In May of 2020, volunteers working in the Long Meadow area stumbled upon human remains long thought to be lost forever.

Experts confirmed that they were the bodies of 22-year-old Brenda Rice and 20-year-old Henry Shaw, a couple who had disappeared from Yoseite years earlier.

These were the bodies of 22-year-old Brenda Rice, and 25-year-old Henry Shaw, a couple who disappeared in Yoseite 3 years ago.

But the real shock was yet to come.

The condition in which the bodies were found and the person behind the crime shocked even the most experienced detectives.

On May 13th, 2017 at approximately in the morning, 22-year-old Brenda Rice and 25-year-old Henry Shaw set out on their planned 2-day hike through the two Alumni Meadows area.

According to their friend Aaron Kelly, who saw them before they left, the couple seemed calm and confident about the route.

They were frequent hikers, knew the rough terrain well, and this time planned to reach the Cathedral Lakes.

It is known that at 20 minutes in the afternoon, Henry sent a short message to his mother that they were already approaching the first ascent.

This was the last confirmed contact.

The last photo of the couple found later in their cloud archive is dated the same date, May 13th.

In the picture, Brenda is smiling against the backdrop of the sharp peak of Catindrol Peak, and Henry is holding a map.

According to the reconstruction of park experts, this place is located about 1 mile from the trail head, and hikers often go there for the views.

The weather that day changed dramatically.

First sunny, then strong winds, and after 4 in the afternoon, the first snow gusts, which is atypical for midmay.

On May 15th, when, according to Aaron, Brenda was supposed to get in touch around in the morning.

The phone remained off.

The friend tried to reach them throughout the day and in the evening called the Yoseite dispatch center.

The statement he left noted that the couple was experienced, rarely late in returning, and never missed an agreed upon contact.

The ranger on duty recorded the time of the call, 19 hours and 42 minutes, and immediately passed the information on to the senior inspector in charge of missing persons.

The next morning, the Ranger team drove to a parking lot near Tanaya Lake.

Henry’s white sedan was parked there.

The car was locked and there were no signs of damage or attempts to break in.

On the front seat was a map of the area folded in half.

A notebook found in the glove compartment marked a trail to Cathedral Lakes with an estimated return time of May 14th.

At in the morning, an 8person rescue team began checking the main route.

According to one of the searchers, volunteer Linda Morris, the snow on the open sections of the trail reached her ankles in some places, and in shaded cliffs, it sometimes reached the middle of her calves.

No traces of shoes were found.

The night wind had stirred the snow surface so that the prince disappeared.

The searchers moved toward Katy Drail Lakes, checking every side area, including rock pockets where people could have taken shelter in bad weather.

Around noon, Henry’s half-brother, 35-year-old Mark Shaw, joined the search headquarters.

According to Ranger Paul Riddle, who first spoke to him, Mark arrived extremely excited, repeating that they would never have strayed far from the route on their own.

He immediately offered to help and asked to be part of one of the search teams.

Civilians are not normally allowed in the active zones, but due to the shortage of people and his persistence, Mark was included in a group that combed remote areas towards Long Meadow.

The weather conditions were deteriorating.

According to the two Alumni Meadows weather station, on the evening of May 14th, there was a short but intense snowfall and at night, wind gusts reached speeds that could knock a person off balance on an open section of the trail.

All these factors greatly complicated the search operation.

On the second day, the rangers were joined by dog handlers with two dogs, but the weather conditions and the time of the incident made the work almost fruitless.

On May 17th at 30, it was decided to expand the search area to the adjacent valleys and check possible ways that tourists could try to bypass the bad weather.

One of the participants in the operation, an experienced volunteer, Charlie Grafton, noted in his report that the terrain was so mixed with snow, water, and rocky scree that it was almost impossible to find any logic in the movement of the missing.

The search continued day after day, recruiting additional volunteers, checking informants, and reviewing photos of other tourists taken that day in areas where the couple might have passed.

None of the photos showed them.

There were no secondary finds either, such as clothing, equipment, or traces of the camp.

On the seventh day of the search, the official headquarters concluded that the couple most likely could not return after a sudden weather strike and could have been off the main routes.

The search operation switched to an expanded mode, but no traces appeared.

For family and friends, this was the first signal that the disappearance might not have been accidental.

Mark Shaw stayed in the search area every day, hardly slept, constantly volunteered to join new groups and explore remote areas on his own.

The protocol of search operations drawn up in late May recorded this.

No logical trajectory of the couple’s movement has been identified.

No clue as to their last location.

This was the point at which the disappearance of Brenda Rice and Henry Shaw was officially transferred to the category of cases of unknown location.

The search operation lasted 3 weeks, gradually moving from intense to exhausting to inconclusive.

According to a report by the rescue service at the end of the third week, more than 30 square miles of the surrounding area had been combed.

Not only professional rangers, but also volunteers from neighboring towns were involved.

They moved in chains, checking cliffs, creek beds, rocky outcrops, even places that were considered inaccessible.

Search dogs gave short, vague reactions several times in areas where the wind was constantly changing direction, but no clear trail could be found.

Mark Shaw attracted particular attention.

Witnesses from the rescue teams noted in their reports that he was overly insistent and constantly demanded to search in the Long Meadow area and near the old Smith Peak Quarry.

According to volunteer Bill Harmon, Mark walked ahead of everyone, changed routes without approval, and insisted that he had a hunch.

Ranger reports repeatedly mentioned that Mark’s actions created confusion in the work of the groups.

He argued with coordinators, took volunteers aside, and insisted on researching the same areas.

Nevertheless, in the first month, his behavior was treated as an emotional reaction of the half-brother of a missing tourist.

Ranger Paul Riddle wrote in a memo that Mark was grieving a loss, acting erratically, but not out of line.

Increasingly, however, rescuers complained that he was delaying groups, changing routes without authorization, and insisting on searching areas that experts said had no logical connection to the couple’s possible path.

The end of the first month was a turning point.

The park’s management decided to shorten the active phase of the search.

According to the official protocol, on the 30th day at about , it was announced that the operation was transferred to a passive mode, meaning that further search was carried out only if new evidence was received.

The family was notified the same day in the evening.

Brenda and Henry were officially reported missing under unspecified circumstances.

3 years passed without a single clue.

Every year in May, the two Alumni Meadows area was seasonally checked for trails, but no trace of the couple was found.

However, in May of 2020, the situation changed dramatically.

On May 14th, according to the official park service log, a group of volunteers was clearing one of the old sections of the trail near Long Meadow, which had long been overgrown by fallen trees and seasonal landslides.

The area was remote and sparsely populated, and according to many participants in the search operation, it was there that Mark most often requested to make his rounds.

In 2017, at and 40 minutes, one of the volunteers, Jason Mills, noticed fragments of fabric visible through a thin layer of soil and last year’s humus.

At first, he thought it was the remains of old hiking equipment that could have been brought here by water.

But when he tried to carefully shovel the ground, he could see two distinct shapes that looked too much like shoes.

The volunteer immediately stopped working and called the team leader.

When two more participants arrived, it became obvious.

Two pairs of sneakers were sticking out of the ground, pink for women and blue for men.

They were partially covered with a layer of humus, but their location indicated that they were not scattered items.

According to procedure, at 57 minutes, the rangers were called and the area was immediately fenced off.

Upon arrival of the investigative team, the area was expanded by several dozen feet and the volunteers work was stopped.

The first official inspection of the site revealed that the shoes were placed vertically in the ground as if someone had deliberately placed them that way.

Investigators recorded the coordinates, took photographs, and authorized exumation.

According to forensic scientist Elliot Brooks, who worked on the excavation, the soil layers over the objects looked natural, not fresh, which indicated that the burial was old.

After several hours of work with minimal interference with the soil structure, the team confirmed what no one had expected to hear.

The remains belonged to Brenda Rice and Henry Shaw.

Identification was made by footwear, fabric fragments, and occasional marks on the boots, which Henry, according to his former colleague, often made with a marker after long hikes.

The final confirmation of identity was to take place after laboratory examination, but the preliminary results left no doubt.

Only one thing is known.

The bodies had been in the ground for at least 3 years, and the place where they were found coincided with the area that Mark Shaw had repeatedly pointed out in 2017.

But at the time, it was just an observation without any conclusions.

The detectives only recorded the fact the case, which was considered hopeless, was reopened.

The first forensic results came in the day after the exumation.

According to the official report drawn up by the Maraposa County Chief Pathologist, the remains of Brenda Rice and Henry Shaw had been in the ground for about as long as it had been since they disappeared.

This conclusion was based on the condition of the tissues, the degree of mineralization of the bones, and the nature of the soil settlement.

The document stated that the approximate time of death corresponds to the period between May 13th and 14th, 2017.

The cause of death was determined fairly quickly.

Henry’s bones showed a characteristic fracture in the back of his skull, a typical injury from a blow from a blunt, heavy object.

The pathologist’s report stated that the force of the blow was significant and directed, and the injury was incompatible with life and inflicted immediately before death.

Brenda’s situation was different.

Marks on the neck cartilage and a characteristic deformation of the hyoid bone indicated strangulation.

Experts emphasized that the injury showed signs of intentional mechanical impact, not accidental squeezing or falling.

After the cause of death was established, the process of collecting additional evidence began, but it proved to be almost fruitless.

No foreign DNA, clothing fibers, rope fragments, or anything that could point to a circle of suspects was found on the body of any of them.

It is known that after a long stay in the ground, most physical evidence is destroyed, but investigators hoped for at least minimal traces.

There were none.

Criminalist Elliot Brooks, one of those who worked at the exumation site, noted in a memo, “The soil around the bodies shows no signs of being rediscovered after the initial burial.

The burial was done carefully.

There is no evidence of haste.” This alarmed many.

In most cases, when criminals disguise a murder, there is chaos, uneven distribution of soil, foreign fragments, random footprints.

This was not the case here.

Another detail was surprising.

The absence of any of the couple’s belongings.

We found no clothes over the basic layers, no backpacks, no equipment, no jewelry, no documents.

Almost all of their camping kit was gone.

The report of the investigation team states, “The level of cleanliness of the site and the complete removal of the victim’s personal belongings indicates a systematic, thoughtful approach.

Such wording is rarely used in cases of wilderness killings.

The case was once again at a dead end.

Detectives could find no motive, no suspects, no witnesses.

Most of the traditional lines of investigation were disappearing by themselves.

A random attack was unlikely as these types of attackers usually leave things behind.

A meeting with a stranger was a possibility, but the lack of any traces contradicted this accident completely ruled out due to the nature of the injuries.

The county sheriff’s department reviewed a group of documents related to the disappearance in 2017.

Lists of volunteers, search party routes, first statements.

It did not reveal anything new.

The official meeting recorded in the internal journal stated there are no additional clues for further investigation.

At this point, the case was handed over to Detective Anna Mendoza, an officer who specialized in long-term disappearances in national parks.

According to her colleagues, she had a reputation for paying attention to detail, but was skeptical of jumping to conclusions.

Already in her first days on the job, Mendoza began to express doubts about the big picture.

Her report contained a short but telling phrase, “The crime is too clean.” Anna reread the disappearance reports, checked them against the conditions in which the remains were found, and not a single item matched what is usually seen in similar cases.

In her opinion, the burial was not just neat.

It was done as if someone was trying to get ahead of any future investigation.

In an internal note, she wrote, “The perpetrator knew where to dig, how to dig, what to remove, and what to leave.

But there are no perfect crimes.

There are only those in which we have not yet found a mistake.

However, there was no mistake in this case.

Laboratory tests unanimously confirmed that the crime scene had been thoroughly cleaned.

There were no signs of a struggle and the soil layers were formed naturally.

The long meadow site itself, according to surveyors, showed no signs of ground movement in recent years, which ruled out the possibility of accidental excavation or deformationation of the grave by natural processes.

The investigation has again approached the point at which archiving of cases usually begins, but Ana Mendoza was in no hurry to put the documents in boxes.

She repeated a phrase that was later recorded in the official record.

Something doesn’t add up here.

And if it doesn’t, it means we’re looking in the wrong place.

Anna Mendoza began the inspection with the main source, the archive of the search operation of 2017.

The binders, organized by day and hour, contained ranger reports, root maps, weather records, volunteer lists, and additional notes made by the searchers.

It was these small optional records that always caught her attention.

They often contained indirect evidence that was not included in the official protocols.

The first few days of analysis yielded nothing special.

The standard actions of search teams, the predictable behavior of volunteers, the lack of results, everything looked the same as in many other cases of disappearances in the mountains.

But while reviewing the reports for the third, fourth, and fifth days of the search, Anna noticed a recurring detail that had not caught her eye during the initial investigation.

Mark Shaw’s name appeared in several documents.

These included reports from two volunteers, a brief note from a patrol officer, and a memo from one of the coordinators.

Each of these documents mentioned that Mark insisted on changing routes and taking groups away from the Smith Peak Quarry site.

Volunteer Richard Null’s report stated, “Mark asked three times not to waste time in the area near the old quarry, claiming that he had personally walked around it day and night.

” This wording seemed strange to Anna.

During large-scale searches, civilian participation is strictly limited, and no one could conduct a walkthrough at night, especially in a high-risk area.

Access was generally blocked after sunset.

She looked at the schedules.

The teams did indeed finish work every day long before dark, and civilians were prohibited from doing anything on their own.

So, Mark’s claim about nighttime rounds was contrary to official protocols.

Another document drafted by Ranger Alice Randall contained a phrase that seemed to be an emotional comment at the time of the initial investigation.

Shaw overreacts to suggestion to check Quarry.

He says he has checked it many times and knows there can be no trace of it.

At the time it was written off as a relative’s worries.

But now when the bodies were found in a completely different location within Long Meadow near the same area, this behavior looked different.

Anna tracked down exactly where Mark was redirecting the search teams.

On the route traces, a red marker marked the areas he suggested they avoid, and each time it was a sector that bordered two narrow passages through the forest natural corridors leading toward the region where Brenda and Henry’s remains were found 3 years later.

At the time of the disappearance, the connection between these points was not noticed because the teams checked dozens of sites every day.

But with the passage of time, this picture began to take on clearer shape.

Another detail was troubling.

Several testimonies noted that Mark insisted on a theory that the couple might have fallen into a mountain stream or river and been swept out of the park.

This claim appeared too often and did not correspond to the actual conditions of the area.

As early as 2017, park service hydraologists pointed out that the current in this area was insufficient to carry the bodies a considerable distance, and the channel had numerous blockages that would have trapped any objects.

She was particularly alarmed by the wording that Mark repeated in various testimonies.

They must have been carried away by the current.

The source of this statement was his own words, and no other participant in the search operations supported this version.

Ranger Patrick Leman recalled that when he suggested checking the Smith Peak area, Mark reacted strongly and was clearly against it, convincing everyone that it was a waste of time.

Anna printed out a map of the search and marked with colored ribbons the areas where Mark actively insisted on leading groups and those he equally insisted on discouraging.

Two of the areas he consistently avoided turned out to be on either side of a natural corridor leading to Long Meadow.

It wasn’t direct evidence, but for a detective who had worked on similar cases dozens of times, there are no such coincidences.

After the analysis, Anna wrote in her internal journal, “Mark Shaw’s behavior systematically directed the search teams away from the sector where the remains were found 3 years later.

The river version was imposed without reason.

We need to compare his movements with the original roots.

However, even these conclusions did not provide answers, but only raised more questions.

All of these findings did not indicate direct involvement or guilty actions.

But Anna was sure.

A person who so persistently adjusts the direction of the search either has information that he has not disclosed or is hiding something important.

And it was this thought that began to shape a new direction for her work, a direction that was not obvious in 2017.

After analyzing the search documents, Anna Mendoza decided to move on to examine Mark Shaw’s personal connections.

This was a standard step in cases where the behavior of close relatives in the early stages raised questions.

Anna requested archival materials on the Shaw family, reviewed old records of changes of residence, data on previous relationships and possible conflicts.

In her notebook, she came up with a list of people with whom Mark had been in close or regular contact in the years leading up to Brenda and Henry’s disappearance.

One of these names was Kelly Green, a woman who reportedly dated Mark for about a year before Brenda began her relationship with Henry.

Anna’s memo stated that contact with Kelly was potentially significant because she might have known about Mark’s personal experiences, his character, and possible conflicts in the family.

When the detective managed to contact her, she agreed to talk, but asked to meet unofficially in a public place to avoid the attention of neighbors.

Her name was recorded in the documents, but further details were recorded under the stamp, according to a witness.

During the interview, Kelly looked reserved, but according to Anna’s notes, she was visibly tense.

She confirmed that her relationship with Mark ended several months before Brenda started dating Henry.

The woman said that Mark was emotional, quick to anger, and had a hard time taking rejection.

To this was added a detail that Anna noted in a separate comment.

According to Kelly, Mark had long been fascinated by Brenda long before she became part of the Shaw family.

Kelly said that Mark repeatedly spoke of Brenda as the only person who really understood him.

She said that Mark perceived her as a chance for a new life and that Henry’s appearance in her life, according to her observations, was a heavy blow to him.

The detective recorded this testimony verbatim because it reflected an important change in Mark’s behavior long before the tragedy.

At the end of the meeting, Kelly asked to see something I should have thrown away a long time ago.

She pulled out a small box with personal items that had been kept since their relationship.

Inside were old photos, a few small gifts, and printouts of correspondence.

It was the correspondence that Anna was most interested in.

It contained messages that Mark had sent to Kelly after he learned about Henry and Brenda’s relationship.

Several of these printouts contained phrases that Anna marked with a red marker as potentially significant.

According to Kelly, the messages came late at night or early in the morning and were often impulsive.

One of them dated around the time Brenda started living with Henry contained a phrase that immediately caught the detective’s attention.

He took everything from me.

one day he will pay for it.

Several other messages conveyed similar emotions: jealousy, resentment, despair, and a sense of loss.

Anna read these lines several times, checking the dates and context.

The wording was too direct to ignore.

However, she was only recording facts.

The text existed.

Its providence was confirmed by the person who had kept it for years, and the tone of the messages reflected the deep personal hurt that Mark felt toward his half-brother.

Kelly also recalled a conversation that had taken place a few weeks before the couple went on their last hike.

She could not reproduce the words verbatim, but noted that Mark was agitated and said a phrase similar to, “He took what was mine to begin with.” Anna recorded the testimony as indirect but important for assessing Mark’s psychological state.

The detective systematized all this data in an internal report.

The central thesis was that Mark had an ongoing emotional conflict with Brenda and Henry and that this conflict had existed long before the disappearance.

Furthermore, the way he described his feelings was not just about jealousy, but about a deep personal obsession that could have influenced his behavior at critical moments.

Upon returning to the office, Anna compared Kelly’s testimony with her own preliminary findings about Mark’s abnormal behavior during the search.

Jealousy, feelings of resentment, repeated phrases about loss, and a debt that someone had to pay.

All of this formed the basis for a potential motive.

The detective made a note in the margin.

Emotional connection plus rejection of the situation plus uncontrollable reactions, high risk of impulsive action.

Although there was no evidence that directly implicated Mark, Anna opened the case file for the first time in a while and wrote down a short phrase that outlined a new direction for the investigation.

The motive may be personal.

We need to check further.

After analyzing Mark Shaw’s documents, testimony, and personal connections, Anna Mendoza decided to have a second conversation with him formally to clarify the details informally to verify her own suspicions.

According to protocol, the meeting was scheduled at the sheriff’s office, but at Mark’s request, who said he felt too exhausted for the official premises, the conversation was moved to a small consultation room on the first floor.

Anna’s report records that her goal was to create an atmosphere of uncertainty to see how he would react to the information pressure.

Anna began the meeting in a calm tone, emphasizing that the investigation was difficult and that there is almost no evidence.

She noted in her notes that she used professional tactics to reduce the interlocutor’s control, showing fatigue, sighing, avoiding harsh language.

According to her, it was important to create the impression that she had no serious suspicions and was only trying to sort out a hopeless case.

After a few minutes of generalities, Anna uttered a phrase that was the beginning of her psychological game.

Maybe we are dealing with a random attacker, a traveler, or a maniac who stumbled upon them at the wrong time.

This phrase is included in the report verbatim.

According to Anna’s testimony, Mark’s reaction was almost imperceptible, but she felt that he relaxed a little bit, as if he had heard what he expected.

Mark began to speak more slowly, more calmly, emphasizing that it was important for him to finally close this wound.

According to him, he just wants the family to get answers.

Anna recorded his every tone.

According to her, at this point, he began to behave as if he was in a safe space where his words could no longer arouse suspicion.

Gradually, Mark began to talk more actively.

He repeated a phrase that he had already said in year 17, but which was not recorded at the time, that he had almost stumbled upon the place where Brenda and Henry were now found.

Anna indicated in her report that she heard this for the first time.

No such direct statement was preserved in the archival documents.

Mark said that he felt something strange and his intuition was pulling him in that direction.

All this sounded like an attempt to show himself as an attentive and involved relative.

But for an experienced detective, such statements, on the contrary, became an alarming signal.

The key moment of the conversation is recorded in the report as a special subparagraph.

At some point, Mark uttered the phrase, “You know, back then in 2017, I was a few meters away from that place.

I felt it.” Anna immediately noted that this remark was unprovoked.

She did not ask any questions about the specific location, did not mention Long Meadow, and did not in any way hint at the area where the remains were found.

This was key for the investigation.

The coordinates of the exumation site were not published, and only a few members of the department, a pathologist, and forensic scientists had access to them.

The press received only general information about the Long Meadow area, but the exact locations were not disclosed personally to anyone outside the official circle.

This was done deliberately to protect the evidence.

Anna notes the show has information that only the perpetrator or a direct participant in the event could know.

At the time of the conversation, she did not draw conclusions out loud and did not let him know that she had said something important.

But in her notebook, she emphasized it three times.

After this phrase, Mark continued to talk in the same vein about pain, loss, and lack of answers.

He was trying to create the impression of a person who wanted to help the investigation, but at the same time kept his distance from specifics.

Anna’s tactics worked.

Mark felt so confident that he lost control of his own caution.

The detective’s report contains another observation.

When she said the phrase random maniac, Mark stopped avoiding eye contact for the first time in the entire conversation.

This often happens with people who want the investigation to move in a direction that is convenient for them.

At the end of the meeting, Anna closed her notebook and said that the case is still up in the air.

Although this was also part of her strategy, Mark took her words literally.

He nodded, repeated that he understood how difficult it is and assured her that he was always ready to help.

When the meeting was over, Anna collected her notes and immediately entered a brief summary into the office system.

Shaw has provided information that he could not have known.

We need to verify his movements for the period of 2017.

After talking to Mark Shaw, Anna Mendoza filed an official request for the connection history, cell tower data, and geoloccation of Mark’s phone for the period around the disappearance of Brenda Rice and Henry Shaw.

In 2017, this data was partially collected, but because Mark was not one of the suspects, it was not analyzed in detail.

Now, every signal, every movement record has become important.

The technical department processed the data within a few days.

The first key point recorded in their report was as follows.

Subscriber Shaw’s phone was within Yusede Park not only on May 13th, but also on the 14th, despite the owner’s claim that he left the park on the evening of the 13th.

This contradicted all of his previous testimony.

In his initial interview, Mark had clearly stated that he left the park the same day he received the report of his possible disappearance.

The second aspect that immediately caught Anna’s attention was his movements at night.

The base station data showed that between approximately in the evening on May 13th and the next morning, Mark’s phone moved from the parking lot at Taniah Lake toward Long Meadow.

This was recorded as hopping between several towers serving a narrow strip of forest between the parking lot and the protected areas.

The signals were weak but sufficient to confirm the route.

The technical report stated the subscribers movement does not correspond to any of the officially known search routes or volunteer trails.

In other words, Mark was not in the forest where and when he claimed.

Anna noted that this behavior was unnatural for a person who had no reason to return to the remote parts of the park at night.

This was enough to raise suspicion, but not to arrest him.

The key was something else.

Experts found that at some point in time, approximately between 2 and 3 in the morning, Mark’s phone was recorded within the same coverage cell that later covered the area where the remains were found.

Although the coordinates given by the cell towers were approximate, overlaying this data on the map of the search operation left no doubt, Mark had been in the area at night alone, unaccompanied, at a time when no one should have been there.

After receiving these results, Anna drafted a memo recommending that a search and arrest warrant be considered immediately.

She argued that possession of information about the exact area of the grave, its nighttime movements, and false testimony constituted a set of signs characteristic of a person directly involved in the crime.

After reviewing the materials, the district prosecutor decided to support the request.

The arrest warrant was issued 2 days later.

Following the established procedure, a team of operatives was formed from the sheriff’s department and two detectives from the major crimes unit.

They arrived at Mark’s house early in the morning, about 20 minutes after .

According to the officer who first entered the foyer, Mark was alone in the house.

He opened the door without resistance.

The officer’s report states Shaw was calm, did not express surprise, and did not ask any clarifying questions.

He did not try to escape, did not object, and did not raise his voice.

He was informed of the grounds for his detention, and according to the officers, slowly raised his hands and stepped back to allow access for the search.

On the dresser in the hallway was a hunting rifle.

Mark himself moved it to the side and said he didn’t want any problems.

When he was handcuffed, Mark made a statement that was recorded by the three officers present.

He always took what was mine.

The statement was made without emotion in a flat voice and as the report notes was not followed by any elaboration.

Anna received the notification of the arrest a few minutes after it took place.

She immediately contacted the technical department to confirm the latest information before submitting the case to the prosecutor’s office.

The final report drawn up the same day read, “The movements of the Shaw subscriber on the night of May 13th to 14 constitute evidence that in conjunction with the testimony and behavioral characteristics obtained gives reason to believe that he was involved in the events that led to the deaths of two people.

This was the end of a stage that lasted almost 3 years.

From the disappearance of the couple to the moment when the first indisputable facts emerged, Mark Shaw was taken to a temporary detention center for further investigation.

And for the first time in a long time, Anna felt that the investigation, which seemed to be deadlocked, finally had a clear direction.

After Mark Shaw’s arrest, investigators began a series of interrogations that lasted several days in a row.

All conversations were recorded according to the procedure.

And after the first hour of the conversation, it became clear that his line of resistance would not last long.

According to the detectives who were present during the interrogations, Mark behaved calmly, sometimes even overly poised, but avoided direct explanations.

He sat up straight, did not try to hide his hands or look away.

Everything looked as if he had been preparing for this conversation for a long time.

It is recorded that the turning point occurred on the second day of interrogation when Anna Mendoza showed him a generalized map of his movements on the night of May 13th and 14th, 2017.

She did not ask direct questions, only commented.

According to Anna, it was then that he first looked straight ahead, not at the door or the table.

After a short pause, Mark uttered a phrase that was recorded as the beginning of his confession.

Further events are reproduced from the words of investigators.

Mark said that he went on that May hike in secret even before Brenda and Henry arrived at the park.

He moved along other trails, trying to remain unnoticed.

According to him, jealousy and resentment had been building up for years, and the news of their relationship was the final blow for him.

The protocol states that he did not plan the murder, but could not accept the fact that Brenda chose his half-brother.

His description of the events of that night was included as a separate item in the report.

Mark admitted that he followed the couple during the day, keeping his distance and trying not to get close enough to be seen.

In the evening, it started snowing heavily.

Visibility decreased, and that’s when he approached their camp.

According to him, he initially wanted to just talk, but he and Henry immediately got into an argument that turned into a fight.

Mark admitted that he had hit his brother with a metal tool he was carrying for self-defense in the woods.

The blow was to the back of the head, and Henry fell almost instantly.

As for Brenda, Mark said she tried to run away, but he couldn’t let her call for help.

He said he caught up with her a few dozen feet from the camp.

She died of strangulation.

Investigators noted that at the time of his confession, he showed no remorse or special emotions.

His voice was flat, his intonations unchanged.

He then described how he proceeded.

According to Mark, he realized that the snowfall would temporarily hide any traces, but he was afraid that the bodies would be found too quickly.

He decided to stage the disappearance by choosing an area with a soft but deep layer of soil within Long Meadow.

There he buried the bodies vertically.

The report states that Mark himself explained this choice by saying that he wanted predators to find them first, not people.

He was convinced that wild animals would dig up the ground, and this would simplify his plan to make it look like the couple had disappeared by accident or had been killed by an animal.

When that didn’t happen, he said he just waited, convinced that snow, rain, and natural processes would hide his actions.

Throughout the next year, he tried to keep rescue teams away from the area, hoping that the grave would remain undisturbed.

When the search gradually ceased, Mark, as Anna’s notes state, felt confident.

The district attorney, after receiving the full interrogation report, sent the case to court with a recommendation to impose the maximum possible sentence.

Since Mark pleaded guilty to intentionally taking the lives of two people, and the motive was personal and emotionally charged, the judge announced the sentence life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Brenda and Henry’s relatives were present at the sentencing hearing.

According to a journalist who covered the trial, they did not express emotion during the announcement.

The only thing they said after the hearing was, “At least we finally know the truth.” The case was officially closed after almost 3 years of investigation.

But the Shaw family, according to their representative, will not be able to return to normal life for a long time.

Although justice has been served, the wounds caused by this tragedy will remain with them forever.