Kimberly Pandelios camp sighting

[Guardian]

Just rewatching this segment after some time. While I know it has been solved, I am curious about the supposed sighting as shown on UM. The wiki page for that segment says: “Authorities now believe that "Jeff" was mistaken about his sighting and that the woman he saw was not Kimberly.”

Okay... so a very clean cut woman apparently being restrained in a campground with a bunch of hairy filthy guys is just written off? Even if it wasn’t Kimberley, then it still sounds like something nefarious was going on when this Jeff stumbles on them. Could be a misunderstanding I suppose, but as described in the segment, it looks like something truly alarming was going on. In the end, Jeff didn’t go to the authorities until after a body had been found so maybe that angle was played up for television. Still, it makes one wonder.

Any thoughts on this?

[Garfunkel'sGhost]

I've always found that strange myself. The only thing that makes sense is that they played it up for the show, otherwise Jeff's decision to not go to the cops right away is inexcusable.

[Mike82]

I've always assumed that it was a case of a consensual adult film being made and it was in no way related to any crime.

[James T]

Either he made it up, or he intruded on some sort of swingers party thing going on there-the way he describes them it sounds like they were on drink/drugs. The female wasn't being restrained or raped-she was likely going by his description spaced out on something & the guys thought he was muscling in on their lady.

[bugnpinky]

Originally Posted by Mike82

I've always assumed that it was a case of a consensual adult film being made and it was in no way related to any crime.

Unless there were actual cameras around that seems like a VERY huge....stretch

[bugnpinky]

Originally Posted by James T

Either he made it up, or he intruded on some sort of swingers party thing going on there-the way he describes them it sounds like they were on drink/drugs. The female wasn't being restrained or raped-she was likely going by his description spaced out on something & the guys thought he was muscling in on their lady.

Or, considering what we know about true crime, something really hinky could have been going on. There could be a lot he was missing out on since he obviously wasn't there for very long and had no idea what happened before or after he left. It sounds like a very strong possibility that something nefarious was going on....

[James T]

Originally Posted by bugnpinky

Or, considering what we know about true crime, something really hinky could have been going on. There could be a lot he was missing out on since he obviously wasn't there for very long and had no idea what happened before or after he left. It sounds like a very strong possibility that something nefarious was going on....

I seriously doubt this ever even happened & that he just wanted five minutes of fame. He might have been there at some point & run into some mountain men who he had some kind of problem with & thought it would be a good idea to try to frame them for murder to get back at them.

I mean the story just doesn't really ring true-he happens to see a stunning woman who looks very similar to Kimberley who back in the days before every Instagram/Twitter/YT girl is model material would stick out like a sore thumb-yet nobody else reported seeing her at any point in the company of some scruffy hippy types or on her own.

If it was legit there is nothing anybody can do-because no other remains were found in that area, there are no other missing women reporting that description, no other witnesses than this guy etc. On balance you have to think he is either telling porkies or at best he stumbled across some outback types & their old lady camping who somehow he has turned into KP-maybe she was blonde & busty & his imagination just ran wild when he saw UM.

[Mike82]

Originally Posted by bugnpinky

Unless there were actual cameras around that seems like a VERY huge....stretch

If the guy didn't stick around for long, how would he have known? We aren't talking about a Hollywood level production here. Why else would the police say he was "mistaken" and not mention anything further? I can only presume it was either this or that he just made or greatly exxagerated the story for attention.

Having had many movies filmed at my workplace I am aware of the astronomical amount of equipment and logisitics involved (usually around 8 trailer loads!) but for a low-budget adult film its not that much of a stretch.

[XCalibur]

Glad someone brought this up. I always wondered about it myself. When I first heard Kimberly Pandelios case had been solved I thought maybe her killer was just one of the guys the witness saw, but apparently the killer who was caught didn't match any of the descriptions.

Assuming that the event happened as the witness and the reenactment described, and assuming it wasn't Kimberly he saw, then yeah I'd be very suspicious that something bad was happening the way those guys acted.

However, its impossible to say with any certainty. The witness as best as I can remember seemed credible, but no more than what what we know about him its difficult to say for sure. I can't think why anyone would lie about something like that, since obviously he left the camp without calling the police or doing anything and wouldn't exactly come off as a hero. So I think its unlikely it was a complete fabrication.

But I do question if it happened exactly like he described. Three almost inbred looking guys acting all scary defending a camp with a clean cut beautiful blonde in a daze seems pretty far fetched and like something out of Wrong Turn or the Hills Have Eyes.

My guess is the witness encountered someone out there and there was an incident, but he was exaggerating it wasn't quite as dramatic as it was described in the reenactment.

[James T]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

Glad someone brought this up. I always wondered about it myself. When I first heard Kimberly Pandelios case had been solved I thought maybe her killer was just one of the guys the witness saw, but apparently the killer who was caught didn't match any of the descriptions.

Assuming that the event happened as the witness and the reenactment described, and assuming it wasn't Kimberly he saw, then yeah I'd be very suspicious that something bad was happening the way those guys acted.

However, its impossible to say with any certainty. The witness as best as I can remember seemed credible, but no more than what what we know about him its difficult to say for sure. I can't think why anyone would lie about something like that, since obviously he left the camp without calling the police or doing anything and wouldn't exactly come off as a hero. So I think its unlikely it was a complete fabrication.

But I do question if it happened exactly like he described. Three almost inbred looking guys acting all scary defending a camp with a clean cut beautiful blonde in a daze seems pretty far fetched and like something out of Wrong Turn or the Hills Have Eyes.

My guess is the witness encountered someone out there and there was an incident, but he was exaggerating it wasn't quite as dramatic as it was described in the reenactment.

Well, why would anybody make up being in the Twin Towers on 9/11? Why would anybody make up being a concentration camp survivor from WW2? Why do people make up being the victim of sexual abuse to where the law go after innocent people? Why do people phone up the cops claiming to be killers or the family of the missing pretending to be them or pretending they killed their loved ones?

Even if he did see somebody it obviously wasn't her, she was killed by one man posing as a photographer who looked nothing like any of the people described, she was likely assaulted shortly after meeting him there, raped & then murdered likely all within an hour or so.

[Guardian]

Originally Posted by James T

Even if he did see somebody it obviously wasn't her, she was killed by one man posing as a photographer who looked nothing like any of the people described, she was likely assaulted shortly after meeting him there, raped & then murdered likely all within an hour or so.

Well, my point with the post was, under the assumption that Jeff is telling the truth, just what did he see? Jeff May very well be making the whole thing up. But frankly there is less there to speculate and/or discuss with that than going with the assumption that he saw something. So that’s what I’m curious about.

Personally, I think he saw what he said he saw. But was this exaggerated or misunderstood after seeing Kimberley in the news? Was it some other unknown or unreported assault/murder? Was there a sex trafficking type thing going on? Was it a low budget porno being filmed?

[James T]

I think we can rule out another murder-there were no other remains found there & this lady he described was hugely striking/memorable, yet nobody else saw her & nobody of her description was reported missing. If they were filming a porn film there would have been equipment-he didn't report seeing anything-even a camcorder. Why would sex traffickers take her to such a remote place & draw attention to themselves by bothering some random guy who could have called the police? I think that leaves us with if it was genuine he has embellished what happened.

[Labonte18]

I'll go back to this one.. How many people saw Lisa Marie Kimmell's car?

People make mistakes. Eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable piece of evidence there is.

[TheCars1986]

Random porno never occured to me before. It makes sense.

[Mike82]

Originally Posted by James T

Well, why would anybody make up being in the Twin Towers on 9/11? Why would anybody make up being a concentration camp survivor from WW2? Why do people make up being the victim of sexual abuse to where the law go after innocent people? Why do people phone up the cops claiming to be killers or the family of the missing pretending to be them or pretending they killed their loved ones?

I have a close family member who is to put it mildly a pathological liar. For example, I could call this person up and they would state that the local grocery store doesn't sell milk or bread so that they have to go to the grocery store across town: not that they are sold out but they don't stock them at all. If you were to point out the obvious lie (they are probably the two most popular items!) they would just double down and insist they are telling the truth and if I pointed out that I was there recently and they indeed carry those items, they would just mention how it was a "recent change".

I'm genuinely puzzled to this behavior and can only assume they must somehow, someway believe their own lies. I recently had a guy who I caught in a bold-faced lie, told him to just come clean and what does he do? Makes up an even more absurd lie! I don't think enough of us UM fans really appreciate how many people will make up stories about things that literally never happened. Now, if you will excuse me, an alien ship landed outside my window but it's blocked from sight by Bigfoot.