High Sierra Topix

Hey Mav, I don't recall if there was an itemized list of Matthews possessions left at the campground or not? Would you know if and/or where such a list exist?

Thanks,
Shawn

No itemized list beyond, tent, one of two ice axes ( the one left at the campsite is in my possession), food, helmet, rope, and clothing.
Sorry about the late reply Shawn.

Hey Mav, thanks for the info.

I was intrigued by your comments regarding the initial investigation and the apparent gaps and lack of detail. I went back and re-read some of the early posts regarding Matthews disappearance and noted quite a few assumptions (that normally would be vetted by the investigating agency).

It's pure hindsight now of course, but an accurate listing of gear he had taken with him and left behind, could have been used in the following months to identify if anyone had turned in items as found in the back country to ranger stations, Reds Meadow, etc. A listing could also been useful for looking at Craigslist ads or local east side pawn shops to see if any of it appears.

The last time I was up there searching (when I missed connecting with you and the others), I noticed an inflatable sleeping pad rolled up and leaning against a trail marker at Ediza that points to Iceberg. A note was attached stating "found at Deadhorse Lake". It looked relatively new and unweathered, but now with remorse I should have followed up on it then.

In any event, I could not find any indication of a sleeping pad in the old forum posts (albeit I could have simply missed it). Hard to imagine Matt would be camping without one.

by tdavidock » Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:46 pm

<snip>
When Matt did not meet up with friends as planned, it was discovered that his car was waiting, fixed, for over a week and he had not returned to the campsite where his gear was and where he had been paying day-to-day in antipation of his car being ready on the 18th and moving on. Matt's friends called the MLPD, and Detective Hornbeck then called my parents.

He was carrying a large black/white backpack (pictured directly in back of his car in the picture), yellow LaSportiva Nepal Extremes boots, crampons, and one ice axe. He did not have his tent, bivvy, sleeping bag, stove, or green heavy jacket indicating he only expected to do a day hike.
<snip>

In any event, I could not find any indication of a sleeping pad in the old forum posts (albeit I could have simply missed it). Hard to imagine Matt would be camping without one.

No mention was made of a sleeping pad located at the campsite at Shady Rest, but Matt was going out on a day climb, so it would be highly unlikely for him to have carry it with himself, now if his sleeping bag or/and bivy was missing too, now that would change things.

Hiked up the Shadow Creek Trail almost three years to the day from when he went missing. The poster on the bridge over the Middle Fork of the San Joaquin is in great shape.
The poster on the trail sign where the SCT meets the JMT looks good but needs to be stapled or nailed. The tape is working.
The trail sign where the JMT heads north to Garnet is broken and leaning against a tree.
These are the relevant dates in the register at the summit of Banner Peak.
I hope to check out the register on Ritter soon.

Thanks,

-Russ

Thanks Russ for posting this.

I did a casual walk on the Wildflower Loop and then went over to the Agnew Meadows trailhead where the wildflowers are a bit more impressive. I did not see any signs on either the High Trail or River/Shadow Creek Trailhead signs, or at the big log along the westernmost use trail that cuts through the meadow and joins the Shadow Creek Trail. All of these areas had signs the last time I hiked in this particular area (October 2015). It looks like the Forest Service put up flyers about hiking regulations on all of these signs, where Matthew's posters used to be. I did see one hanging on the "Wilderness Permit Required" sign at the High Trailhead that heads to 1000 Island Lake.

It sounds like the ones on the actual trail are still there, per Vaca's post above.

I am hoping to hike to Iceberg via Ediza next week if the weather cools down a bit. I doubt anything will have changed though with the signs on the trails.

A write-up by Climbing magazine
http://www.climbing.com/people/vanished ... ra-nevada/

Yes. Based on the Find Matthew Greene Facebook page, it looks like the article in Climbing magazine has been out in hard-copy since their July/Aug issue hit the stands, but it looks like it just became available online today. I think it's a generally good article, with a nice timeline. It gives a poignant sense of how Matt's friends and family, though reconciled to their loss, cannot let this go. The update about their feelings makes me even more thankful for those of you who have been searching.

The article will raise awareness of the case which in turn may mean that more people in the area may keep their eyes open for signs of Matt. Maybe someone who saw or communicated with him will come forward with new and useful information.

That said, I thought there are a couple of odd things about the article. First, though I realize there's a limit to what can be presented in a short article, I thought it was a bummer that the search trips organized by Maverick aren't mentioned.

Another odd thing is what it says about the couple who came back to the campsite in 2014 and contacted the police about their encounter with Matt on the day before he disappeared in 2013. The article says:

In August 2014 his campground neighbors returned to the area and saw a missing person sign. They called the police department and met with Detective Hornbeck and Bill Greene from search and rescue. They said they invited Matthew to go for a hike with them, but he declined. He did not say, or they could not remember, where he was going.

But I've heard, both in this HST thread and on Supertopo, that the couple said that Matt said he couldn't go hiking with them the next day because he was planning to go to the Minarets." (On Supertopo, there was some discussion of whether he might have meant he was going to the Minarets proper or to the Ritter Range more generally.) Earlier in this thread, Maverick mentions some unfortunate omissions in the police's reporting of this encounter:
viewtopic.php?f=37&t=12843&start=12#p105692

Regarding that couple's encounter with Matt, I'm wondering about the discrepancy between what was in the article and what has been reported by people close to the case.

First, though I realize there's a limit to what can be presented in a short article, I thought it was a bummer that the search trips organized by Maverick aren't mentioned.

Not looking for any recognition here but closure for Matt's family, period. If the article brings awareness to this case and more people are keeping an eye out while in the area then article has done its job.

In regards to all the inconsistencies in this case, yes it is frustrating, but either way if Matt had been more specific on his location for that day, beyond just the Minarets, this case would have been solved by now.

maverick wrote:Not looking for any recognition here but closure for Matt's family, period. If the article brings awareness to this case and more people are keeping an eye out while in the area then article has done its job.

You have a great attitude. I hope the article does have that effect.

maverick wrote:In regards to all the inconsistencies in this case, yes it is frustrating, but either way if Matt had been more specific on his location for that day, beyond just the Minarets, this case would have been solved by now.

True, alas.

We're certain that Matt did say to them that he was planning to go the Minarets, right? Though that isn't very specific, it's better than nothing -- rules out objectives other than the Ritter Range -- unless of course Matt changed his mind. If the couple in question get wind of the article and come forward again to clarify things, that would be great -- it would be good to know more about exactly what he said, the context, etc.