IS THERE MORE TO THE CHRISTOPHER MCCANDLESS STORY???

[SteveSalmon]

~SS

[Ascetic]

Obviously the thread isn't called, "Was Chris Murdered?" but reading some of these quotes, and those taken from the "Chris' Belongings" thread, some form of foul play is certainly the object of speculation. These are the quotes I'm referring to (italicized for emphasis):

“This Forsberg fellow had his own cabin broken into the summer that Chris was staying in the bus, what if he tracked Chris to the bus and there was an altercation of some sort? Was this the injury described in Chris' note? Was Forsberg somehow responsible for Chris' death somehow? Probably not but you have to wonder?”

“i think it is possible [this is a theory, not what i think really happend] after hearing his cabin's demise of being wrecked, he left out to confront alex/chris.maybe even going as far as injuring him, maybe threatening him as well.”

“Anywho, now what if will really went out and had a nasty confrontation with chris and possibly having it end up as a phsyical altercation, yes maybe chris would have written about it, but then again, will could have went back and made sure no note could be there to incriminate him.”

Do you see how asking whether Forsberg was responsible for Chris' death, or speculating about physical assaults, could lead someone to think that you all are implying that Forsberg was criminally liable? Even in the event that Forsberg didn't murder Chris outright, if he was responsible for Chris' injury, and that injury prevented Chris from leaving the wild and thus caused him to starve to death, then Forsberg would be guilty, at the very least, of manslaughter. That's the logical corollary of your speculations.

Again, these are serious matters with serious implications. And I think before people continue theorizing about them, they should withhold judgment until they've heard from Forsberg himself.

I've gotten on Forsberg's website and invited him here.

[Ascetic]

I heard something interesting in this clip of Alaskan locals talking about Chris . . . according to Victor Hopka, "I know that people knew that there was somebody in the bus that didn't have much of anything."

This statement, if it's true, directly contradicts the idea that Chris' presence in the wild went unnoticed by the locals. Whether he ever met any of them or not we don't know, but according to Hopka, at least some people knew he was out there at the bus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzoEeoRZtRc&NR=1

[SteveSalmon]

~SS

[SteveSalmon]

I heard something interesting in this clip of Alaskan locals talking about Chris . . . according to Victor Hopka, "I know that people knew that there was somebody in the bus that didn't have much of anything."

This statement, if it's true, directly contradicts the idea that Chris' presence in the wild went unnoticed by the locals. Whether he ever met any of them or not we don't know, but according to Hopka, at least some people knew he was out there at the bus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzoEeoRZtRc&NR=1

Wow, Im not sure what you are trying to insinuate here, but, I think the fact that you implying the locals murdered Chris is a bit brash. Dont you think you should get everyone on that video on this forum before you make your claims? Im going to tell Victor Hopka what you said. Does anyone know if he has a website?

[ellisd]

x

[SteveSalmon]

~SS

[ellisd]

x

[SteveSalmon]

~SS

[bobenns]

Bobbens- In response to what you have stated in your "2 cents worth":
Im trying to understand what the "Was one of them a pilot sentence was about? A riddle reference? Now as far as weight goes, how did they budget for his weight before they took off? Is a dead man's backpack really considered "extra weight"? There can be numerous things present at a crime scene that have substantial impact on a case. It isn't up to a state trooper to deem what is important and what is not. This was a mysterious death from the start. For all they knew it could have been a body that was placed there. I'll stop there and just add that I don't see why the backpack wasn't important enough to take. After all, look what it had to offer inside. I have questions in regard to how this scenario was treated by the troopers. Overlooking evidence, a "cursory examination of the scene. Again this haste could have destroyed evidence in something more to the story. I believe he died of starvation myself. It is most certainly clear in his photos.

The pilot question. The troopers came in a chopper. Who was the pilot? Was it one of the troopers at the stick or an extra person? Not a riddle, just my bad grammar.

I'm thinking about the fact that with small planes weight is a constant consideration. Perhaps if they had taken any more weight on board someone would have to stay behind and the plane would come back for them, make an extra trip. Seems like they were kind of rushed, in a hurry. Maybe the hours for the bird were over budget that month?

Small aircraft are used quite a bit in remote northern areas. Overloading is a problem that often leads to crashes. They would paying very close attention to weight. I'd like to know what the capacity of the chopper was and how many made the trip to the bus. Where did the chopper fly from?

I really don't think the troopers thought too long about it being a crime scene. It had been reported as a man found starved to death. The body looked starved, there was no evidence of food supplies being there recently, but evidence of hunter gatherer activity. The notes etc suggested starvation. The fact that Chris had his name on at least one note doesn't mean a lot. They wanted positive ID and Chris was a long way from home.

They missed the packs importance alright. They may have overlooked it completely. It was probably empty or could have been full of sticks or roots and just looked like a piece of junk to them. Someone should go interview these guys. Find out who they were and what they have to say about it. Someone who lives nearby should do it. That would be Foresberg. We need to get him here.

But was there ever a confrontation? Someone wrote "he would have put it in his notes" Well, we cant say that for sure. First, we assume he would have put that in his notes, and maybe he DID but the notes were lost, stolen or destroyed. Likely? Sure why not?

I suggested he might have noted it. He only noted certain things that seemed to stand out for him. "Brown Bear Day" we can pretty much figure out what that days major event was. So because there is no "Confrontation Day" or "Will Foresberg Day" I assume he never met the man. Its pretty much assumed he never saw another living soul out there and no evidence that he did. I think if he had someone stop by, it would have been a big event and noted in the sparse journal.

I would like to say here that I fully aware that there are facts that the book was based on. Lots of those facts, Im sure, were not necessary for the story, and were left out. I bet most of the questions can be answered. But, like I said in the beginning, Im basing my questions on what is offered to me by way of the book and the documentary. Again I hope his family has the answers and Im willing to bet they do.
Bobbens you seem to assign Will Forsberg with the same ideal and morals that belong to you. That is probably because you yourself are exactly that. This however doesn't mean that he is. I'll say right here that my own personal opinion of Will Forsberg is that he appears to me to be a gentle soul with good intentions. He speaks in kind words of his wife and the world around him, takes great pictures etc. However he still took something that did not belong to him. That backpack was in the bus and could have been useful to someone else. Did he really need it? Again a simple rule of 'Dont take what does not belong to you' was broken by Mr. Forsberg. I dont understand why he never gave it back, and again, to be honest, if I had to guess, the reason would be that the family told him to keep it.

We do see Foresberg in the documentary and to me he seems rather typical of the northern woodsman type I am familiar with in a lot of ways. I don't know that I'm a lot like him myself. I opted to travel in this great country quite a bit and became a lot more worldly than those who stayed in that small northern town where I grew up. However I suppose I retain a certain (charm) set of small town values. I'm certainly a lot quicker to reach out and shake the hand of a stranger than a lot of city folk, and a lot better looking too!

As far as taking the pack goes. I think I see it more from Foresberg's perspective. Going out to the bus some time after the body was discovered and seeing a lot of stuff left behind, junk discarded by a dead man basically, in his mind. Couple that with Foresberg believing Chris was responsible for trashing his cabin I can see him taking the pack with a aire of, "You won't be needing this anymore" (add Scandinavian accent here) and in a way taking it as payment for damage done.

It doesn't seem likely to me that Chris trashed those cabins. It had been done before spring as there was grass etc growing up through a mattress that was tossed outside. However, in the scenario offered by some that Chris had gone mad, he would trash the cabins.

The jealousy theory you present could be far fetched as well. Maybe he's convinced himself that it WAS Chris who needlessly damaged his cabin. Maybe it's an anger issue. Someone, according to him, got away with vandalizing/destroying his property and instead of punishment, received notoriety.
As far as someone being, as you put it, "foolish" for starving, I label that as something tragic and sad and not foolish.

I'm saying this is Foresberg's perception of him. Most of the locals out there consider Chris and his followers to be foolish or worse.

I think he set out to that unknown area with a goal of 100 days after which he would return to the outside world again with stories of his adventures. I have not a doubt in my mind that he wanted to step back into the civilized world it wasn't a suicide mission to lay there and starve, that would have been foolish.
Why would Forsberg be entitled to the whole place out there? After all it belongs most to the local hunters and trappers too. I'll tell you something else, that area was NOTHING LIKE a "wasteland". It is a secret jewel of a hunting spot, where once the animal crosses the line from protected by a state park and enters the public area, it is free for the cross-hairs.

What I mean by wasteland is there is nothing of commercial value like timber or minerals left that is worth taking. The bush is pretty much scrub, the trail was a road to a deposit that never paid so its an economic wasteland as such. Pretty hard for anyone to cajole a living out of it for more than one or two people doing some fishing, hunting, trapping, maybe guiding a little. But what else that can feed you or bring income? And for a person to be stuck out there with not enough supplies to live off of or the skills to live off the land its a true wasteland.

Foresberg being a man who has had free access and range to the whole place may well feel entitled. Just like someone who parks on the street in front of their house feels that the spot where they park is theirs and gets ticked right off when they come home and find someone else parked in their spot. Its a sense of entitlement.

I would like to know more about when Foresberg learned his cabin was trashed and when he decided to blame Chris.

I think if Foresberg had been out to the bus and met Chris say in June he would have been charmed by him as many others were and not jumped to the conclusion that Chris was the vandal. From what I understand it might have been a bear even and not a person at all.

Check this bear story out. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100929/bc_bear_robbery_100929/

Now a remote cabin that is left unattended for months and months. After a bear breaks in all manner of wild animals could be pulling stuff out and tearing it up over a long period.

You think if Forsberg would have met Chris he would have been so willing to help him and show him a thing or two about survival? I might agree with you if it were under different circumstances.

Foresberg probably would have recognized the ambition in Chris but also seen the need to help Chris survive.

I like what you wrote about the unwritten rules of the North. I agree those are the rules you and I follow, help those in need, but, I'd also like to remind you that just because those are rules most follow, it doesnt mean that EVERYONE follows them. I've been stranded before and have watched quite a few act as if they didn't see me, and go on about their way. By the way this reminds me of the time I helped pull a state trooper out of the snow bank with my car. It was late at night and I didn't think twice about helping him. I remember hoping for a get out of ticket free card, but, instead received a hearty hand shake and thank you and that was just fine.

There will always be a few that disregard the unwritten rules. They become known as assholes or worse and may well end up the victim of their own selfishness when no one comes to their aid.

When I lived on the West Coast, Prince Rupert in particular, there was a similar rule on the water. When anyone needed help you helped, no question, your life depended on it. That carried over into the community, into society. Good people always helping others without being asked. I really noticed the difference when I left and moved back east to go to school. People in the city all had a 2X4 up their ass, cold and unfriendly and shallow.

As far as an arm/shoulder injury, I dont think there was A THING wrong with Chris' arm or shoulder. He's just leaning over. I did the same thing without realizing it when I sat in that chair. He could have raced back to it after setting the timer on his camera and threw his weight over too much. I'll agree that the injury referenced by Chris in his SOS note was used to put more seriousness into his plea for help, increasing the odds of being taken seriously. Or simply in reference to his condition of starvation. I've over used my arms to the point of complete fatigue before and it never resulted in any paralysis. You mentioned he had a thing for making hunting trails, where did you find this info? Even so, our bodies react differently to different abuses we put them through.

The making hunting trails thing is in the movie, I thought in the book too, perhaps not, perhaps the Hollywood touch.

The injury helps explain for me, why he couldn't hunt and gather enough to sustain himself. Chris I don't think was one much to complain either. He complained to his sister about his folks but not to them. He pretty much toughed it out and worked hard most of his years through youth and manhood.

So in closing because I have to end here, I will reiterate that I do not accuse Forsberg of anything. I've used nothing but the facts that are in the book and documentary for all to see and judge for themselves. This is not a head hunt or a conviction of Mr. Forsberg. Just questions without answers.
I dont feel he has to be here to defend himself in order for me/us to ask these questions and raise these points of view. I do, however, welcome him to sign up and offer his 2 cents as well. That would be great if someone would contact him. Are you on that yet Ascetic?

Great discussion here. Lots to think about.