Gabe Crow
- The Find Me Project
- Jul 30
- 22 min read
Updated: Sep 5
Case Information
Name: Gabe Crow
Missing Since: January 27, 2024
Missing Age: 27
Missing From: Asheville, North Carolina
Biological Sex: Male
Height: 5' 10"
Weight: 170 lbs
Race / Ethnicity: American Indian
Hair Color: Black
Eye Color: Black
Distinctive Physical Features: Several tattoos on hands, neck, and arms.
Clothing & Accessories: Last seen wearing a red shirt and dark pants.
Transportation: Rental car recovered from last known location.
External Link: Click Here To Open
Circumstances of Disappearance
Gabriel “Gabe” Thor Crow (27) disappeared in January 2024 after he was last seen walking along a quiet road near Asheville, NC. Nearly a year later, there are still no answers. After months of searching, Gabe’s family and community still have no closure, and our Find Me Project team is determined to help find them. In this overview, we're going to recap what we know so far about Gabe’s mysterious disappearance and share some insights from our team’s initial profile assessment.
Gabe Crow isn’t just a name on a missing poster, he’s a real person with a story. He’s an enrolled member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, a talented Cherokee basket maker, and by all accounts a reliable, family-oriented guy . Gabe is about 5′11″ tall and 170 lbs, with black hair and brown eyes. He was 27 years old when he vanished, and was last seen wearing a black jacket and dark jeans. Gabe also has some distinctive tattoos on his neck (including a green claw and a skull-and-crossbones) that make him easy to recognize. All these personal details matter because they paint a picture of who we’re looking for, a creative young man deeply rooted in his culture, someone who doesn’t fit the profile of a person who would just walk away from life without a word.
Let’s talk about the circumstances surrounding Gabe’s disappearance. In late January 2024, Gabe made a trip to Asheville, North Carolina. On January 25, his mother dropped him off at an Enterprise rental car office, where he rented a vehicle. We’re not entirely sure why, maybe his own car was in the shop, or maybe he had plans out of town, but this detail stands out. Fast forward to January 27, 2024, that rental car was found abandoned in a field off Starnes Cove Road, near a place called Yosemite Trail, on the outskirts of Asheville. A Buncombe County Sheriff’s deputy happened upon the car around midday. The doors were left open, engine off, keys nowhere in sight. The deputy then spotted Gabe walking further down the road, seemingly alone in the middle of nowhere.
When the deputy stopped and spoke with him, Gabe’s story took a strange turn. Gabe explained that he had been visiting a friend in the area, but he “found out things he did not like and did not want to be involved with them anymore”. In other words, something went very wrong during that visit, so wrong that Gabe decided to bail out of there in a hurry. He even told the deputy he suspected someone had “put something in his car”, hinting that he feared his car (the rental) might’ve been tampered with. To make matters worse, Gabe said this so-called friend had tossed the car keys into a field to prevent him from leaving easily. Gabe was essentially stranded, so he told the deputy he was walking to the nearest gas station for help. The deputy, seeing that Gabe was upset but seemingly safe at that moment, offered him a ride. Gabe declined the help, insisting he’d be fine walking the rest of the way. So the deputy let him go on foot. And here’s the chilling part, that was the last time anyone saw Gabe. After that encounter on Starnes Cove Road, Gabe vanished. He didn’t show up at home or contact his family, and by the very next day (January 28) his worried family reported him missing.
What happened after Gabe walked away from the deputy? That’s the big question we’ve all been trying to answer. In the days and weeks that followed, local authorities and volunteers sprang into action. There were several searches in the rugged areas of West Asheville, especially around the Starnes Cove and Spivey Mountain area, since that was the last known vicinity where Gabe was seen. In April, a massive coordinated search was conducted with over 120 people from multiple agencies who spent an entire day combing the woods, trails, and hills for any sign of Gabe. Despite these extensive efforts, no evidence was found. Not a shoe, not a piece of clothing, nothing. It’s like Gabe just vanished into thin air, which is every family’s worst nightmare. As of the one-year mark of his disappearance, the Asheville Police Department has publicly said they still have no new leads or information that could crack the case. APD has kept the investigation open and active, and they’ve repeatedly urged anyone with information to come forward. Even the smallest detail could be the missing piece of the puzzle that helps locate Gabe.
For Part 1 of our Find Me Project investigation, we assembled our own little task force of professionals to dig into Gabe’s case. We brought in a forensic and criminal profiler, along with other experienced profilers and intelligence pros on our team, to build a profile of Gabe and the situation. What does that mean? It means we looked at everything we could, Gabe’s personality, his background, his habits, essentially a pattern-of-life assessment. We asked questions like, What was Gabe’s normal routine? Who were his friends and contacts? Was there anything unusual in his behavior or plans leading up to his disappearance? By piecing together the answers (as much as we could gather), the team tried to get inside Gabe’s head and figure out what might have happened in those critical moments on January 27. The fact that Gabe was spooked enough to flee a friend’s house and suspect foul play is hugely concerning. Our profiler noted that Gabe’s statements to the deputy about not liking what he discovered and wanting out suggest he may have stumbled into a dangerous situation inadvertently. It’s the kind of scenario where you have to consider foul play as a real possibility. Did someone Gabe trusted turn on him? Did he see or learn something he wasn’t supposed to? At the same time, we remain open to other possibilities, like the chance that Gabe could have gotten lost or injured while escaping that situation. But given how thoroughly the area was searched without finding him, the evidence (or lack thereof) seems to tilt toward human involvement rather than an accident.
Another crucial part of our Part 1 work was the pattern-of-life assessment for Gabe. We dug into how Gabe typically lived his life to spot anything out of the ordinary. From what we’ve learned, Gabe wasn’t someone with a history of vanishing or taking off on long adventures off the grid, disappearing wasn’t in his character. He had a stable life, a craft he was passionate about, a family who loves him, and future plans. The decision to rent a car and head to Asheville hints that he had a specific purpose or person to see. This wasn’t a random road trip. Our team scrutinized his communications and social media (to the extent available) and any recent interactions we could find. No big red flags jumped out before that late January trip. No ominous “goodbye” messages, no known conflicts that would make him want to disappear. One moment Gabe is visiting a friend, the next he’s desperately trying to get away from something. In our analysis, that abrupt shift is critical. It suggests an external trigger, something happened to Gabe, rather than Gabe deciding on a whim to vanish. All these insights from his daily life and personality help us rule out certain theories (for instance, it’s unlikely he staged his own disappearance) and focus on more plausible ones, like foul play or an attempt to report something he saw.
I want to emphasize that this is just an overview of our findings so far. There are details and investigative leads that we’re still working on that aren’t public and for good reason. Our team will be compiling a comprehensive report from the profilers’ assessments and all the intelligence we’ve gathered, and we’ll hand that directly to law enforcement to aid their investigation. Some of that information is sensitive or speculative, and we’d rather it be used to actually find Gabe than fuel rumors. We plan to share as much as we responsibly can with all of you. We’ll go deeper into the theories and evidence and update you on any progress. Stay tuned for that, because there’s a lot more to discuss. This case has layers, and we’re not done digging.
A personal request to you reading this. We need your help too. If you have any thoughts, ideas, or even the tiniest bit of information about Gabe’s disappearance, please don’t hesitate to share it with us. Sometimes a fresh perspective or a small clue from the public can crack a case wide open. Be sure to listen to our podcast episode on Gabe’s case. We dive into even more detail there, and you might catch something that sparks an idea. If we organize a live search party in the future (which is on our radar, depending on where the leads take us), consider joining the search. The more eyes and ears out there, the better our chances of bringing Gabe home.
Intelligence Overview
Personality & Behavioral Profile
Learning Style:
Kinesthetic & Visual. Gabe’s work as a traditional Cherokee basket maker suggests strong spatial awareness, dexterity, and pattern recognition. His attention to craft implies he learns best by doing and seeing, rather than by abstract verbal instruction.
IQ Analysis:
No direct records available, but social media posts and anecdotal data suggest average to above-average intelligence, particularly in practical and creative domains.
Cognitive Strengths:
Strong spatial reasoning: High procedural memory. Decent navigational skills (though may falter under stress). Practical problem solving in physical environments.
Problem-Solving Abilities:
Demonstrates adaptive thinking. Likely prefers trial-and-error or hands-on fixes versus theoretical planning. When calm, likely resourceful.
Creative Thinking:
Moderately high. His cultural artistry and expressions of personal change show independent thinking, self-expression, and flexibility.
Empathy Level:
Appears high. Described as kind and thoughtful. Shows appreciation for family, identity, and self-growth in social posts.
Recognition of Emotions (Self & Others):
Moderate. Gabe seems aware of his internal emotional state and likely sensitive to interpersonal energy. Recent statements (e.g., “someone put something in my car”) suggest possible breakdowns in emotional processing when under threat or distress.
Emotional Regulation:
Generally calm and resilient, but likely struggles under high stress or perceived betrayal. A noted pattern of internalizing fear rather than vocalizing it may have prevented him from asking for help or explaining distress clearly.
Response to Criticism:
Unknown, but social posts suggest self-aware humility, not defensive, more introspective.
Expression of Emotions:
Moderately open. Gabe shows emotions through humor, storytelling, and small personal updates online, but may not share deeper fears unless with trusted individuals.
MBTI (Estimated):
Likely ISFP – “The Adventurer”
Introverted, Sensing, Feeling, Perceiving
Quiet, kind, sensitive, enjoys hands-on work, reacts strongly to distress or moral discomfort, may withdraw rather than confront.
Social & Behavioral Preferences:
Strengths: Artistic ability. Resilience in rural and physical settings. Close family bonds. Cultural grounding
Weaknesses:
Possible reluctance to seek help when distressed. Mild paranoia or confusion under high stress. May shut down or isolate in crisis.
Preferred Social Settings:
Small groups, family-oriented environments, or one-on-one settings. Likely avoids loud or high-stimulation scenarios.
Introvert / Extrovert Scale:
Ambivert leaning Introvert. He shows comfort with others in familiar environments but likely seeks solitude or space during distress.
Psychological Profile & Pattern of Life
The following is an overview from our formal assessment and report.
All available intelligence suggests that Gabe Crow was in a state of extreme mental and emotional duress during his last known encounter. When the deputy found him on Jan. 27, Gabe had just fled a situation at a friend’s residence that profoundly disturbed him. He told the deputy he learned of “things he did not like” at his friend’s place and was adamant about removing himself from that situation. Such a statement implies shock, moral alarm, or fear.
Gabe likely encountered something that violated his values or made him feel unsafe. His immediate reaction was to disassociate and escape (“did not want to be involved with them anymore” ), indicating a sense of urgent fear and possibly betrayal. The context hints at a fight-or-flight response in full effect. By the time he met the deputy, Gabe had already chosen “flight” by abandoning his car and friend. His emotional state was likely a mix of anxiety, fear, and confusion. He had enough composure to converse with the deputy and explain a bit of his predicament, which means he was still somewhat lucid and goal-directed (his goal being to get away from the friend and reach safety). However, under the surface, he was almost certainly highly agitated. The adrenaline from his fight-or-
flight reaction would heighten his alertness but also narrow his focus to immediate survival needs. In such a state, people often have racing thoughts, a sense of impending danger, and a lowered threshold for perceiving threats. In other words, Gabe was on edge and hyper-vigilant.
We can infer possible paranoia or at least extreme suspicion in his mindset. He explicitly voiced suspicion that his car had been tampered with (“someone had put something in his car”). Emotionally, he was likely feeling betrayed, fearful for his safety, and urgent about escaping. He also likely felt isolated and unsure whom to trust, evidenced by his actions of declining help.
Several aspects of Gabe’s behavior and language during his interaction with the deputy stand out as key indicators warranting deeper analysis. Gabe said he had been visiting a friend and “found out things he did not like”. The phrasing suggests a sudden revelation. The use of “did not want to be involved with them anymore” implies he may have been involved to some degree up until that discovery. This is a strong linguistic cue that Gabe experienced a rapid reassessment of his situation, something happened that crossed a personal line, triggering an urgent need to extricate himself. Psychologically, this indicates cognitive crisis (his perception of the friend or situation was shattered by new information, causing internal conflict and a need to resolve it by fleeing). The fact that he verbalized this to the deputy shows it was a forefront concern in his mind, not a trivial detail. This level of candor about “I saw something bad and I’m getting away” is unusual. Most people might conceal such details out of embarrassment or confusion. Gabe’s willingness to say it outright signals the intensity of his fear or disgust. He wanted it known he was distancing himself from whatever it was.
"Someone put something in my car.” This direct quote is one of the most striking indicators . On face value, it suggests Gabe believed an unknown party (or the friend) placed some object in his car without his consent. The nature of the “something” is unspecified. It could be contraband, a tracking device, a harmful item, etc. From a behavioral analysis perspective, this statement could indicate paranoia, or it could reflect a realization of foul play. We have two broad interpretations.
Interpretation 1: Paranoia or Acute Anxiety. Gabe might have been in such a distressed state that he developed a unique belief. In high-stress situations, especially if someone feels betrayed, the mind can jump to conclusions or even mild delusions. The phrasing “someone” (rather than naming his friend) could imply a generalized fear, as if he felt they, some undefined adversary, were out to get him. This could be symptomatic of an acute stress reaction or even a psychotic break if he had underlying mental health vulnerabilities. However, we have no known history of Gabe having mental illness, and family described him as a stable, quiet individual.
Interpretation 2: Realistic Suspicion (Possible Evidence of Crime). It’s entirely possible Gabe literally discovered an object placed in his car by the friend, which alarmed him. For example, if the friend was involved in criminal activity, they might have hidden drugs or a weapon in Gabe’s rental car (with or without his knowledge). Upon realizing this, Gabe would feel used and frightened. It could explain both his statement and his panicked departure. The wording “thought someone had put something” suggests he wasn’t even sure exactly what, only that he sensed he’d been sabotaged or set up. Importantly, Gabe chose to share this detail with the deputy. This indicates he was seeking validation or help about that fear, even as he paradoxically refused other help. A modern profiling view would flag this as a potential clue to motive if foul play was involved. Gabe might have stumbled into being an unwitting participant in something illegal and then tried to escape it.
None of the reports indicate Gabe gave the deputy the friend’s name. In recounting the conversation, sources say “the friend’s name has not been mentioned in any social media posts or interviews”. It’s unclear if Gabe refused to name them, or if he did name them and it’s just been withheld publicly. If Gabe did not name the friend to law enforcement, that is behavior worth analyzing. It could mean: (a) He still harbored some protectiveness or loyalty to the friend (perhaps hoping to avoid getting them in trouble despite what happened), which could occur in a trauma-bonded relationship scenario; or (b) He feared naming the friend, as if naming them would paint a target on his back or he anticipated retaliation. The latter would align with a fearful, hyper-vigilant state. He might have thought, “If I tell the deputy who it was, and somehow that gets back to them, I’ll be in even more danger.” His indirect references (using “someone” instead of a name) creates a sense of an unseen threat in his narrative. This avoidance stands out because it suggests Gabe felt the need for caution even while talking to a uniformed officer, which is telling of his level of fear and possibly confusion over whom it was safe to trust. While we don’t have video or detailed descriptions of his tone and body language, we can infer some behavior from the facts. Gabe apparently cooperated enough to answer questions. He explained his situation in part, so he wasn’t completely incoherent or combative. This indicates goal-directed behavior. He was likely polite or at least focused on moving on. However, he also turned down an offer for help that most people in his
circumstances would accept (a ride to safety). That juxtaposition (talkative yet refusing aid) implies a complex internal state. Gabe’s insistence on walking might mean he was trying to maintain a sense of control. He had just come from a scenario where control was taken from him (keys thrown away, possibly being threatened), and now regaining autonomy, even if irrational (walking instead of riding), could have been psychologically important to him. It’s also possible that despite conversing, he exhibited signs of agitation, such as fidgeting, looking around frequently, a tense tone of voice, rapid speech, etc. These would be consistent with someone in fight-or-flight mode. We do know he left under his own power, walking away briskly enough that the deputy felt he was “okay.”
One of the most puzzling aspects of Gabe’s last interaction is his refusal to accept the deputy’s offer of a ride. It's a significant behavioral choice that offers insight into his psyche at that moment. There are several layers to consider. The first is Perception of a Threat vs. Safety. In normal circumstances, a lone individual who is stranded (with an inoperable car) in a relatively remote area might welcome a ride from law enforcement to reach help. Gabe’s decision to decline implies that, in his assessment, accepting help carried some risk or cost that outweighed the benefit. One possibility is that he didn’t want to be taken back towards the direction of his friend or that house. Perhaps he feared the deputy might
insist on investigating the scene or mediating with the friend, which Gabe absolutely did not want. By saying he was okay to walk, Gabe ensured he wouldn’t have to sit confined in a patrol car or possibly direct the deputy to the conflict location. It suggests distrust or fear of entanglement. He might have thought, “If I get in the car, I’ll lose control of where I’m going. I just need to get away on my own terms.”
Some individuals, especially those from communities that have historical tensions with law enforcement (note: Gabe is Cherokee, an Indigenous background that might or might not be relevant), can be hesitant to engage beyond necessity. It’s also possible Gabe was worried about legal trouble. If indeed “something” was put in his car (e.g., drugs), perhaps he feared that involving the deputy further (like inspecting the car) could inadvertently implicate him. Even though he was the one who mentioned it, he might have been wary. For instance, if the deputy gave him a ride, would the car be left there? Would other officers search it and find illicit items? Gabe might have calculated that distancing himself quickly
was safer. This line of thinking reflects a kind of survival logic under duress. He was prioritizing immediate escape over formally resolving the issue with law enforcement.
From a psychological standpoint, someone in a “flight” mode often has a one-track mind. Keep moving, don’t get cornered. Accepting a ride could subconsciously feel like a loss of momentum, or even a trap (being stuck in a car, not in control of the route). It’s known that the stress response can include a “freeze” element as well. Some trauma victims become passive, but Gabe was in a more active fleeing state. Therefore, maintaining agency (continuing on foot) was probably satisfying an emotional impulse to assert “I’m not stopping, I’m not under anyone’s control right now.” Declining help can also be a form of denial. By saying “I’m okay,” he may have been trying to convince both the deputy and himself that he had the situation handled. This can happen when someone is
overwhelmed. They simplify the problem to one they think they can manage (“I just need to walk and everything will be fine”). We should also consider if Gabe’s decision-making was impaired by any substances or mental health issues. There’s no direct evidence of intoxication in reports. Presumably the deputy, being the last to see him, did not note any obvious signs of drug or alcohol influence (which likely would have been reported). So, it’s more likely his cognition was impaired by acute stress rather than substances. Acute stress, as noted earlier, can hijack rational thinking. Under that “amygdala hijack,” people often make choices that seem illogical in hindsight, such as rejecting help or not recognizing danger. Gabe’s refusal of aid is consistent with someone not fully processing the long-term consequences of his actions. He was narrowly fixated on immediate concerns (like getting distance, not getting others involved) rather than the big picture.
Gabe’s refusal signaled a man in crisis who perhaps did not recognize the depth of his peril or who prioritized short-term evasion of perceived threats (friend or legal trouble) over longer-term safety. It indicates a level of distrust and hyper-independence that is common in individuals feeling “under siege” mentally. For searchers and investigators, this is an important clue. It means that once the deputy left, Gabe was truly on his own by choice, continuing to operate under the same frightened mindset that caused him to reject assistance. This would directly influence his subsequent behavior (he wouldn’t likely seek out other people for help either, given he turned down a safe ride. He was committed to self-reliance in that moment).
Gabe’s remark about believing someone put something in his car is a pivotal detail that provides a window into his mental state. It could signal paranoia, trauma -induced hyper-vigilance, or a grounded suspicion due to real events. Each interpretation carries different weight in profiling. If this comment were taken as evidence of paranoia, one might think Gabe was experiencing a break from reality. For instance, if he had untreated mental illness, this could be a delusional thought. However, nothing in Gabe’s known history or behavior before that day suggests chronic paranoia. By all accounts he was a well-regarded artisan and not known to act irrationally. Paranoia can also be transient, brought on by extreme stress or substance use. If Gabe had ingested something (voluntarily or involuntarily) that day, perhaps drugs at the friend’s place, it might trigger paranoid thoughts. But the structured way he explained everything to the deputy (coherently describing a friend, a conflict, keys thrown, etc.) argues against a drug-induced psychosis or random delusion.
His story had an internal logic. It wasn’t a disconnected or bizarre narrative. Thus, pure paranoia seems less likely than an interpretation that his fears had a basis in reality. We need to also consider that Gabe’s traumatic discovery at the friend’s house put him in a state of hyper-vigilance, where he interpreted every anomaly as a threat. If he discovered his friend was engaged in crime, or was dangerous in some way, Gabe’s trust was shattered. In such a psychological state, he might start suspecting everything connected to that person. Perhaps he noticed something off about his car, an unfamiliar bag, or maybe the car was not running correctly and he imagined sabotage, and this became a focal point of his fear. The phrasing “I think someone put something in my car” can be read as Gabe
seeking confirmation from the deputy or hoping the deputy might check. This is a trauma response in that he is fixating on a detail that to him symbolizes the danger he’s in. Victims of acute trauma often have intrusive thoughts and can sound paranoid even when their core concern is valid (they might over-interpret details because their mind is on high alert). Given the context, trauma-induced hyper-vigilance is a very plausible state. Gabe was essentially looking over his shoulder, and the car itself had become part of the threat in his mind.
The most straightforward interpretation is that Gabe was communicating a real suspicion of foul play. If his friend literally put contraband or a tracking device in his rental car, Gabe’s statement is a factual report of a crime (or attempted setup). In this scenario, Gabe wasn’t paranoid at all, he was correct, and his fear stems from knowing he might be implicated or followed. For instance, if drugs were stashed in the car’s trunk without his knowledge, and he found them, saying “someone put something in my car” is a measured way of alerting law enforcement without outright confessing or accusing (possibly because he himself wasn’t fully sure what it was or because he was wary of the consequences of that revelation). In the profiling sense, if this scenario is true, Gabe was in a state of fearful clarity. He realized he had been used and was now frantically trying to distance himself from the illicit item and the people responsible.
Considering these interpretations collectively, a pattern emerges. Whether or not Gabe’s belief was accurate, it clearly indicates a mindset of persecution and threat. Modern behavioral profiling often emphasizes that even unfounded paranoid statements reveal the subject’s perception of reality, which in turn drives their actions. In Gabe’s case, he perceived that someone had sabotaged him. That perception would heighten his urgency to escape and also likely make him reluctant to trust anyone easily (after all, if a friend betrayed him, who else might?).
From a psychological perspective, we lean towards the explanation that Gabe’s comment was rooted in situational trauma and possibly actual events rather than a random hallucination. It suggests he was grappling with a scenario that felt conspiratorial, as if individuals he knew were capable of secretly doing him harm. The use of “someone” indicates he might not have been 100% sure who, or he was deliberately obfuscating, but either way he believed he was potentially being set up. This is vital for understanding subsequent behavior. A person who thinks they are being set up or followed will act more erratically and secretively than someone who simply got lost. Gabe’s probable mindset was that he needed to get away and perhaps even hide because unseen dangers lurked, whether it was the friend, an associate of the friend, or even the police discovering the
“something” in his car. Gabe’s belief about the car suggests he was in a fear-driven cognitive state, possibly experiencing some degree of tunnel vision on perceived threats. Paranoia vs. reality in this context might actually both drive similar behaviors (running, hiding, distrustful actions). Therefore, regardless of the truth of the “something” in the car, the effect on Gabe was to amplify his fight-or-flight response, fueling his behavior.
Findings
Our OSINT and Virtual Search Party has completed. Several new intelligence items identified to include:
3 phone numbers linked to Gabe. No indexed records found tied to the phone numbers.
Additional social media accounts. Username and social accounts searched with no records found.
Cristal relationship identified linked to Gabe’s missing person case.
Several public records identified. No records hold significant weight to this case.
LiDAR scans completed for terrain recognition and predictive modeling. See below scan images.
When building a predictive model for Gabe’s most probable route, we began with his physical description. At 5’11” and roughly 170 pounds, Gabe’s stride length, average pace, and endurance were estimated against standard human movement data. In normal conditions, he would likely cover between 2–3 miles per hour on foot, but given his frame and the steep, uneven slopes of Spivey Mountain, that pace was reduced to less than a mile per hour once he entered the woods. His clothing on January 27th was jeans, a jacket, and no noted outdoor gear, suggesting he was poorly prepared for extended travel in wet, rugged terrain.
Environmental factors narrowed this further. The terrain near Yosemite Trail and Starnes Cove Road is a mix of dense forest, gullies, and ridge lines leading toward Spivey Mountain. Such features naturally influence movement, drawing a disoriented walker along watercourses or funneling them into valleys where navigation becomes more confusing. Studies on the “looping effect” of lost-person behavior supported the likelihood that Gabe would have unconsciously veered leftward in his path, circling into increasingly rugged ground rather than making a straight line toward safety.
Weather and celestial conditions compounded the challenge. On January 27th, Asheville saw 1.10 inches of rain, heavy fog, and steady cloud cover. Temperatures ranged from 44–54°F, placing him in a danger zone for wet cold exposure. Sunset came at 5:53 PM, and with a waning crescent moon of only 7% illumination, darkness fell rapidly by 6:15 PM with no usable moonlight. The predictive model factored in these variables to estimate a survival window of 4–8 hours after exposure set in. This shortened timeline suggested he would have slowed dramatically, sought cover, or collapsed within 2–3 miles of his last known point.
By combining Gabe’s stride and endurance profile, the local terrain’s restrictive features, and the weather and light conditions on the night he disappeared, we developed a predictive movement model. This model guides search planning by highlighting the highest-probability corridors and collapse points rather than casting resources too wide across the mountain.
Another way we refine our search process is by overlaying critical Areas of Interest (AOIs) directly onto the map. These AOIs are not random points as they represent locations flagged through profiling, behavioral analysis, and intelligence review. Each AOI carries a different weight and probability, but together they help shape a structured search grid.
AOI North has been highlighted by both our profiler and intelligence specialist as a realistic endpoint Gabe could have reached before exhaustion or exposure forced him to stop. Alternatively, if malicious play was involved, it could represent a potential drop-off site where his movement ended by outside intervention.
AOI East: Intelligence in this location is weaker, but it remains on our radar. Profilers noted it could represent a spot Gabe may have visited in the past, or a location someone who knew him might have taken him. Although confidence levels are lower here, we include it because low-confidence areas sometimes become critical when cross-referenced with new information.
AOI Starnes Cove Road: This remains the primary focal point. It is the last confirmed area where Gabe was seen alive and walking. Profilers believe this is the most likely place where Gabe veered off into the woods if he attempted a shortcut, or where an interception could have occurred if foul play was involved.
The overlay shown below brings these AOIs into focus on a single map, providing investigators and search teams with a visual blueprint of where intelligence points us to concentrate resources. This method allows us to prioritize high-probability zones while remaining flexible as new information comes in.
Out of all the intelligence gathered to date, one critical gap remains: we have not identified any direct evidence that confirms Gabe entered the mountains, nor do we know exactly where his starting point would have been if he did. The deputy’s encounter with Gabe on Starnes Cove Road is the last reliable sighting, but beyond that moment, his movements are uncertain.
That said, if Gabe did make his way into the foothills of Spivey Mountain, we feel confident that our team has developed several strong predictive models based on his physical profile, weather conditions, terrain, and lost-person behavior studies. These models highlight probable corridors and collapse zones that would allow for an accurate and focused search, rather than a broad and inefficient sweep.
If you live in the area, travel those roads often, or have heard any information, rumors, or stories tied to Gabe’s disappearance, we ask that you please share what you know. You can reach out directly to us through the Find Me Project, or report it to the Asheville Police Department. Even the smallest tip could help confirm a starting point and guide future search operations.
As of now, our plan is to continue the intelligence-gathering process, consolidate findings into a professional briefing for law enforcement and partner agencies, and prepare for the possibility of conducting a live search party in January, the same month Gabe disappeared.
Case Contact Information
Case Contact Entity: Asheville Police Department
Case Contact Name: Adam Roach, Detective
Case Contact Info: (828) 252-1110
Comments