July 15, 2025 • 41 mins
This video covers the disappearance of Charles McCullar in Crater Lake National Park.
Link to PART 1 of this series - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awLFCQUdvR4
Link to Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/themissingenigma
Podcast Version: https://www.spreaker.com/show/the-missing-enigma
E-Mail: YTthemissing@gmail.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/the_missing...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MissingEnigma
Link to PART 1 of this series - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awLFCQUdvR4
Link to Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/themissingenigma
Podcast Version: https://www.spreaker.com/show/the-missing-enigma
E-Mail: YTthemissing@gmail.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/the_missing...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MissingEnigma
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Hey there, folks.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Hopefully you've already seen part one of this little series.
If not, I recommend you go check it out. It
will be linked in the description. In that video, we
covered the basic timeline of the disappearance of Charles McCuller.
We went over the evolution of the investigation into his
disappearance and the finding of his remains nearby b Creek
(00:39):
and Crater Lake National Park, and we also covered the
content of many letters written to authorities by Charles mcculler's father,
mister McCuller. As you may know, I was recently in
the Crater Lake area covering the disappearance of Sam Bowlkey. Well,
while I was there, I wanted to see if I
could get to the area on Bybee Creek where the
remains of Charles McCuller were found. This is a remote
(01:03):
area that doesn't have any trails going directly to it.
I knew that the rangers who found their remains referred
to the area as pretty tough to get to. Most
of the personnel who picked up the remains were flown
into the area via helicopter, according to reports, but Mary
and Jack and Dave Lang walked in and mister mccullar
also hiked to the area along with a park employee.
(01:25):
According to his letters. In fact, mister McCuller gives up
some clue as to the route he took. He said
that they drove on a road heading east until it ended,
then followed Bybee Creek along its south ridge. They left
the area by taking a route along the north ridge.
Given that these were the best directions I had for
a route to this location, I thought I would try
(01:47):
something similar. I was in touch with rangers at the
park before I attempted this little trek, and I told
them where I was intending to go. One recommended a
specific road to take because the forest roads in this
area are frequently traveled, so they're not very well maintained
at all, a fact I certainly verified on the ground,
as one of these roads doesn't seem to even exist anymore.
(02:10):
Just goes to show the benefits of talking to people
who know the area before you go.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
But before we.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Get into my on the ground experience, are you worried
about your personal information getting purchased by some unknown or
shadowy companies.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
If not, you should be.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
That's why I'd like to introduce you to the sponsor
of this video Private Internet Access. Every time I connect
to the Internet, I use a VPN, like Private Internet Access.
What is a VPN, you say, pretty much. Any device
you have that connects to the Internet is transmitting data
that can be viewed by various and unknown entities. A
VPN hides your IP address and safeguards your Internet connection. Basically,
(02:49):
browsing the Internet without a VPN is like sending a
private message to a group chat for everyone to see.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
You just don't want to do it.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Private Internet access protects you from the prying eyes of ackers,
the government, tech companies, and anyone interested in taking your
information without your consent. A VPN comes with other benefits
as well. It's extremely fast for streaming and downloads, but
not only that. Take something like Netflix, for example, if
you're in the US, you can tell your VPN to
(03:17):
switch your IP address to somewhere like the UK and
get shows like Rick and Morty or Fargo that are
not available in other territories. In addition to all this,
private Internet Access allows you to protect an unlimited amount
of devices at the same time. By clicking the link
in the description private Internet Access is giving my viewers
an eighty three percent discount. That's just two dollars and
(03:39):
three cents a month, and you'll also be getting four
extra months completely for free. So thank you to Private
Internet Access for sponsoring this video. And let's return to
Crater Lake and our journey to Byby Creek. I was
working on a pretty tight schedule, as I usually am
when I'm traveling around trying to film videos. I had
a long drive south waiting for me after finishing this hike,
(04:02):
so I got up early in the morning at the
Union Creek Campground. Very nice campground, by the way, would
definitely recommend, and I began looking for the forest road
that would take me close to my desired destination. Finding
the right forest road is a bit of a chore itself,
because none of these roads are marked with any signage.
But I've found it and started heading into the back country.
(04:24):
As you drive on these roads, you definitely get the
sense that you are heading into an area where there
are no people. From the moment I started out, I
never saw another vehicle, though I'm not surprised. When I
got to the end of the road, I got out
of my car and was immediately met with a cloud
of giant mosquitoes. Now, I've been to a lot of
places with a lot of mosquitos, and I've been bit
(04:47):
more than my fair share, but I've never seen another
place in the Lower forty eight with such a dense
mosquito population. They're definitely not on the level of Alaska,
and if you stay in the tourist areas, it's no problem.
But the second you wander into the shade of the
trees prepared to be devoured.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
This created a bit of.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
A problem because as I'm wandering around trying to film,
I'm just swinging my arms around trying to fight with
these demons. One of the difficulties in wandering off trail
are the natural obstructions you run into, large fallen timber, rocks,
thick foliage, et cetera. It often prevents you from walking
in a straight line. The area around Byby Creek is
(05:28):
like this. It's still very wild. You also have to
contend with the constant elevation changes going up or down
steep hills. To top things off, the day was nice
and hot. All these ingredients made for a seriously unenjoyable hike.
Anytime I got to a spot where the mosquitoes weren't
so bothersome or where the terrain flattened out. I made
(05:49):
sure to get some decent footage. Soon I was coming
up on the location of Byby Creek. As I approached,
I could hear water flowing and expected to pop through
a copse of trees and see it sitting there before me.
That didn't happen, though. Instead I came upon an extremely
steep drop off. The trees and foliage were so thick
that I could hear the creek, but I still couldn't
(06:12):
see it. I quickly realized that there would be no
way down to Bybee Creek without a rope.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
At least not in this spot.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
I didn't bring a rope suitable for such purposes, so
I was at a bit of an impasse. I wandered
for a while trying to think of a good way
down to the creek, but the day only grew later
and I only grew more tired. So I decided to
leave the area altogether. Not to be completely defeated, I
decided to travel downstream and visit the creek in an
(06:40):
area where it wasn't buried in a canyon. Okay, so
we're nearby Bee Creek. Try next to me. This is
not the spot where Charles McCuller died. There's nowhere to
(07:05):
get to Byby Creek that isn't incredibly steep and very dangerous.
It was difficult to even get to any of the
spots you see in these videos. And I got to
be honest with you, I'm completely wiped out from Viking,
but we got pretty close. I may have to come
(07:28):
back and try and find it again one day, but
I've learned a valuable lesson here, and that's this entire area,
no matter where you are at on Byby Creek is
steep and dangerous, and even in the summertime, but in
the winter, I can imagine the snowfall here creating some
(07:50):
sort of bridge something like that that you could easily
fall into, because these ledges just pop right out at you.
And if Charles even got nearer by the creek, he
could have just fallen and rolled down a very steep hill,
broken a leg, and then he would have been done for.
(08:11):
He would have been freezing and there would have been
no way out. That's why he could have been found
so close to the creek. I mean, this area is rough,
by far the roughest territory I've ever been in for
any video on this channel, and I'm shocked his body
(08:31):
was found because I don't know who in their right
mind would just be coming into these.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Areas for fun.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
I have no idea what those people were doing that
they were true adventurers in the sense that they were
in some area that is definitely not frequently traveled, barely
saw any wildlife in the area since we've been here. Yeah,
it's crazy, he thought. I don't know what Charles would
(09:01):
be doing all the way out there either. There's just
no real reason to be this far out. You might
be able to say he was lost in the snow
and just started wandering and wound up falling into Biby Creek.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
It's hard to know.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
That's the biggest mystery is how Charles ended up in
that area of the park, and there's a bit of
a discrepancy there that may never be solved. You know,
he would definitely need some sort of snow shoes to
get to the area. It's uncertain if he had them
or not, but you would definitely need him. I can't
(09:41):
imagine getting to this area or anywhere near byby creek
without them. In the snow difficult enough to get here
in the summer. There was also a big difference between
the terrain I faced when I went here in the summer,
having to climb over large logs and rocks and dealing
with clouds of blood sucking insects, verst the terrain Charles
(10:03):
would have had to face in the winter, where everything
is buried under a deep layer of snow. In ten
feet of snow, there are not obstructions every other step.
This doesn't make the area any safer, however, In fact,
it's quite the opposite, as the deep snow comes with
its own set of challenges and dangers. Still, I think
there was some value in going to this area of
(10:24):
Crater Lake and gaining a better understanding of the terrain.
More than ever, I've come to realize the inherent danger
of the area with steep drop offs that can pop
up out of nowhere. Knowing what I know today, if
I were to go back for another attempt, I would
take a different route to get to Buybee Creek. I'll
have to save that for a future video, though. For now,
(10:44):
let's continue by going over some theories as to what
could have happened to Charles. Mccoller when he was in
the area. In the previous video, you heard a lot
of mister mcculler's arguments for there being foul play in
this case. To balance things out, a good argument for
accidental death, which, to be honest, is the way I'm
leaning on this case. That is not to say that
(11:07):
foul play is not possible, but the only evidence for
foul play is one the location of the body being
difficult to get to with all of the snow on
the ground, and two possibly the fact that Charles's camera, knives,
and billfold are missing. I say that is possibly evidence
because those items could be missing for more natural reasons,
(11:28):
as we already know. Many other items that would be
useless to a murderer were also missing, but we don't
just assume those were taken by said killer, So the
missing items could be pointed at as foul play or
simply as a natural result of a death occurring near
running water. Aside from those two things, I don't really
see much more evidence in terms of foul play. Before
(11:51):
we get into it, I want to remind everyone that
Charles was reasonably prepared for this trip. He likely would
have had some sense of what he was walking into.
He also had the ability to survive in the park
for a limited time if he needed to. We are
fortunate to have a list of items and equipment that
he carried. In addition to his winter clothing, he carried
a down filled sleeping bag which was raided to temperatures
(12:14):
of negative twenty five degrees fahrenheit temperatures during the time
he is suspected of being in the park, or around
twenty degrees during the day and between one and thirteen
degrees during the night, he could have stayed warm enough
to stay alive. He also had a tarp and a rope.
These things would allow him to easily set up a
little shelter anywhere with trees, or even if there were
(12:36):
no trees, if he was desperate, he could dig a
tunnel in the snow and sleep inside. This type of
camping isn't typically super comfortable, but wilderness camping in the
winter is kind of like that. All reports indicate that
he was quite the fan of camping outdoors to begin with.
He was well aware of the conditions he would be
camping in and prepared accordingly. Some might question why he
(12:59):
didn't have this piece of gear or that, but You
have to remember that he was doing much of this
on foot, so mobility was essential. You only take that
which you absolutely need. In terms of sustenance, he carried
canned food and a number of candy bars and other sweets.
We don't know how much, but presumably a little more
than he would have anticipated needing. Essentially, Charles had the
(13:23):
ability to survive out there for longer than the two
to three days he had planned.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
Even if he ran out.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Of food, it certainly would not have been comfortable. But
nothing here indicates that Charles simply got lost and died
from exposure. In fact, it would be difficult to get
lost when you're traveling through snow like he was. To me,
this says that something must have happened to him that
prevented him from leaving. We need to try to figure
out what that is, whether it be foul play or accidental.
(13:52):
Most of what comes next is going to be my
analysis on this case. Some assumptions will have to be
made at times, which is true for any theory on
this case, but I will cite and base these opinions
as best I can on the evidence we have. So
if we are to look for a rational explanation as
to what happened to Charles McCuller. There are a few
(14:12):
questions that we need to answer, and these are the
questions that I most commonly hear in relation to this case.
One could Charles physically walk to the location where he
was found? Two? If he could walk in, what stopped
him from walking out? Three? Why did his remains look
as described i e. As though he had melted into
(14:34):
the ground? And four why would he go there in
the first place? So could Charles physically walk to the
location where his remains were found? To begin with, we
need to consider which entrance he might have used to
enter the park. There are probably ways he could have
utilized either entrance, but it depends on a number of factors.
(14:55):
So it could have been the north or it could
have been the south. Mister mcculler's argue, I think, actually
supports a southern entry, because he said he thinks Charles
tried the north entrance, then turned back due to snow,
and returned to the Diamond Lake Resort, where he asked
an employee how far it was around the lake. Mister
McCuller stated that this was a question he felt Charles
(15:17):
would ask but the question also implies a possible intention
to go around the lake and use the southern entrance.
It likely would have shaved a number of walking miles
off his journey if he was able to get closer
to Rim Drive by taking a vehicle through the south entrance.
Rim Drive is the road that goes around the lake.
After getting to Rim Drive, the easiest way to walk
(15:40):
to the spot where he was found would be to
follow any ski or snowmobile tracks along the road, and
once you're near the western slopes, start heading west. It
is surprisingly flat in some areas and provides a great
view of the lower territories. Still, we are left with
yet another conundrum. Regardless of where he entered, how could
he walk such a distance through snow that was very deep?
Speaker 1 (16:03):
How deep? Well?
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Mister mccoller said that the snow in these areas was
around two and seven point five feet. Authorities said that
the snow at Bybee Creek was ten feet deep. Another
source says that the snow level within the park at
the time was over eight feet. So let's say that
he had to walk through varying depths of snow between
two and ten feet, but most likely somewhere on the
(16:27):
higher end of that range. When it comes to walking
in deep snow, you really need something like snowshoes to
increase the surface area of each step you take. This
helps displace the weight of each step so that you
can walk on top of the snow instead of through it.
Without snow shoes, each step you take would force you
to sink up to your knee waste or worse. This
(16:49):
would be exhausting and nobody could do it for very long.
So how could Charles walk through snow this deep? A
possible answer to this question comes from mister mccoller, who
wrote in one of his letters to authorities that Charles
had the equipment and ability to make snowshoes in an emergency.
Was Charles in an emergency situation when entering the park
(17:11):
kind of? According to mister mccullor, Charles had still not
entered the park by the evening of January thirtieth because
of delays. That means that Charles only had one day
left to get into the park, take his pictures, and
leave if he wanted to get back in time to
contact his friend Dorothy and prevent her from calling authorities.
(17:32):
If he was intent on using the North entrance, but
his initial attempt failed because the snow was too deep.
I think he would either try the south entrance or
spend the rest of the thirtieth making snow shoes in
order to try the north entrance again the next day.
Charles could have made snow shoes, and we just don't
know it because his boots were never found, and that
(17:53):
alone could explain him walking the distance to Bybee Creek.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
But to really answer.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
This question, we have to dig a little deeper. We
have to know is there any possible way Charles could
have done that walk without snowshoes. To really be able
to answer that question, I needed a look to people
with more experience in this area than I have. Deep
snow hiking is just not something I generally do, so
I look to the community here on YouTube and sent
(18:20):
out an email to a bunch of YouTubers with experience
in this area. I laid out a detailed version of
the Charles McCuller scenario. A fit, healthy, experienced man of
nineteen could he have walked five to eight miles and
eight to ten feet of snow in the span of
a day. I kept the snow on the high range
of things, just to be thorough, and I asked everyone
(18:42):
if they think he could have done this with or
without snowshoes. I got a response from all these channels,
So a big thank you to Radish, Uprooted, Levi Allen,
Alaska Cabin Adventures, Hiking Guy, Jared Mninin, Mike Rodomski, and
Kevin and Outdoors.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
All of those folks.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
Have shown that they are experienced in dealing with hiking
in deep snow, and their answers reflected that they were
all essentially in unanimous agreement. They all agreed that it
could be done with snowshoes, and they all agreed that
it would be nearly impossible to do without snowshoes. A
few responses noted an exception, however, if the surface snow
(19:23):
had melted and refrozen to create enough of a thick
crust to walk on, then it could be possible with
no snowshoes. This exception is particularly notable because for almost
two weeks prior to Charles mcculler's trip to Crater Lake,
there was a notable temperature fluctuation where things heated up
a bit. These temperatures plummeted back down to freezing just
(19:45):
a couple days before Charles left for the park. You
can see on this graph that the daytime temperatures had
an increase into the fifties before falling again, and this
is when Charles entered the park. Snow will start melting
once temperatures get above thirty two degrees fahrenheit, so there
was likely a two week thaw before a refreeze. Now,
(20:08):
it's simply impossible to know the condition of the snow
at the time without actually being there. We don't know
what the snow pack was like. I don't know if
this temperature change had any effect on what Charles experienced
when he entered the park, but it's certainly worth noting
that the weather conditions could have created a thick crust
on top of the snow that allowed for easier travel,
(20:29):
both with or without snowshoes. Searchers would have not experienced
these same conditions after Charles was reported missing, because right
after he disappeared, fresh snow started falling again and it
didn't stop for a couple of weeks. To top all
of this off, we also have to recognize that if
Charles used rim drive to do part of his walking,
(20:50):
then he could have been walking along prepacked snow, as
the Rim Drive area is where many skiers and snowmobilers go,
so if he walked Rim Drive, he could have walk
to Bybee Creek while only having to travel over about
three miles of untouched snow. In the end, there are
a number of different combinations you could use to try
and explain Charles's route of travel. Maybe he used the
(21:13):
North entrance after fashioning snow shoes.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Maybe he used the South.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
Entrance and the snow was frozen enough to allow him
to walk on it. Maybe he used the North entrance
without any issue and was.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
Able to walk on top of the snow.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
We don't know for certain that he ever turned back
from the North entrance. It is pure conjecture on the
part of mister McCuller. If he didn't have any issue,
then he would have entered the park on January thirtieth
and would have had even more time to travel the
distance needed to make it to Buybe Creek. As you
can see, there are many different scenarios where Charles could
have made it into the park. All we really know
(21:49):
is that he was last seen heading to the park
and getting closer every day, and eventually his remains were
found in the park. So how he got from point
A to point B is all conjecture with many different
possibilities that all need to be recognized. So could Charles
have walked to this location? Yes, I think there are
(22:10):
a number of possible ways or scenarios where Charles.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Could walk to Bybee Creek. Question two.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
If he could get in, why couldn't he get out?
If Charles was walking around in snow that is ten
feet deep, it covers everything, It covers brush, it covers creeks,
It completely changes the landscape of wherever you are walking.
Just look at these historical photos of snowfall at Crater Lake.
You can see that the roads in the area basically
(22:38):
turn into canyons with the snow dwarfing any vehicles. This
level of snow creates a whole different kind of terrain
to walk around in one where there are not large
rocks or fallen timber you have to climb or crawl over. Instead,
there are other more unseen hazards. One of these real
dangers here are things called snow bridges or cornices. Something
(23:00):
like a snow bridge can form when you have moving
water underneath a lot of snow. They can also form
from two cornices that grow to meet each other. These
bridges are seriously dangerous.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Take a look.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Snow cornices are equally dangerous, and they form at the
edges of ridges. They basically make it appear as though
you can walk farther than you really can, and once
you walk too far, the snow breaks and you fall
down the ridge.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Take a look.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
Freeze thaw cycles like the one that occurred right before
Charles's trip into the park only increase these dangers. Now
Bybee Creek is literally located in a canyon of sorts
with steep ridges. This is the type of place where
these dangers develop. Snow bridges and cornices are a common
danger for a good part of the year. At my
favorite National park, mount Rainier. I can think of a
(24:32):
number of incidents where people were injured by breaking a
leg or that they've even died by falling through snow
bridges at that park. I remember during the search for
Karen Sykes at Rainier that a searcher fell through a
snowbridge and had to be airlifted out of the area.
Obviously they were no longer able to walk. It is
a very real danger, and you don't always see it coming.
(24:53):
Based on all of the evidence in this case, it
seems very likely that Charles either fell through a cornice
or snowbridge and fractured his leg. Remember the interview with
Mary and Jack where he said he pulled a broken
leg bone from the pants he found. That detail is
very important. Charles likely fell broke his leg and was
immobilized and stuck inside this bold type area nearby b Creek.
(25:18):
This area is much steeper than it looks on a map,
and you really need a rope to get up and
down these ridges safely. Once Charles was down there, he
never had a chance. When you're stuck in ten feet
of snow with a broken leg in a remote area,
it's a hopeless situation. You can't get out. I'll add
that this testimony for Mary and Jack about finding a
(25:39):
broken legbone is really some of the only evidence we
have pointing to a possible cause of death. The remains
are found at the bottom of a steep ridge and
one of the leg bones is snapped. That alone says
a lot about why Charles might have been able to
go in but couldn't make it back out. Question three,
Why did the remains look as described? I? E. As
(26:02):
though he melted into the ground. Well, as we know,
the written report by Dave Lang does not describe the
pants in this way. It just says that some clothing
was found draped over a log, and they felt that
the hikers who found the clothing and equipment were the
ones who did this. The keyword in there might be
some as any other clothing is just not specifically described
(26:24):
in the report. Does this contradict the Poliites interview with
Mary and Jack. Perhaps not. In the official report, they
still describe finding a leg bone in the clothing, but
they don't mention it being broken. I also have no
reason to disbelieve the Polides interview because much of what
Mary and Jack said actually matches up with the records
(26:44):
everyone believed were lost. It's not like what Mary and
Jack describes in his interview is wildly different from what
is described in the report. But for the sake of argument,
let's just assume that the pants were found by the rangers,
crumpled up, unbuttoned, with the belt undone, and looking like
someone had just melted into the ground. I actually think
(27:05):
this configuration makes a lot of sense considering all of
the other evidence in this situation. If you fell through
a snow bridge and snapped your leg, possibly even getting
a compound fracture where the bone comes through the skin,
what would be the first thing you'd do, Probably unbuckle
your belt, pull your pants down, and see how bad
of a break it was. I think Charles would have
(27:26):
known he was doomed once he realized he could no
longer walk and was stuck in a canyon of deep snow.
He probably died after some time, likely from hypothermia. But
if he died with his pants unbuckled and unbuttoned, it's
not so strange to imagine that his pants were found
in the fashion that they were. You also have to
keep in mind that the pants were almost certainly moved
(27:47):
after Charles died, through any combination of natural elements like
the creek to things like animal predation. Those pants were
there for almost two years, and so the fact that
they were configured in such a way that they looked
like someone melted into them is virtually meaningless. That was
almost certainly not their configuration when Charles actually perished. Now
(28:09):
you may also wonder why his remains were spread out.
I think we can attribute this to the changing of
the seasons. Once ten feet of snow melts in places
like Crater Lake, it swells all the rivers and creeks
in the area. Anything near the creek, such as charles remains,
will get tossed around by this. That's why they had
to use a metal detector to find the empty cans
(28:30):
of food that were buried. Some combination of decomposition and water,
and also possibly animal predation, are likely the reason for
his remains being found spread out.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Where are his boots?
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Maybe they were buried in the muck of the bog,
or they got washed down the creek. If they were leather,
maybe an animal dragged them off. In this instance, there
are many natural or normal reasons that his shoes might
not be found. We should also keep in mind that
according to Mary and Jack, they found one of Arls's
socks with his foot bones still in it. This might
(29:03):
be indicative that he took his shoes off at some point.
If he was wearing snow shoes at the time, that
might make a lot of sense after he fell and
was laying down. Snowshoes can be quite annoying to have
on your feet. It's something to consider. Whereas his camera,
maybe it's still out there rusted into nothing. Plenty of
other things were not found, and that is to be expected.
(29:26):
Many of the items that weren't found also would be
of no value to anyone. Frankly, I'm surprised they found
as much as they did, given the location of his
body to the creek. Again, it appears to me like
Charles fell through a snowbridge or Cornice broke his leg
and died right next to Bybee Creek. But that leads
into yet another question, question four, Why would Charles go
(29:49):
there in the first place. These types of questions are
always so hard to answer because we do not know
what was in the mind of Charles mccoller when he
ventured out to take photographs of I can tell you
that when I contacted Crater Lake rangers to let them
know I was attempting an excursion out to by Bee Creek,
the ranger I spoke to told me that the area
(30:10):
was beautiful and also his favorite part of the park.
While I wholeheartedly disagree with his assessment, maybe Charles was
in the area for the exact same reason as I
stated before. The obstacles I faced were not the same
ones Charles did. His difficulty was moving through the deep snow.
One thing to consider is that this area is not
(30:30):
all too far from the Pacific Crest Trail, and while
I would not contend that the trail was in any
way clear at the time, it still would have been
a path clear of trees if he chose to walk
in any of those directions, including the spur trail that
leads into Bybee Creek. I will also point out that
in nineteen seventy five there appears to be a trail
that goes awfully close to the north ridge of Bybee Creek.
(30:54):
I don't know if this was part of the Oregon
Skyline Trail or not, but it no longer seems to
exist today. So why would Charles go to this location?
I don't really know, and we'll never know. I can
tell you that when I stopped along Rim Drive, I
looked out in the direction of Bybee Creek and thought
it looked like it would be an easy enough route
to get down into that area. The slope from the
(31:17):
Rim down into the forests around Bybee Creek didn't appear
to be that difficult. If Charles was having an easy
time getting around on top of the snow, maybe he
was confident in his ability to walk around the park.
Because he is now gone, we will never know why
he traveled into this area if he did do it
of his own accord. I also recognize that Charles does
(31:38):
a lot of things I don't really understand.
Speaker 1 (31:40):
I don't know why he.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
Would leave Eugene in the afternoon and attempt to travel
and hitchhike to Crater Lake in the same day. I
don't know why Charles had a desire to spend multiple
days camping out in the freezing cold with just a
tarp and his sleeping bag. I don't know why Charles
would move off of Rim Drive and into the forested
areas of the park. Charles was a different sort of
(32:02):
dude who did things his own way. Maybe that's explanation enough. Overall,
I don't consider this a perfect theory, But when I
consider others I've heard, like a UFO or portal dropped
him from some height in that location, I have to
remind myself, what are the odds that the UFO or
portal happened to drop him right in a creek canyon,
(32:24):
an area that would be a naturally dangerous tripping point
for anyone actually walking around on the ground. I have
to give the same assessment to anyone who thinks that
a killer was involved in this case. I can't really
buy into the foul play theory for the same reason.
What are the odds that a killer dropped him in
a creek canyon that would have been hidden by the snow.
(32:45):
While getting to this location by snowmobile may be possible,
the area itself would be such a hazard that you
would be a fool to even attempt it. Your snowmobile
can easily fall through these things too, and there are
countless other more easily accessible areas on the outskirts of
the park where you could dump a body. Then you
(33:05):
have to search for a motive. Did he get killed
for his camera? Mister McCuller seems to be on this
line of thinking. But if the killer can afford a snowmobile,
he can probably afford a camera. Or maybe it was
just some crazed killer walking around committing homicide for no reason.
But in this location, at this time of the year,
(33:26):
killers have the advantage of choosing the where and the
when of committing their crimes. Would a killer really choose
Crater Lake in the dead of winter. It doesn't seem
very advantageous in any way. Every time I try to
consider a foul play angle, I get tripped up by
questions much more often than I do when I'm considering
an accidental death. I mean, think, if a killer did
(33:49):
drop a body off in this location, there would be
clear evidence of a snowmobile leaving the known travel paths
in Crater Lake and veering off into remote and dangerous areas.
A killer would have to consider that this individual might
be searched for once reported missing, but they would have
left the perfect trail of breadcrumbs leading to the crime.
(34:09):
Any aerial searchers would look at those tracks and go,
I wonder what that's about, then follow the tracks to
the location of the body. Obviously, if these tracks existed,
they would have been covered by the fresh snow that
started falling in early February. But the killer couldn't know
for certain that would happen. The killer couldn't know that
the search would mainly stay to the northern part of
(34:31):
the park, or that there would be a lack of
aerial search support, or that there would be fresh snowfall
right after the disappearance that could cover any tracks.
Speaker 1 (34:40):
You see, the main problem.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
With Charles mcculler's foul play argument is that he bases
it solely on the fact that Charles would not choose
to disappear, and that he feels Charles was too experienced
to simply die by the elements. I don't care how
experienced you are. In areas as rugged as this, you
can break a foot or a with a single wrong step.
(35:02):
Mister McCuller and all of his letters never once seemed
to really consider this point. What if Charles was too
injured to make.
Speaker 1 (35:09):
His way back out of the park.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
I will grant mister McCuller the fact that the line
between foul play and accidental death in this case is
actually somewhat thin. If Charles mcculler's remains were found in
almost any other area other than at the bottom of
a steep canyon wall, I would have been on board
with foul play. But all we really have here are
unanswered questions. They come along with every case like this.
(35:34):
The existence of unanswered questions alone are not evidence of
foul play. What does a probable case of foul play
look like in a missing person's case? Watch my video
on the Yuba County five That case reeks of foul play,
but it also has everything that this case does not.
In this case, we don't even get a secondhand report
(35:55):
of some anonymous tipster coming forward and saying, yeah, I
knew a guy who bragged about picking up some drifter
near Crater Lake, stole his camera and ditched him in
the woods somewhere. We don't get any of that. If
I write up the best evidence four and against both theories,
I come out with more items pointing towards accidental death.
(36:15):
Accidental death evidence four one walking to the location as
possible in certain situations, snowshoes, thick snow crust. Two he
was found at the bottom of a steep drop off,
indicative of a fall. Three broken leg bone found in
the pants, indicative of injury. Four Certain items and articles
(36:37):
could be washed away and buried evidence against. One. Valuables
not found, possibly indicative of foul play. Two walking to
the location could have been difficult evidence for foul play.
One the remains were found in a remote location easier
to access via snowmobile. Two certain valuable items missing, possibly
(37:01):
evidence evidence against foul play. No blood or apparent cause
of homicide, no motive for a killer, unlikely place in time,
to kill someone unlikely spot to dump a body. Feel
free to correct me in the comments if you think
there's something I've missed here. But considering all the evidence
we have, there was basically nothing that definitively points.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
To foul play.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
Remember that mister mccullor acknowledges as much in its letters.
His belief in foul play was basically based on a hunch.
But I believe there is clear evidence here to point
to an accidental death. As I have explained, I will
be happy to hear any disagreements in the comments. In
the end, I think this case boils down to one question.
(37:46):
Which do you think is more likely that there was
a snowmobile killer roaming the area of Crater Lake in
the dead of winter, or that Charles.
Speaker 1 (37:54):
Was able to walk to Bybee.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
Creek using either snowshoes or walking on a thick frozen
crust of snow. The crux of this case is all
about how Charles covered that distance in the deep snow.
Since there are a number of possibilities that could have
allowed him to walk that distance, I lean more in
that direction. I find the likelihood of a killer in
the area to be too far fetched. I can't imagine
(38:18):
any scenario where someone like that would be lurking around
the park at night in the dead of winter. If
Charles was attacked while he was still outside the park,
say at Diamond Lake, then I have a hard time
believing this individual would take the risk of dumping the
body at Bybee Creek. Driving a snowmobile around with a
dead body lying on the back would be a bit
(38:39):
of a big risk, not to mention the dangerous terrain
of the Bybee Creek area. I also want to add
that I am aware that aidan Over at the Lore
Lodge had a completely different take on this case. He
leaned strongly to the side of foul play. I respect
his opinion and can understand why he felt that way.
Disagreements like this are important because they lead to more
(39:00):
discussion and help forward the general knowledge for a case
like this. I'm sure if he was interested, we could
both have a little discussion on his podcast surrounding the
merits of both theories. But until I see evidence that
either refutes the idea of an accidental death, or better yet,
supports a theory of foul play, I have to stick
(39:21):
to what I've presented in this video. It appears that
Charles mccullar fell broke his leg and died in the
Byby Creek drainage. I think we should all take a
moment to recognize the evolution in our understanding of this case. Obviously,
there are probably some of you hearing about it for
the first time, but I'm sure many of you probably
(39:41):
first heard this story a long time ago when it
was presented as a missing four one one case. It
caught on because it had elements that many perceived to
be paranormal. As we take a fresh look at the
case today, I hope most of us can agree that
this case no longer requires the paranormal in order for
us to make sense of it. Showing that a case
(40:01):
has a rational explanation is a good thing. It helps
us to learn about what causes people to disappear, and
it helps us to think critically. Oftentimes, the paranormal is
what we turn to when we can't think of a
rational explanation, or perhaps we lack enough information to truly
make a judgment as to what has occurred. I think
both of those things were true for this case for
(40:23):
a long time. That is not to say that paranormal
cases aren't out there because they are. But cases like
this make us realize that when we encounter them, it's
important to pause and consider whether or not we have
enough information. We have to consider if that information is
coming from a reputable source, as it been doctored in
some way to present the appearance of something anomalous. There
(40:45):
is a happy medium to this sort of thinking. Don't
be so skeptical that you close yourself off to foreign
or even paranormal possibilities, and of course, don't be so
open minded that your brain falls out of your head.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
It's time. Thanks for watching
Hey there, folks.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Hopefully you've already seen part one of this little series.
If not, I recommend you go check it out. It
will be linked in the description. In that video, we
covered the basic timeline of the disappearance of Charles McCuller.
We went over the evolution of the investigation into his
disappearance and the finding of his remains nearby b Creek
(00:39):
and Crater Lake National Park, and we also covered the
content of many letters written to authorities by Charles mcculler's father,
mister McCuller. As you may know, I was recently in
the Crater Lake area covering the disappearance of Sam Bowlkey. Well,
while I was there, I wanted to see if I
could get to the area on Bybee Creek where the
remains of Charles McCuller were found. This is a remote
(01:03):
area that doesn't have any trails going directly to it.
I knew that the rangers who found their remains referred
to the area as pretty tough to get to. Most
of the personnel who picked up the remains were flown
into the area via helicopter, according to reports, but Mary
and Jack and Dave Lang walked in and mister mccullar
also hiked to the area along with a park employee.
(01:25):
According to his letters. In fact, mister McCuller gives up
some clue as to the route he took. He said
that they drove on a road heading east until it ended,
then followed Bybee Creek along its south ridge. They left
the area by taking a route along the north ridge.
Given that these were the best directions I had for
a route to this location, I thought I would try
(01:47):
something similar. I was in touch with rangers at the
park before I attempted this little trek, and I told
them where I was intending to go. One recommended a
specific road to take because the forest roads in this
area are frequently traveled, so they're not very well maintained
at all, a fact I certainly verified on the ground,
as one of these roads doesn't seem to even exist anymore.
(02:10):
Just goes to show the benefits of talking to people
who know the area before you go.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
But before we.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Get into my on the ground experience, are you worried
about your personal information getting purchased by some unknown or
shadowy companies.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
If not, you should be.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
That's why I'd like to introduce you to the sponsor
of this video Private Internet Access. Every time I connect
to the Internet, I use a VPN, like Private Internet Access.
What is a VPN, you say, pretty much. Any device
you have that connects to the Internet is transmitting data
that can be viewed by various and unknown entities. A
VPN hides your IP address and safeguards your Internet connection. Basically,
(02:49):
browsing the Internet without a VPN is like sending a
private message to a group chat for everyone to see.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
You just don't want to do it.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Private Internet access protects you from the prying eyes of ackers,
the government, tech companies, and anyone interested in taking your
information without your consent. A VPN comes with other benefits
as well. It's extremely fast for streaming and downloads, but
not only that. Take something like Netflix, for example, if
you're in the US, you can tell your VPN to
(03:17):
switch your IP address to somewhere like the UK and
get shows like Rick and Morty or Fargo that are
not available in other territories. In addition to all this,
private Internet Access allows you to protect an unlimited amount
of devices at the same time. By clicking the link
in the description private Internet Access is giving my viewers
an eighty three percent discount. That's just two dollars and
(03:39):
three cents a month, and you'll also be getting four
extra months completely for free. So thank you to Private
Internet Access for sponsoring this video. And let's return to
Crater Lake and our journey to Byby Creek. I was
working on a pretty tight schedule, as I usually am
when I'm traveling around trying to film videos. I had
a long drive south waiting for me after finishing this hike,
(04:02):
so I got up early in the morning at the
Union Creek Campground. Very nice campground, by the way, would
definitely recommend, and I began looking for the forest road
that would take me close to my desired destination. Finding
the right forest road is a bit of a chore itself,
because none of these roads are marked with any signage.
But I've found it and started heading into the back country.
(04:24):
As you drive on these roads, you definitely get the
sense that you are heading into an area where there
are no people. From the moment I started out, I
never saw another vehicle, though I'm not surprised. When I
got to the end of the road, I got out
of my car and was immediately met with a cloud
of giant mosquitoes. Now, I've been to a lot of
places with a lot of mosquitos, and I've been bit
(04:47):
more than my fair share, but I've never seen another
place in the Lower forty eight with such a dense
mosquito population. They're definitely not on the level of Alaska,
and if you stay in the tourist areas, it's no problem.
But the second you wander into the shade of the
trees prepared to be devoured.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
This created a bit of.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
A problem because as I'm wandering around trying to film,
I'm just swinging my arms around trying to fight with
these demons. One of the difficulties in wandering off trail
are the natural obstructions you run into, large fallen timber, rocks,
thick foliage, et cetera. It often prevents you from walking
in a straight line. The area around Byby Creek is
(05:28):
like this. It's still very wild. You also have to
contend with the constant elevation changes going up or down
steep hills. To top things off, the day was nice
and hot. All these ingredients made for a seriously unenjoyable hike.
Anytime I got to a spot where the mosquitoes weren't
so bothersome or where the terrain flattened out. I made
(05:49):
sure to get some decent footage. Soon I was coming
up on the location of Byby Creek. As I approached,
I could hear water flowing and expected to pop through
a copse of trees and see it sitting there before me.
That didn't happen, though. Instead I came upon an extremely
steep drop off. The trees and foliage were so thick
that I could hear the creek, but I still couldn't
(06:12):
see it. I quickly realized that there would be no
way down to Bybee Creek without a rope.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
At least not in this spot.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
I didn't bring a rope suitable for such purposes, so
I was at a bit of an impasse. I wandered
for a while trying to think of a good way
down to the creek, but the day only grew later
and I only grew more tired. So I decided to
leave the area altogether. Not to be completely defeated, I
decided to travel downstream and visit the creek in an
(06:40):
area where it wasn't buried in a canyon. Okay, so
we're nearby Bee Creek. Try next to me. This is
not the spot where Charles McCuller died. There's nowhere to
(07:05):
get to Byby Creek that isn't incredibly steep and very dangerous.
It was difficult to even get to any of the
spots you see in these videos. And I got to
be honest with you, I'm completely wiped out from Viking,
but we got pretty close. I may have to come
(07:28):
back and try and find it again one day, but
I've learned a valuable lesson here, and that's this entire area,
no matter where you are at on Byby Creek is
steep and dangerous, and even in the summertime, but in
the winter, I can imagine the snowfall here creating some
(07:50):
sort of bridge something like that that you could easily
fall into, because these ledges just pop right out at you.
And if Charles even got nearer by the creek, he
could have just fallen and rolled down a very steep hill,
broken a leg, and then he would have been done for.
(08:11):
He would have been freezing and there would have been
no way out. That's why he could have been found
so close to the creek. I mean, this area is rough,
by far the roughest territory I've ever been in for
any video on this channel, and I'm shocked his body
(08:31):
was found because I don't know who in their right
mind would just be coming into these.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Areas for fun.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
I have no idea what those people were doing that
they were true adventurers in the sense that they were
in some area that is definitely not frequently traveled, barely
saw any wildlife in the area since we've been here. Yeah,
it's crazy, he thought. I don't know what Charles would
(09:01):
be doing all the way out there either. There's just
no real reason to be this far out. You might
be able to say he was lost in the snow
and just started wandering and wound up falling into Biby Creek.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
It's hard to know.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
That's the biggest mystery is how Charles ended up in
that area of the park, and there's a bit of
a discrepancy there that may never be solved. You know,
he would definitely need some sort of snow shoes to
get to the area. It's uncertain if he had them
or not, but you would definitely need him. I can't
(09:41):
imagine getting to this area or anywhere near byby creek
without them. In the snow difficult enough to get here
in the summer. There was also a big difference between
the terrain I faced when I went here in the summer,
having to climb over large logs and rocks and dealing
with clouds of blood sucking insects, verst the terrain Charles
(10:03):
would have had to face in the winter, where everything
is buried under a deep layer of snow. In ten
feet of snow, there are not obstructions every other step.
This doesn't make the area any safer, however, In fact,
it's quite the opposite, as the deep snow comes with
its own set of challenges and dangers. Still, I think
there was some value in going to this area of
(10:24):
Crater Lake and gaining a better understanding of the terrain.
More than ever, I've come to realize the inherent danger
of the area with steep drop offs that can pop
up out of nowhere. Knowing what I know today, if
I were to go back for another attempt, I would
take a different route to get to Buybee Creek. I'll
have to save that for a future video, though. For now,
(10:44):
let's continue by going over some theories as to what
could have happened to Charles. Mccoller when he was in
the area. In the previous video, you heard a lot
of mister mcculler's arguments for there being foul play in
this case. To balance things out, a good argument for
accidental death, which, to be honest, is the way I'm
leaning on this case. That is not to say that
(11:07):
foul play is not possible, but the only evidence for
foul play is one the location of the body being
difficult to get to with all of the snow on
the ground, and two possibly the fact that Charles's camera, knives,
and billfold are missing. I say that is possibly evidence
because those items could be missing for more natural reasons,
(11:28):
as we already know. Many other items that would be
useless to a murderer were also missing, but we don't
just assume those were taken by said killer, So the
missing items could be pointed at as foul play or
simply as a natural result of a death occurring near
running water. Aside from those two things, I don't really
see much more evidence in terms of foul play. Before
(11:51):
we get into it, I want to remind everyone that
Charles was reasonably prepared for this trip. He likely would
have had some sense of what he was walking into.
He also had the ability to survive in the park
for a limited time if he needed to. We are
fortunate to have a list of items and equipment that
he carried. In addition to his winter clothing, he carried
a down filled sleeping bag which was raided to temperatures
(12:14):
of negative twenty five degrees fahrenheit temperatures during the time
he is suspected of being in the park, or around
twenty degrees during the day and between one and thirteen
degrees during the night, he could have stayed warm enough
to stay alive. He also had a tarp and a rope.
These things would allow him to easily set up a
little shelter anywhere with trees, or even if there were
(12:36):
no trees, if he was desperate, he could dig a
tunnel in the snow and sleep inside. This type of
camping isn't typically super comfortable, but wilderness camping in the
winter is kind of like that. All reports indicate that
he was quite the fan of camping outdoors to begin with.
He was well aware of the conditions he would be
camping in and prepared accordingly. Some might question why he
(12:59):
didn't have this piece of gear or that, but You
have to remember that he was doing much of this
on foot, so mobility was essential. You only take that
which you absolutely need. In terms of sustenance, he carried
canned food and a number of candy bars and other sweets.
We don't know how much, but presumably a little more
than he would have anticipated needing. Essentially, Charles had the
(13:23):
ability to survive out there for longer than the two
to three days he had planned.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
Even if he ran out.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Of food, it certainly would not have been comfortable. But
nothing here indicates that Charles simply got lost and died
from exposure. In fact, it would be difficult to get
lost when you're traveling through snow like he was. To me,
this says that something must have happened to him that
prevented him from leaving. We need to try to figure
out what that is, whether it be foul play or accidental.
(13:52):
Most of what comes next is going to be my
analysis on this case. Some assumptions will have to be
made at times, which is true for any theory on
this case, but I will cite and base these opinions
as best I can on the evidence we have. So
if we are to look for a rational explanation as
to what happened to Charles McCuller. There are a few
(14:12):
questions that we need to answer, and these are the
questions that I most commonly hear in relation to this case.
One could Charles physically walk to the location where he
was found? Two? If he could walk in, what stopped
him from walking out? Three? Why did his remains look
as described i e. As though he had melted into
(14:34):
the ground? And four why would he go there in
the first place? So could Charles physically walk to the
location where his remains were found? To begin with, we
need to consider which entrance he might have used to
enter the park. There are probably ways he could have
utilized either entrance, but it depends on a number of factors.
(14:55):
So it could have been the north or it could
have been the south. Mister mcculler's argue, I think, actually
supports a southern entry, because he said he thinks Charles
tried the north entrance, then turned back due to snow,
and returned to the Diamond Lake Resort, where he asked
an employee how far it was around the lake. Mister
McCuller stated that this was a question he felt Charles
(15:17):
would ask but the question also implies a possible intention
to go around the lake and use the southern entrance.
It likely would have shaved a number of walking miles
off his journey if he was able to get closer
to Rim Drive by taking a vehicle through the south entrance.
Rim Drive is the road that goes around the lake.
After getting to Rim Drive, the easiest way to walk
(15:40):
to the spot where he was found would be to
follow any ski or snowmobile tracks along the road, and
once you're near the western slopes, start heading west. It
is surprisingly flat in some areas and provides a great
view of the lower territories. Still, we are left with
yet another conundrum. Regardless of where he entered, how could
he walk such a distance through snow that was very deep?
Speaker 1 (16:03):
How deep? Well?
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Mister mccoller said that the snow in these areas was
around two and seven point five feet. Authorities said that
the snow at Bybee Creek was ten feet deep. Another
source says that the snow level within the park at
the time was over eight feet. So let's say that
he had to walk through varying depths of snow between
two and ten feet, but most likely somewhere on the
(16:27):
higher end of that range. When it comes to walking
in deep snow, you really need something like snowshoes to
increase the surface area of each step you take. This
helps displace the weight of each step so that you
can walk on top of the snow instead of through it.
Without snow shoes, each step you take would force you
to sink up to your knee waste or worse. This
(16:49):
would be exhausting and nobody could do it for very long.
So how could Charles walk through snow this deep? A
possible answer to this question comes from mister mccoller, who
wrote in one of his letters to authorities that Charles
had the equipment and ability to make snowshoes in an emergency.
Was Charles in an emergency situation when entering the park
(17:11):
kind of? According to mister mccullor, Charles had still not
entered the park by the evening of January thirtieth because
of delays. That means that Charles only had one day
left to get into the park, take his pictures, and
leave if he wanted to get back in time to
contact his friend Dorothy and prevent her from calling authorities.
(17:32):
If he was intent on using the North entrance, but
his initial attempt failed because the snow was too deep.
I think he would either try the south entrance or
spend the rest of the thirtieth making snow shoes in
order to try the north entrance again the next day.
Charles could have made snow shoes, and we just don't
know it because his boots were never found, and that
(17:53):
alone could explain him walking the distance to Bybee Creek.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
But to really answer.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
This question, we have to dig a little deeper. We
have to know is there any possible way Charles could
have done that walk without snowshoes. To really be able
to answer that question, I needed a look to people
with more experience in this area than I have. Deep
snow hiking is just not something I generally do, so
I look to the community here on YouTube and sent
(18:20):
out an email to a bunch of YouTubers with experience
in this area. I laid out a detailed version of
the Charles McCuller scenario. A fit, healthy, experienced man of
nineteen could he have walked five to eight miles and
eight to ten feet of snow in the span of
a day. I kept the snow on the high range
of things, just to be thorough, and I asked everyone
(18:42):
if they think he could have done this with or
without snowshoes. I got a response from all these channels,
So a big thank you to Radish, Uprooted, Levi Allen,
Alaska Cabin Adventures, Hiking Guy, Jared Mninin, Mike Rodomski, and
Kevin and Outdoors.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
All of those folks.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
Have shown that they are experienced in dealing with hiking
in deep snow, and their answers reflected that they were
all essentially in unanimous agreement. They all agreed that it
could be done with snowshoes, and they all agreed that
it would be nearly impossible to do without snowshoes. A
few responses noted an exception, however, if the surface snow
(19:23):
had melted and refrozen to create enough of a thick
crust to walk on, then it could be possible with
no snowshoes. This exception is particularly notable because for almost
two weeks prior to Charles mcculler's trip to Crater Lake,
there was a notable temperature fluctuation where things heated up
a bit. These temperatures plummeted back down to freezing just
(19:45):
a couple days before Charles left for the park. You
can see on this graph that the daytime temperatures had
an increase into the fifties before falling again, and this
is when Charles entered the park. Snow will start melting
once temperatures get above thirty two degrees fahrenheit, so there
was likely a two week thaw before a refreeze. Now,
(20:08):
it's simply impossible to know the condition of the snow
at the time without actually being there. We don't know
what the snow pack was like. I don't know if
this temperature change had any effect on what Charles experienced
when he entered the park, but it's certainly worth noting
that the weather conditions could have created a thick crust
on top of the snow that allowed for easier travel,
(20:29):
both with or without snowshoes. Searchers would have not experienced
these same conditions after Charles was reported missing, because right
after he disappeared, fresh snow started falling again and it
didn't stop for a couple of weeks. To top all
of this off, we also have to recognize that if
Charles used rim drive to do part of his walking,
(20:50):
then he could have been walking along prepacked snow, as
the Rim Drive area is where many skiers and snowmobilers go,
so if he walked Rim Drive, he could have walk
to Bybee Creek while only having to travel over about
three miles of untouched snow. In the end, there are
a number of different combinations you could use to try
and explain Charles's route of travel. Maybe he used the
(21:13):
North entrance after fashioning snow shoes.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
Maybe he used the South.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
Entrance and the snow was frozen enough to allow him
to walk on it. Maybe he used the North entrance
without any issue and was.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
Able to walk on top of the snow.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
We don't know for certain that he ever turned back
from the North entrance. It is pure conjecture on the
part of mister McCuller. If he didn't have any issue,
then he would have entered the park on January thirtieth
and would have had even more time to travel the
distance needed to make it to Buybe Creek. As you
can see, there are many different scenarios where Charles could
have made it into the park. All we really know
(21:49):
is that he was last seen heading to the park
and getting closer every day, and eventually his remains were
found in the park. So how he got from point
A to point B is all conjecture with many different
possibilities that all need to be recognized. So could Charles
have walked to this location? Yes, I think there are
(22:10):
a number of possible ways or scenarios where Charles.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Could walk to Bybee Creek. Question two.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
If he could get in, why couldn't he get out?
If Charles was walking around in snow that is ten
feet deep, it covers everything, It covers brush, it covers creeks,
It completely changes the landscape of wherever you are walking.
Just look at these historical photos of snowfall at Crater Lake.
You can see that the roads in the area basically
(22:38):
turn into canyons with the snow dwarfing any vehicles. This
level of snow creates a whole different kind of terrain
to walk around in one where there are not large
rocks or fallen timber you have to climb or crawl over. Instead,
there are other more unseen hazards. One of these real
dangers here are things called snow bridges or cornices. Something
(23:00):
like a snow bridge can form when you have moving
water underneath a lot of snow. They can also form
from two cornices that grow to meet each other. These
bridges are seriously dangerous.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Take a look.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Snow cornices are equally dangerous, and they form at the
edges of ridges. They basically make it appear as though
you can walk farther than you really can, and once
you walk too far, the snow breaks and you fall
down the ridge.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Take a look.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
Freeze thaw cycles like the one that occurred right before
Charles's trip into the park only increase these dangers. Now
Bybee Creek is literally located in a canyon of sorts
with steep ridges. This is the type of place where
these dangers develop. Snow bridges and cornices are a common
danger for a good part of the year. At my
favorite National park, mount Rainier. I can think of a
(24:32):
number of incidents where people were injured by breaking a
leg or that they've even died by falling through snow
bridges at that park. I remember during the search for
Karen Sykes at Rainier that a searcher fell through a
snowbridge and had to be airlifted out of the area.
Obviously they were no longer able to walk. It is
a very real danger, and you don't always see it coming.
(24:53):
Based on all of the evidence in this case, it
seems very likely that Charles either fell through a cornice
or snowbridge and fractured his leg. Remember the interview with
Mary and Jack where he said he pulled a broken
leg bone from the pants he found. That detail is
very important. Charles likely fell broke his leg and was
immobilized and stuck inside this bold type area nearby b Creek.
(25:18):
This area is much steeper than it looks on a map,
and you really need a rope to get up and
down these ridges safely. Once Charles was down there, he
never had a chance. When you're stuck in ten feet
of snow with a broken leg in a remote area,
it's a hopeless situation. You can't get out. I'll add
that this testimony for Mary and Jack about finding a
(25:39):
broken legbone is really some of the only evidence we
have pointing to a possible cause of death. The remains
are found at the bottom of a steep ridge and
one of the leg bones is snapped. That alone says
a lot about why Charles might have been able to
go in but couldn't make it back out. Question three,
Why did the remains look as described? I? E. As
(26:02):
though he melted into the ground. Well, as we know,
the written report by Dave Lang does not describe the
pants in this way. It just says that some clothing
was found draped over a log, and they felt that
the hikers who found the clothing and equipment were the
ones who did this. The keyword in there might be
some as any other clothing is just not specifically described
(26:24):
in the report. Does this contradict the Poliites interview with
Mary and Jack. Perhaps not. In the official report, they
still describe finding a leg bone in the clothing, but
they don't mention it being broken. I also have no
reason to disbelieve the Polides interview because much of what
Mary and Jack said actually matches up with the records
(26:44):
everyone believed were lost. It's not like what Mary and
Jack describes in his interview is wildly different from what
is described in the report. But for the sake of argument,
let's just assume that the pants were found by the rangers,
crumpled up, unbuttoned, with the belt undone, and looking like
someone had just melted into the ground. I actually think
(27:05):
this configuration makes a lot of sense considering all of
the other evidence in this situation. If you fell through
a snow bridge and snapped your leg, possibly even getting
a compound fracture where the bone comes through the skin,
what would be the first thing you'd do, Probably unbuckle
your belt, pull your pants down, and see how bad
of a break it was. I think Charles would have
(27:26):
known he was doomed once he realized he could no
longer walk and was stuck in a canyon of deep snow.
He probably died after some time, likely from hypothermia. But
if he died with his pants unbuckled and unbuttoned, it's
not so strange to imagine that his pants were found
in the fashion that they were. You also have to
keep in mind that the pants were almost certainly moved
(27:47):
after Charles died, through any combination of natural elements like
the creek to things like animal predation. Those pants were
there for almost two years, and so the fact that
they were configured in such a way that they looked
like someone melted into them is virtually meaningless. That was
almost certainly not their configuration when Charles actually perished. Now
(28:09):
you may also wonder why his remains were spread out.
I think we can attribute this to the changing of
the seasons. Once ten feet of snow melts in places
like Crater Lake, it swells all the rivers and creeks
in the area. Anything near the creek, such as charles remains,
will get tossed around by this. That's why they had
to use a metal detector to find the empty cans
(28:30):
of food that were buried. Some combination of decomposition and water,
and also possibly animal predation, are likely the reason for
his remains being found spread out.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Where are his boots?
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Maybe they were buried in the muck of the bog,
or they got washed down the creek. If they were leather,
maybe an animal dragged them off. In this instance, there
are many natural or normal reasons that his shoes might
not be found. We should also keep in mind that
according to Mary and Jack, they found one of Arls's
socks with his foot bones still in it. This might
(29:03):
be indicative that he took his shoes off at some point.
If he was wearing snow shoes at the time, that
might make a lot of sense after he fell and
was laying down. Snowshoes can be quite annoying to have
on your feet. It's something to consider. Whereas his camera,
maybe it's still out there rusted into nothing. Plenty of
other things were not found, and that is to be expected.
(29:26):
Many of the items that weren't found also would be
of no value to anyone. Frankly, I'm surprised they found
as much as they did, given the location of his
body to the creek. Again, it appears to me like
Charles fell through a snowbridge or Cornice broke his leg
and died right next to Bybee Creek. But that leads
into yet another question, question four, Why would Charles go
(29:49):
there in the first place. These types of questions are
always so hard to answer because we do not know
what was in the mind of Charles mccoller when he
ventured out to take photographs of I can tell you
that when I contacted Crater Lake rangers to let them
know I was attempting an excursion out to by Bee Creek,
the ranger I spoke to told me that the area
(30:10):
was beautiful and also his favorite part of the park.
While I wholeheartedly disagree with his assessment, maybe Charles was
in the area for the exact same reason as I
stated before. The obstacles I faced were not the same
ones Charles did. His difficulty was moving through the deep snow.
One thing to consider is that this area is not
(30:30):
all too far from the Pacific Crest Trail, and while
I would not contend that the trail was in any
way clear at the time, it still would have been
a path clear of trees if he chose to walk
in any of those directions, including the spur trail that
leads into Bybee Creek. I will also point out that
in nineteen seventy five there appears to be a trail
that goes awfully close to the north ridge of Bybee Creek.
(30:54):
I don't know if this was part of the Oregon
Skyline Trail or not, but it no longer seems to
exist today. So why would Charles go to this location?
I don't really know, and we'll never know. I can
tell you that when I stopped along Rim Drive, I
looked out in the direction of Bybee Creek and thought
it looked like it would be an easy enough route
to get down into that area. The slope from the
(31:17):
Rim down into the forests around Bybee Creek didn't appear
to be that difficult. If Charles was having an easy
time getting around on top of the snow, maybe he
was confident in his ability to walk around the park.
Because he is now gone, we will never know why
he traveled into this area if he did do it
of his own accord. I also recognize that Charles does
(31:38):
a lot of things I don't really understand.
Speaker 1 (31:40):
I don't know why he.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
Would leave Eugene in the afternoon and attempt to travel
and hitchhike to Crater Lake in the same day. I
don't know why Charles had a desire to spend multiple
days camping out in the freezing cold with just a
tarp and his sleeping bag. I don't know why Charles
would move off of Rim Drive and into the forested
areas of the park. Charles was a different sort of
(32:02):
dude who did things his own way. Maybe that's explanation enough. Overall,
I don't consider this a perfect theory, But when I
consider others I've heard, like a UFO or portal dropped
him from some height in that location, I have to
remind myself, what are the odds that the UFO or
portal happened to drop him right in a creek canyon,
(32:24):
an area that would be a naturally dangerous tripping point
for anyone actually walking around on the ground. I have
to give the same assessment to anyone who thinks that
a killer was involved in this case. I can't really
buy into the foul play theory for the same reason.
What are the odds that a killer dropped him in
a creek canyon that would have been hidden by the snow.
(32:45):
While getting to this location by snowmobile may be possible,
the area itself would be such a hazard that you
would be a fool to even attempt it. Your snowmobile
can easily fall through these things too, and there are
countless other more easily accessible areas on the outskirts of
the park where you could dump a body. Then you
(33:05):
have to search for a motive. Did he get killed
for his camera? Mister McCuller seems to be on this
line of thinking. But if the killer can afford a snowmobile,
he can probably afford a camera. Or maybe it was
just some crazed killer walking around committing homicide for no reason.
But in this location, at this time of the year,
(33:26):
killers have the advantage of choosing the where and the
when of committing their crimes. Would a killer really choose
Crater Lake in the dead of winter. It doesn't seem
very advantageous in any way. Every time I try to
consider a foul play angle, I get tripped up by
questions much more often than I do when I'm considering
an accidental death. I mean, think, if a killer did
(33:49):
drop a body off in this location, there would be
clear evidence of a snowmobile leaving the known travel paths
in Crater Lake and veering off into remote and dangerous areas.
A killer would have to consider that this individual might
be searched for once reported missing, but they would have
left the perfect trail of breadcrumbs leading to the crime.
(34:09):
Any aerial searchers would look at those tracks and go,
I wonder what that's about, then follow the tracks to
the location of the body. Obviously, if these tracks existed,
they would have been covered by the fresh snow that
started falling in early February. But the killer couldn't know
for certain that would happen. The killer couldn't know that
the search would mainly stay to the northern part of
(34:31):
the park, or that there would be a lack of
aerial search support, or that there would be fresh snowfall
right after the disappearance that could cover any tracks.
Speaker 1 (34:40):
You see, the main problem.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
With Charles mcculler's foul play argument is that he bases
it solely on the fact that Charles would not choose
to disappear, and that he feels Charles was too experienced
to simply die by the elements. I don't care how
experienced you are. In areas as rugged as this, you
can break a foot or a with a single wrong step.
(35:02):
Mister McCuller and all of his letters never once seemed
to really consider this point. What if Charles was too
injured to make.
Speaker 1 (35:09):
His way back out of the park.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
I will grant mister McCuller the fact that the line
between foul play and accidental death in this case is
actually somewhat thin. If Charles mcculler's remains were found in
almost any other area other than at the bottom of
a steep canyon wall, I would have been on board
with foul play. But all we really have here are
unanswered questions. They come along with every case like this.
(35:34):
The existence of unanswered questions alone are not evidence of
foul play. What does a probable case of foul play
look like in a missing person's case? Watch my video
on the Yuba County five That case reeks of foul play,
but it also has everything that this case does not.
In this case, we don't even get a secondhand report
(35:55):
of some anonymous tipster coming forward and saying, yeah, I
knew a guy who bragged about picking up some drifter
near Crater Lake, stole his camera and ditched him in
the woods somewhere. We don't get any of that. If
I write up the best evidence four and against both theories,
I come out with more items pointing towards accidental death.
(36:15):
Accidental death evidence four one walking to the location as
possible in certain situations, snowshoes, thick snow crust. Two he
was found at the bottom of a steep drop off,
indicative of a fall. Three broken leg bone found in
the pants, indicative of injury. Four Certain items and articles
(36:37):
could be washed away and buried evidence against. One. Valuables
not found, possibly indicative of foul play. Two walking to
the location could have been difficult evidence for foul play.
One the remains were found in a remote location easier
to access via snowmobile. Two certain valuable items missing, possibly
(37:01):
evidence evidence against foul play. No blood or apparent cause
of homicide, no motive for a killer, unlikely place in time,
to kill someone unlikely spot to dump a body. Feel
free to correct me in the comments if you think
there's something I've missed here. But considering all the evidence
we have, there was basically nothing that definitively points.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
To foul play.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
Remember that mister mccullor acknowledges as much in its letters.
His belief in foul play was basically based on a hunch.
But I believe there is clear evidence here to point
to an accidental death. As I have explained, I will
be happy to hear any disagreements in the comments. In
the end, I think this case boils down to one question.
(37:46):
Which do you think is more likely that there was
a snowmobile killer roaming the area of Crater Lake in
the dead of winter, or that Charles.
Speaker 1 (37:54):
Was able to walk to Bybee.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
Creek using either snowshoes or walking on a thick frozen
crust of snow. The crux of this case is all
about how Charles covered that distance in the deep snow.
Since there are a number of possibilities that could have
allowed him to walk that distance, I lean more in
that direction. I find the likelihood of a killer in
the area to be too far fetched. I can't imagine
(38:18):
any scenario where someone like that would be lurking around
the park at night in the dead of winter. If
Charles was attacked while he was still outside the park,
say at Diamond Lake, then I have a hard time
believing this individual would take the risk of dumping the
body at Bybee Creek. Driving a snowmobile around with a
dead body lying on the back would be a bit
(38:39):
of a big risk, not to mention the dangerous terrain
of the Bybee Creek area. I also want to add
that I am aware that aidan Over at the Lore
Lodge had a completely different take on this case. He
leaned strongly to the side of foul play. I respect
his opinion and can understand why he felt that way.
Disagreements like this are important because they lead to more
(39:00):
discussion and help forward the general knowledge for a case
like this. I'm sure if he was interested, we could
both have a little discussion on his podcast surrounding the
merits of both theories. But until I see evidence that
either refutes the idea of an accidental death, or better yet,
supports a theory of foul play, I have to stick
(39:21):
to what I've presented in this video. It appears that
Charles mccullar fell broke his leg and died in the
Byby Creek drainage. I think we should all take a
moment to recognize the evolution in our understanding of this case. Obviously,
there are probably some of you hearing about it for
the first time, but I'm sure many of you probably
(39:41):
first heard this story a long time ago when it
was presented as a missing four one one case. It
caught on because it had elements that many perceived to
be paranormal. As we take a fresh look at the
case today, I hope most of us can agree that
this case no longer requires the paranormal in order for
us to make sense of it. Showing that a case
(40:01):
has a rational explanation is a good thing. It helps
us to learn about what causes people to disappear, and
it helps us to think critically. Oftentimes, the paranormal is
what we turn to when we can't think of a
rational explanation, or perhaps we lack enough information to truly
make a judgment as to what has occurred. I think
both of those things were true for this case for
(40:23):
a long time. That is not to say that paranormal
cases aren't out there because they are. But cases like
this make us realize that when we encounter them, it's
important to pause and consider whether or not we have
enough information. We have to consider if that information is
coming from a reputable source, as it been doctored in
some way to present the appearance of something anomalous. There
(40:45):
is a happy medium to this sort of thinking. Don't
be so skeptical that you close yourself off to foreign
or even paranormal possibilities, and of course, don't be so
open minded that your brain falls out of your head.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
It's time. Thanks for watching
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.