. Someone should have claimed them by now. Wasnt their evidence that even the clothes worn were different? I dunno. I usually believe the most obvious answer which is a car crash, but this time there are other things that don't add up.

I am not so sure that some type of foul play is not involved in this case...Everyone seems to lean towards accident due to drinking and driving... yeah they may have been drinking but I think the issue with the accident was more due to the weather than alcohol... After all for a drunk person the cousin seems to remember details about that night and the accident so she may not have been as drunk as Arnold... also the keys are a strange peice of evidence.. but my theory on the keys simple could be Arnold picked up someone elses keys...perhaps thinking they were his.. or perhaps they belonged to someone he knew that may have left the party already... what is odd is someone would have had to missed there keys and came forward to claim them or atleast identify them as being there keys... For someone to harm them in some way and dump there bodies in the ditch... why put your keys in Arnold's pocket... Then we dont know for sure what problems Arnold and his girl may have gotten into that night or what problems they had with others in general it could be that they were followed by the would be killer perhaps the killer witnessed the entire accident and saw to it that Ruby would expire in the ditch.. maybe the took Arnold with them to settle a score before placing in the same ditch with Ruby....this perhaps would explain why the cousin was left behind and did not suffer the same fate as her cousin in Arnold .. after the crash maybe the would be killer only saw Arnold and Ruby exiting the car.. its a theory on murder.. but in truth it was a strange twisted accident that bares the earmarks of foul play....






What the heck are the odds of three innocent people failing a polygraph at the same time, anyway?

Three people seen together.

I would love to see the results of the polygraph. I;m willing to bet they all failed the same questions.

I'm also willing to bet they were all asked who the owner of the keys where as well.

I'm also willing to bet that that's one of the questions that all three of them failed. ;)

No way do I believe those guys had nothing to hide.:mad:

I am not so sure that some type of foul play is not involved in this case...Everyone seems to lean towards accident due to drinking and driving... yeah they may have been drinking but I think the issue with the accident was more due to the weather than alcohol... After all for a drunk person the cousin seems to remember details about that night and the accident so she may not have been as drunk as Arnold... also the keys are a strange peice of evidence.. but my theory on the keys simple could be Arnold picked up someone elses keys...perhaps thinking they were his.. or perhaps they belonged to someone he knew that may have left the party already... what is odd is someone would have had to missed there keys and came forward to claim them or atleast identify them as being there keys... For someone to harm them in some way and dump there bodies in the ditch... why put your keys in Arnold's pocket... Then we dont know for sure what problems Arnold and his girl may have gotten into that night or what problems they had with others in general it could be that they were followed by the would be killer perhaps the killer witnessed the entire accident and saw to it that Ruby would expire in the ditch.. maybe the took Arnold with them to settle a score before placing in the same ditch with Ruby....this perhaps would explain why the cousin was left behind and did not suffer the same fate as her cousin in Arnold .. after the crash maybe the would be killer only saw Arnold and Ruby exiting the car.. its a theory on murder.. but in truth it was a strange twisted accident that bares the earmarks of foul play....

I'm not saying there is or isn't foul play.

But, what I do believe is that there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that Arnold did not die the night of the accident and that he was placed in the ditch much, much later. That's my main point in this case and why this case must be left open as unexplained death.

My question is: If it was a murder, what was the motive? Why would someone be trolling around looking for teens to kill? Or drown? Or however they died? As a native Minnesota gal I can tell you most people want to stay in during the cold snaps, not drive around looking for teens to kill.

The one thing that continues to haunt me about this case is why did Arnold and Ruby abandoned Tracey? Perhaps they were drinking heavily yes, but as Tracey told the story, first Arnold escaped the car, vanished and later on when Ruby escaped she vanished as well without helping Tracey. I find it highly unusual that both Rudy and Arnold would be in such a intoxicated state that they would not be able to assist Tracey. Especially if Rudy was in the car earlier calling out for help. I think the fact that they were three young teens who had just had a terrible car accident helps to explain this......young, drunk, scared and it is freezing out...who knows what they were thinking.

And yes I think the cop was covering a shoddy investigation.

I just reviewed this case while reading the posts here. Not to rock the boat but I just wanted to correct Mastermind on a couple of points:
1) Tracey was Ruby's cousin. Not sister.
2) Arnold and Ruby had a Daughter. Not a son.
3) Arnold's body was not found days later. It was found the next day after Ruby was found.
4) Regarding the witness who saw Arnold after the crash, the UM website states:
"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."

Nothing is said about polygraphs given to the 3 people seen with Arnold, or even that they were identified.

That being said, Mastermind brings out some very interesting points. There are a lot of unanswered questions here. I myself tend to lean more towards the accident theory, however, the cousin does come off as though she is hiding something.

The thing I can't figure is what are the chances of 2 out of 3 people in the car that night getting trauma to the head so severly that one of them is able to help another one out of the car, then both of them just forget about the 3rd person? How could both people that escaped from the car be so out of it that they both forget the cousin is there?

It seems odd that in such severe cold that two people could have fallen through the ice (i would presume with it being that cold that the ice would be too thick to fall through but i live in WA, all we get is rain here so what do i know?), but it is possible they could have fallen through. They were found only about 15 feet apart according to UM.

I do think the keys are not as far fetched as most seem to think. A locksmith may not have been called if it was a secondary set of keys found that who ever lost them had another set. Or if Arnold picked up a lost set from somwhere, they could have been in his jacket for days before the accident. it would be interesting to see where they go to though and I wouldn't dismiss them without being sure.

Bottom line is that Mastermind is right in stating that the cause of death should probably remain "undetermined" until more evidence is found.

Something isnt right here. I too cannot understand how they could just exit the vehicle and totally forget about the other person and and just her in there. Also, obviously it didnt take all that long for someone to come upon the accident as the cousin was still alive and well in the vehicle. How long would it have taken her to die from exposure?

I dont know the exact distance away from the crash they were found but the episode did state there was "some distance" so that means they walked for awhile and then fell in the ice. How long did it take police to begin the search? I doubt the ice would have frozen back over where they had went in if they were out there searching directly after it happened.

You must consider that falling into the ice is exactly what the police thought happened and exactly what they were looking out for. Think about it, have you every thrown a large rock through the ice at a frozen pond? If so does it just freeze right back over? Or is it obvious for quite some time that something went through there?

Now people who doubt foul play have stated " why would a killer be lurking out in the cold waiting for them". Well whos to say thats how it happened? I think they were being chased by someone. They wrecked and jumped out and ran. That would explain why is was every man for himself and the cousin was left. The killers may not have been interested in the cousin or may have not even known she was in the car. Think about it, what else would explain why they would bail like that and leave the cousin?

Motive, well many of you Im sure know of the drug activity on indian reservations. Manufacture of Crystal meth was well under way with these people in 92. Ofcourse no one is going to talk about that on camera including the cousin, Im sure she knows to keep her mouth shut.

If you think about it from this angle you will see that the questions now have answers, why where they driving so eratic that they rolled the car? Because they were being chased. Why did they bail and leave the cousin? They were afraid for their lives and running. Why did the officer suspect foul play? Because he knows full well of the drug activity but without proof cant say much about his theories.
Im also guessing they were killed with some blunt force trama which in an autopsy would just appear to be from the car wreck.
Im honestly not sure if they were killed and the bodies just left there because it seems to me if the police conducted and thurough search they would have seen breaks in the ice.
Also as far as the person claiming to have seen Arnold passing a polygraph, well that just means she honestly beileves she saw him. She could still be mistaken and beileve what she saw.

I watched the segment again last night and am even more convinced that foul play had to be involved.

Here is why,

First off the accident happened at 6am which means daybreak was less then an hour of so away. Which again proves that there is no way two large people could have fallen through the ice and the holes they created freeze back over to where no one would see them by the time the search began. Also consider that they were found 75 feet from the accident and it was stated that this area was throughly searched.

Secondly, notice they say that the vehilce ended up sitting in an area that was frozen over, ( same ditch that they supposedly fell through the ice in) so are we to assume that the ice witheld the weight of a 4,000 lb vehilcle but buckled under the weight of these two people?? The car obviously did not break through the ice or the girl trapped inside would have drowned.

Third, the water depth in the ditch, how deep could it have possibly been? Are we to assume that the water level in this ditch was so deep that even if they would have broken through they couldnt have just walked out? I could understand if one person had head trama from the accident and wandered out then collapsed from injuries and ended up drowning in shallow water but two people????? and in the same general area????? Seems pretty far fetched to me.

Fourth,
The investigating officer said point blank several times that the area they were found in had been searched and there is no possible way they could have been there. This officer is closer to this case then any of us and has seen things first hand where as everyone else is seeing it through a 10 minute segment on unsolved mysteries. Normally (as Im sure most of you know) in a questionable death situation you will have police going with the easiest explanation and then the families must battle them to prove otherwise. Not so in this case, we have the lead investigator being the biggest advocate for foul play and I think its because he has seen the evidence first hand.

Fith,
The lock of Ruby's hair found on the shoulder of the road three months after the accident. You have to be joking me if you think that a handfull of hair stayed on the side of the road for three months. There is no possible way that could be and the police officer knows that, again this is why he is convinced of foul play. Consider that this area had been searched many times and this handfull of hair had not been seen before. Would a handfull of dark black hair not be obvious on the frozen white ground?

Sixth,
Did you notice that all the family members of the victims they interviewed suspect foul play? The father and the aunt both were just as convinced as the investigating officer. Why is that? Again they are closer to this case then any of us outsiders, Im sure they know of the activities that were going on and what Arnold and Ruby where tangled up in.

There is no doubt in my mind that this cousin knows more then shes telling. Did you see her segment where she talks about the accident? Every other word was "you know". "I dont know where Arnold was you know" I don't know why Ruby didnt help me you know" "I dont know what happened you know". I realize you cant tell if someone is lying just by an interview but she sure seemed nervous to me as if she was hiding something.

Im also curious to know where they were going at 6am? She never mentions that in the segment. They stopped by to pick up the child, the girls father notices how messed up they are and decides to keep the child and then they just head out to the middle of no where for no apparent reason? Being up partying at 6 am is more consistant with people using amphetamines then being drunk and I beileve that this is what this case centers around. I think they crossed the wrong people and died for it. No one on that reservation is going to talk out of fear and without any witness statements this case will never be solved.

1) Tracey was Ruby's cousin. Not sister.
2) Arnold and Ruby had a Daughter. Not a son.

Thanks for the correction. Thouugh I don't know that either changes the case that much.

I guess in a cold way, Arnold may have not cared about her the same way as his girlfriend.

3) Arnold's body was not found days later. It was found the next day after Ruby was found.


I want to check elsewhere on the timetable of events. I have a feeling something got messed up here. Again, it may be just me making a mistake. But i still want to check on this.

4) Regarding the witness who saw Arnold after the crash, the UM website states:
"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."

Nothing is said about polygraphs given to the 3 people seen with Arnold, or even that they were identified.

I believe it was reported elsewhere that the 3 people took a polygraph and failed. I'll see if I can find the site or link. Unless anyone else has it handy.

Also folks, keep in mind there are TWO versions of this UM segment

One is the full version and the other is an edited version

The full version mentions (this taken from the UM site):

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.


The edited version doesn't make mention of this. So perhaps some people have indeed seen the edited version -I personally haven't seen the full version broadcast in a long time

Also folks, keep in mind there are TWO versions of this UM segment

One is the full version and the other is an edited version

The full version mentions (this taken from the UM site):

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.


The edited version doesn't make mention of this. So perhaps some people have indeed seen the edited version -I personally haven't seen the full version broadcast in a long time

I figured I was watching an edited version because I noticed people talking about this sighting but it was never in the episode I saw. Anyone else find it strange that Arnold attended a new years party and only one person claims to have seen him?
Again back to the wall of silence at the reservation.

Secondly, notice they say that the vehilce ended up sitting in an area that was frozen over, ( same ditch that they supposedly fell through the ice in) so are we to assume that the ice witheld the weight of a 4,000 lb vehilcle but buckled under the weight of these two people?? The car obviously did not break through the ice or the girl trapped inside would have drowned.

There is no doubt in my mind that this cousin knows more then shes telling. Did you see her segment where she talks about the accident? Every other word was "you know". "I dont know where Arnold was you know" I don't know why Ruby didnt help me you know" "I dont know what happened you know". I realize you cant tell if someone is lying just by an interview but she sure seemed nervous to me as if she was hiding something.

Good points, if this is foul play the cousin is involved. If they were killed it happened that night.

In the Native American community alcohol refered to as "FireWater" FYI White man. I notice there seems to be no one thinks murder I think theres no doubt its murder Arnold was driving around all night drunk his father in-law will not give him his daughter because he was intoxicated he took the two girls life in his hands if ruby died in the car or a little after getting out I see it as Arnold's fault. They came up with the story so arnold would not be the monster who had to drink and take his daughter mother away for ever! :(

In the Native American community alcohol refered to as "FireWater" FYI White man. I notice there seems to be no one thinks murder I think theres no doubt its murder Arnold was driving around all night drunk his father in-law will not give him his daughter because he was intoxicated he took the two girls life in his hands if ruby died in the car or a little after getting out I see it as Arnold's fault. They came up with the story so arnold would not be the monster who had to drink and take his daughter mother away for ever! :(

Im not following what your saying here. "They came up with the story"? Who came up with which story? Are you saying the lead investigator fabricated a story involving foul play to save face for Arnold? He didnt even know him, what would be his motovation for that?

No matter what happened whether it be murder or just an accident he was driving drunk and took lives into his hand. Also why didnt the father stop his daughter from going back out with him when it was so obvious that he was wasted and driving.

I understand if your implying that the family wants people to think there was foul play so that Arnold doesnt look like the bad guy but it seems they are basing their opinion on the evidence that the police have turned up in their investigation.

In water under 32 degrees F which that water was well below,

I believe this was an accident, as MissKryssy2287 posted in her thread-starter, but I am afraid I must take exception to this line of logic: water, by definition, cannot be below 32 degrees F. Water under that temperature is ice!

I've watched the case a couple of times, and to me it is one of those ones that is initially mysterious, but, the more you think about it, the more it becomes clear that the obvious explanation is 99% sure to be the correct one.

In the case, they make a big deal of two things: 1) the area was thoroughly searched the day after the car crash, and yet no obvious sign that the two had fallen through the ice was found, and 2) the two bodies, when found, were in different states of decomposition. I think both of these things, however, are answerable to the most likely explanation: they both indeed fell through the ice that night and died of hypothermia.

First, I'm not sure why the police chief interviewed during the case was so darn sure that there was "no way" those bodies were there during the three months between the accident and the spring thaw. I'm sure they weren't able to search under the ice, so once they fell in, they weren't likley to be found until the ice melted. I'm sure his claim rests on the notion that there was no obvious place where the ice had cracked wide enough for two pretty big people to have fallen in, but I think that the reason for that is twofold: I don't think the hole need be as dramatically obvious or as big as the police chief was thinking. What seems likely to me is that Arshambo and his wife got out of the car and decided to flee the scene immediately, for fear of being arrested (they were both quite intoxicated evidently). So, after getting out of the car, their first move naturally would have been to get out of the ditch, which would have meant they would have head to one of the "shorelines." My guess is that the ice was "weakest" along the margins of the ditch, and they fell through probably only a few feet from dry land. And yet, the place where they fell could have easily refrozen by morning (it was several more hours before the area was searched). Actually, from having been on frozen rivers, etc., a few times in my life, I think it is entirely possible that there was simply a "gap" in the ice coverage that extended a foot or two from the dry land out to where the ice coverage began. This would be a weak area for the ice where it could have easily given way under the weight of two people, and yet, being so close to the "shore line," it likely would have begun to freeze right back over enough so that it would have only appeared to someone looking at it that the gap between the "shore" and the ice coverage was a foot or two, not big enough for people to fall through.

At any rate, they both ended up dying of exposure, which is exactly what I would expect to find in "fell under the ice" case --- there is normally a pocket of air between a layer of ice and water in a frozen lake, river, etc., so if you can remain afloat, you can breathe. The problem is, you have to find your way out fast, because you only live about 15 minutes in water that is below freezing, and since people who fall through ice almost immediately go into hypothermal shock, moving is hard. Evidently, neither one of them ever found their way out, and so they both died of exposure.

As for the various states of decomposition, my guess would be that Arshambo got a little further along than his wife in attempting to find a way out. Unfortunately for him, it was in the wrong direction. She probably remained very close to where they initially fell in, but was unable to get out, a spot which I am guessimg was closer to the edge of the ditch. This edge was probably more susceptible to brief periods of thawing and re-freezing during slight temperature changes for the rest of the winter, so the water where she was eventually found was a little "warmer," mostly because it was exposed to direct sunlight a little more frequently. Arshambo made it to a place nearer the middle of the ditch that didn't thaw at all until the spring, which meant the water temperature stayed consistently at 32 degrees Farenheit before he was found, keeping him better preserved.

I've watched the case a couple of times, and to me it is one of those ones that is initially mysterious, but, the more you think about it, the more it becomes clear that the obvious explanation is 99% sure to be the correct one.

In the case, they make a big deal of two things: 1) the area was thoroughly searched the day after the car crash, and yet no obvious sign that the two had fallen through the ice was found, and 2) the two bodies, when found, were in different states of decomposition. I think both of these things, however, are answerable to the most likely explanation: they both indeed fell through the ice that night and died of hypothermia.

First, I'm not sure why the police chief interviewed during the case was so darn sure that there was "no way" those bodies were there during the three months between the accident and the spring thaw. I'm sure they weren't able to search under the ice, so once they fell in, they weren't likley to be found until the ice melted. I'm sure his claim rests on the notion that there was no obvious place where the ice had cracked wide enough for two pretty big people to have fallen in, but I think that the reason for that is twofold: I don't think the hole need be as dramatically obvious or as big as the police chief was thinking. What seems likely to me is that Arshambo and his wife got out of the car and decided to flee the scene immediately, for fear of being arrested (they were both quite intoxicated evidently). So, after getting out of the car, their first move naturally would have been to get out of the ditch, which would have meant they would have head to one of the "shorelines." My guess is that the ice was "weakest" along the margins of the ditch, and they fell through probably only a few feet from dry land. And yet, the place where they fell could have easily refrozen by morning (it was several more hours before the area was searched). Actually, from having been on frozen rivers, etc., a few times in my life, I think it is entirely possible that there was simply a "gap" in the ice coverage that extended a foot or two from the dry land out to where the ice coverage began. This would be a weak area for the ice where it could have easily given way under the weight of two people, and yet, being so close to the "shore line," it likely would have begun to freeze right back over enough so that it would have only appeared to someone looking at it that the gap between the "shore" and the ice coverage was a foot or two, not big enough for people to fall through.

At any rate, they both ended up dying of exposure, which is exactly what I would expect to find in "fell under the ice" case --- there is normally a pocket of air between a layer of ice and water in a frozen lake, river, etc., so if you can remain afloat, you can breathe. The problem is, you have to find your way out fast, because you only live about 15 minutes in water that is below freezing, and since people who fall through ice almost immediately go into hypothermal shock, moving is hard. Evidently, neither one of them ever found their way out, and so they both died of exposure.

As for the various states of decomposition, my guess would be that Arshambo got a little further along than his wife in attempting to find a way out. Unfortunately for him, it was in the wrong direction. She probably remained very close to where they initially fell in, but was unable to get out, a spot which I am guessimg was closer to the edge of the ditch. This edge was probably more susceptible to brief periods of thawing and re-freezing during slight temperature changes for the rest of the winter, so the water where she was eventually found was a little "warmer," mostly because it was exposed to direct sunlight a little more frequently. Arshambo made it to a place nearer the middle of the ditch that didn't thaw at all until the spring, which meant the water temperature stayed consistently at 32 degrees Farenheit before he was found, keeping him better preserved.

Ok you make some good points here but you also leave out alot. Im hoping you have some explanations for the following.

You keep talking about how they fell through at the shoreline. Remember we are not talking about a frozen lake or pond, we are talking about a ditch at the side of the road. Again how deep could it be? And if they fell through at the edge of the ditch that would obviously be a shallow area they could have walked out of.

Also you make no mention of the lock of Ruby's hair found on the side of the road. How did it get there and how did it stay there for three months?? If indeed it was there the night of the accident then obviously at some time she was on the side of the road and must have went back down into the ditch.

The accident happened at 6 am, which means daybreak was about an hour away. There is no way that two holes of that size could have frozen back over that quick to where no one would have seen the breaks. If it was cold enough to freeze that fast then would the ice not have been strong enough to support their weight? It supported the weight of the car. Keep in mind they were found 75 ft away from the crash so if the police simply walked a little ways it would have been obvious where they had fallen through. Its not like the wandered 5 miles from the crash site and then fell through the ice.

I think the family and the lead investigator are convinced of foul play because they simply know more then we do. Since no one including the cousin is talking there is really nothing he can do. The officer stated that he along with several others not involved in the case searched the area where they were found and he was positive they could not have been there. I dont think he's lying. Would it not be easier for the police to just rule this an accident (as they normally would) then to come up with some wild story involving foul play and murder?

As far as the mystery keys go, I think people are giving them too much attention. It really doesnt prove anything one way or the other. However once again I think the cousin knows more then shes telling. She was with Arnold the entire night, wouldnt she know why he had a set of someone elses keys???? Also after he was found why would the owner not come forward and claim his keys?? Unless of course the owner of the keys did not want to be involved and reveal himself for some reason.

One idea that I am working on is the possibility that Arnold was never in the car to begin with.

That someone that cared less about the cousin and was more concerned with rescuing Ruby.

That someone else was driving the car with Ruby and the cousin.

Perhaps the reason Arnold has another pair of keys in his pocket is that he was driving someone else's car.

What do you guys think?

As far as the mystery keys go, I think people are giving them too much attention. It really doesnt prove anything one way or the other

If the owner of the keys was found...you would have no interest in hearing his story of how his keys wound up in Arnold's pocket that night?:confused:

As far as the mystery keys go, I think people are giving them too much attention. It really doesnt prove anything one way or the other

If the owner of the keys was found...you would have NO interest in hearing his story of how his keys wound up in Arnold's pocket that night?:confused:

I think it would be interesting to find out how and why those keys were in his pocket. They may have nothing to do with the case and then again, they may have everything to do with it.

I think the police in this case should just start from one end of town to another and ask all known friends and relatives of both Arnold and Ruby and even the cousin, if they can check the keys against there homes and cars right there on the spot. Obviously this would be next to impossible now after so much time has passed, but if they had done it to start with it may have at least told them if the keys were indeed related to the case or not.

Arnold may have innocently just found the keys or they could have ended up there some other more sinister way. I think the bottom line with the keys is that while they may well be evidence, they could be just some random element that leads nowhere.

Consider this: If you spend an entire day by yourself, and then were to end up being found dead the next day, how many random little things could be misinterpreted as clues if your death was considered a homicide? There are any number of random things that when put under a microscope would not make sense to anyone looking into it, but these things may have a perfectly logical explanation. If you were found dead and police investigate and may find that mustard is found on the ceiling of your home (when you were the only one home all day) but you don't like mustard and the mustard container that a family member that lives with you bought is now missing. Is that an important clue or did you while going through the fridge accidentally knock the mustard out which broke and splattered all over? After cleaning the mess you could have taken out the trash (mustard container included) and put it outside before the garbage truck comes by. Bam. Missing mustard container, body found dead the next day. Related? No, but to someone that has no idea how or why these things are connected, it may seem like a clue. The alleged killer may even be dubbed "The Mustard Bandit".

That being said, I think there is a good possibility that the keys are connected to this case and probably something more than just finding them on the ground somewhere. But it is also very possible that they are not related at all. We just don't know. I do think the drug suggestion is an interesting element that would explain most of the questions surrounding this case.

One idea that I am working on is the possibility that Arnold was never in the car to begin with.

That someone that cared less about the cousin and was more concerned with rescuing Ruby.

That someone else was driving the car with Ruby and the cousin.

Perhaps the reason Arnold has another pair of keys in his pocket is that he was driving someone else's car.

What do you guys think?
Very well could be but what happened to the driver and what happened to the car Arnold was driving?

If the owner of the keys was found...you would have NO interest in hearing his story of how his keys wound up in Arnold's pocket that night?:confused:

Oh sure I would, Im just saying that I think people are focusing on that one issue to much. I honestly think that the fact that the lead investigator along with all of the family members interviewed are convinced of foul play is alot more telling then the keys. I did say that it is suspicious that if this was just an accident then why would the owner of the keys not come forward to claim them?

I think it would be interesting to find out how and why those keys were in his pocket. They may have nothing to do with the case and then again, they may have everything to do with it.

I think the police in this case should just start from one end of town to another and ask all known friends and relatives of both Arnold and Ruby and even the cousin, if they can check the keys against there homes and cars right there on the spot. Obviously this would be next to impossible now after so much time has passed, but if they had done it to start with it may have at least told them if the keys were indeed related to the case or not.

Arnold may have innocently just found the keys or they could have ended up there some other more sinister way. I think the bottom line with the keys is that while they may well be evidence, they could be just some random element that leads nowhere.

Consider this: If you spend an entire day by yourself, and then were to end up being found dead the next day, how many random little things could be misinterpreted as clues if your death was considered a homicide? There are any number of random things that when put under a microscope would not make sense to anyone looking into it, but these things may have a perfectly logical explanation. If you were found dead and police investigate and may find that mustard is found on the ceiling of your home (when you were the only one home all day) but you don't like mustard and the mustard container that a family member that lives with you bought is now missing. Is that an important clue or did you while going through the fridge accidentally knock the mustard out which broke and splattered all over? After cleaning the mess you could have taken out the trash (mustard container included) and put it outside before the garbage truck comes by. Bam. Missing mustard container, body found dead the next day. Related? No, but to someone that has no idea how or why these things are connected, it may seem like a clue. The alleged killer may even be dubbed "The Mustard Bandit".

That being said, I think there is a good possibility that the keys are connected to this case and probably something more than just finding them on the ground somewhere. But it is also very possible that they are not related at all. We just don't know. I do think the drug suggestion is an interesting element that would explain most of the questions surrounding this case.
I don't understand the analogy your trying to make with the mustard example as far as this case is concerned. I realize that little insignificant happenings can be turned into clues which lead to theories. However I think there is alot more at play here then just a few odd happenings. Ruby's hair being found on the side of the road three months later and the lead investigator swearing that there is no way the bodies could have been there are both a little more then just odd happenings.

As far as the police checking the keys against everyones locks, you can forget that. It takes an act of God for a sherrif to get on an indian reservation. They are a soveirn nation and there is no way a police officer is going to be able to just show up and start testing everyones locks. The investigator may have tried this and Im sure he was stonewalled just like the cousin was stonewalling during the UM interview. She was with them all night, she knows who the keys belong to.

The more I think about this case the more I see that the only way this cannot involve foul play is if there was a police cover up. Im not saying this is what happened just playing devils advocate. The officer would not only have to be outright lying but would also have had to have planted evidence.

Could have been that they figured Arnold and Ruby simply ran to avoid being arrested and figured they would turn up at home so they didnt bother to search right off the bat. The officer did say that it was not uncommon for people to flee an accident to avoid being arrested. By the time they realize these people are missing then ofcourse the water had frozen back over. Maybe more snow and ice fell making it impossible to see them by the time any real search began. They turn up dead in the ditch three months later and the families want answers, so the investigators plant the keys on Arnold as well as plant Rubys hair in order to raise doubt as to whether they had been there all along.
Again this is the only way I can see this just being an accident, if the officer is being totally honest then there is simply no way that foul play wasnt involved here.

Ok you make some good points here but you also leave out alot. Im hoping you have some explanations for the following.

You keep talking about how they fell through at the shoreline. Remember we are not talking about a frozen lake or pond, we are talking about a ditch at the side of the road. Again how deep could it be? And if they fell through at the edge of the ditch that would obviously be a shallow area they could have walked out of.

Also you make no mention of the lock of Ruby's hair found on the side of the road. How did it get there and how did it stay there for three months?? If indeed it was there the night of the accident then obviously at some time she was on the side of the road and must have went back down into the ditch.

The accident happened at 6 am, which means daybreak was about an hour away. There is no way that two holes of that size could have frozen back over that quick to where no one would have seen the breaks. If it was cold enough to freeze that fast then would the ice not have been strong enough to support their weight? It supported the weight of the car. Keep in mind they were found 75 ft away from the crash so if the police simply walked a little ways it would have been obvious where they had fallen through. Its not like the wandered 5 miles from the crash site and then fell through the ice.

I think the family and the lead investigator are convinced of foul play because they simply know more then we do. Since no one including the cousin is talking there is really nothing he can do. The officer stated that he along with several others not involved in the case searched the area where they were found and he was positive they could not have been there. I dont think he's lying. Would it not be easier for the police to just rule this an accident (as they normally would) then to come up with some wild story involving foul play and murder?

As far as the mystery keys go, I think people are giving them too much attention. It really doesnt prove anything one way or the other. However once again I think the cousin knows more then shes telling. She was with Arnold the entire night, wouldnt she know why he had a set of someone elses keys???? Also after he was found why would the owner not come forward and claim his keys?? Unless of course the owner of the keys did not want to be involved and reveal himself for some reason.

I must admit, I haven't watched the case in awhile and I am not quite certain when I will be able to get around to it. But, off the top of my head, I'd say that your notion about when the sun rises in South Dakota in December is a bit off. This chart (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=627&month=12&year=1992&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1) shows that the sun rose shortly before 8 o'clock, not 6:30 or 7:00, on the morning of December 12, 1992. So there were two hours before there was much light, not one.

Someone refresh my memory: was a DNA test done on the hair found by the side of the road or not?

I must admit, I haven't watched the case in awhile and I am not quite certain when I will be able to get around to it. But, off the top of my head, I'd say that your notion about when the sun rises in South Dakota in December is a bit off. This chart (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=627&month=12&year=1992&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1) shows that the sun rose shortly before 8 o'clock, not 6:30 or 7:00, on the morning of December 12, 1992. So there were two hours before there was much light, not one.
Ok well the episode said they were at the cousins house at 6am. This is when the dad said that he would keep the child because they were drunk. So the accident was shortly after 6 am. You may be correct on the sunrise but still I dont see how breaks in the ice made from two lare people could freeze back over that fast. Do you have any info on the exact tempurature that morning?????

Someone refresh my memory: was a DNA test done on the hair found by the side of the road or not?
Im not sure if they mentioned DNA or not but they did say it was identified as Ruby's hair.

Im not sure if they mentioned DNA or not but they did say it was identified as Ruby's hair.

Hmmm... well, I must say I question whether or not the hair really was Ruby's. If there was a DNA match done, the segment ought to say so. Otherwise, how was it identified? Because it looked like it? I'll be there are lots of people on an Indian reservation with hair that looks like Ruby's hair.

Ok well the episode said they were at the cousins house at 6am. This is when the dad said that he would keep the child because they were drunk. So the accident was shortly after 6 am. You may be correct on the sunrise but still I dont see how breaks in the ice made from two lare people could freeze back over that fast. Do you have any info on the exact tempurature that morning?????

I doubt very much I am going to be able to come up with the temperature that morning in 1992...

Im not sure if they mentioned DNA or not but they did say it was identified as Ruby's hair.
If I remember correctly the hair was found after the bodies was found. If the hair had been found before the bodies was found it would be an important lead. But if it was found after it is not, cause then it's probably gotten there when the bodies were carried out of the lake.

If Arnold and Ruby where killed, I have 2 theories of how it was done, the cousin is involved in both of them.

They where already drugged down when SHE drove the car to the river and arranged the car to fall into the river through the ice. When the car did not go through the ice as planned she made a hole in the ice put the drugged bodies inside and filled the hole with the ice again. She then got into the car and pretended being a passenger. Maybe she had a helper that disappeared from the area when the job was done.

The second theory is that Arnold and Ruby was never in the car when the accident happened, they where already killed by the cousin (and maybe a helper). Drugged down and put in a freezer some place. The cousin was in the process of hiding the car when she had an accident and the car flipped over into the river.

Motive: jealousy, money, drugs ......

I not saying they where killed I'm just trying to put up some plausible theories...

Hmmm... well, I must say I question whether or not the hair really was Ruby's. If there was a DNA match done, the segment ought to say so. Otherwise, how was it identified? Because it looked like it? I'll be there are lots of people on an Indian reservation with hair that looks like Ruby's hair.
Ok I watched the segment again last night and they said that forensics had determined it was Ruby's hair.

If I remember correctly the hair was found after the bodies was found. If the hair had been found before the bodies was found it would be an important lead. But if it was found after it is not, cause then it's probably gotten there when the bodies were carried out of the lake.

If Arnold and Ruby where killed, I have 2 theories of how it was done, the cousin is involved in both of them.

They where already drugged down when SHE drove the car to the river and arranged the car to fall into the river through the ice. When the car did not go through the ice as planned she made a hole in the ice put the drugged bodies inside and filled the hole with the ice again. She then got into the car and pretended being a passenger. Maybe she had a helper that disappeared from the area when the job was done.

The second theory is that Arnold and Ruby was never in the car when the accident happened, they where already killed by the cousin (and maybe a helper). Drugged down and put in a freezer some place. The cousin was in the process of hiding the car when she had an accident and the car flipped over into the river.

Motive: jealousy, money, drugs ......

I not saying they where killed I'm just trying to put up some plausible theories...
Well if thats the case she went to a heck of alot of work and had to have some help dragging the bodies to the ditch, making holes in the ice and then covering them back up. She would have also had very little time to do this. Remember they were seen at 6am and the accident was shortly after. I dont think she was directly involved but I think she knows exactly what happened.

Interesting note here,
I was on another site and saw a post on this case from someone claiming to live in the same general area in South Dakota. He said that in December the ponds, lakes or ditches are frozen solid with ice as thick as 1 to 3 feet. He also said the ditch they were found in was not near big enough or deep enough to have concealed their bodies from site. I think this is why to police are so convinced of foul play, They know they would have seen those bodies in the shallow ditch even if they did fall in and it froze back over.

I think they were killed in a different spot. Then when the season changed and the ground started to unthaw that's when they placed the bodies on or around the spot where the car was found. That would explain the clump of hair that was found.

I think the cousin knows more than she knows.

How do you explain why Arnold's body was more well kept then Ruby's was ?

How did they die ? Where there any marks on their bodies ?

Or about how Arnold was seen at a party.

There's another thing I noticed when they found Ruby's body, her clothes looked like someone else put them on. Idk, maybe that's just me.

This case will always leave me asking questions.

Their families, especially their daughter (who would be around their age right about now) deserve answers.

I say the question the cousin again.

I think they were killed in a different spot. Then when the season changed and the ground started to unthaw that's when they placed the bodies on or around the spot where the car was found. That would explain the clump of hair that was found.

I think the cousin knows more than she knows.

How do you explain why Arnold's body was more well kept then Ruby's was ?

How did they die ? Where there any marks on their bodies ?

Or about how Arnold was seen at a party.

There's another thing I noticed when they found Ruby's body, her clothes looked like someone else put them on. Idk, maybe that's just me.

This case will always leave me asking questions.

Their families, especially their daughter (who would be around their age right about now) deserve answers.

I say the question the cousin again.

I believe that the cause of death was found to be exposure, which in my opinion, makes foul play seem even less likely. Death by exposure fits the accident scenario perfectly.