top of page


One of the objectives of the website and blog, as well as the main objective of my investigation is to provide enough argument to DRPS so that they agree to reinvestigate the case, or refer it to another force to investigate. How do you do that when there is no conclusive physical evidence?

What do we know about this case? First thing is that all six youths have been missing since 1995, almost 27 years. Second, there is no reported and verified sighting of the youths since 1995. Thirdly, DRPS did not appear to do a thorough investigation of the disappearance. In fact, they appear to have formed their theory of death by misadventure very quickly and became myopic in the case. Fourthly, we know that no evidence was found to substantiate their theory. Even the red gas tank cannot be considered evidence of death by misadventure. It is merely evidence that a gas tank, like that in the missing boat, was found. It was not tied directly to the youths by fibres, prints or DNA. There are no photographs of the tank in Canada or in the missing boat.

Circumstantial evidence is defined as evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.

So, the DRPS theory is based on circumstantial evidence: video taken that night; a missing boat; a discarded beer bottle found in the lake; and a gas tank found 2 weeks later, sixty kilometres away, across the lake.

We can't disprove the circumstances which DRPS draws its conclusion but we can expand the field of vision surrounding this case to find other circumstances which can suggest a different conclusion.

In the next week or so, I will lay out some circumstances which DRPS either ignored or were unaware. Included will be issues within DRPS itself, which were swept under the carpet.

Stay tuned, and in the meantime, if you or anyone you know had an unfortunate run-in with DRPS in the mid 1990s, drop me a line at

78 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page