Logan Schiendelman: Home, Highway and the Search
A home contact, an abandoned car and a family’s efforts to preserve his story.
Abstract
NamUs MP34124 lists May 19, 2016, as Logan Drew Schiendelman’s Date of Last Contact in Tumwater, Washington. Its narrative places the recovery of his vehicle on Interstate 5 the following day.1
Home and Highway
The registry describes a car in the center median of southbound I-5 at milepost 92, with his phone and wallet inside. Finding those belongings does not establish where Logan went or identify who last occupied the vehicle.1
Thurston County Sheriff’s Office’s person-specific bulletin, reference 16-2709, likewise separates Thursday, May 19, from the vehicle recovery on Friday, May 20. It describes a black windbreaker and jeans, keeping the person’s last-seen account distinct from the later car location.2
The bulletin does not supply an hour-by-hour itinerary. Its photograph and identifying description supported recognition; neither constitutes a later observation of Logan. The document’s upload location is not evidence of a newly dated sighting.2
The Family Search in Early Reporting
Janet Kim’s May 31, 2016, FOX 13 report quoted uncle Mike Ware, a retired sheriff’s lieutenant, saying a family member had seen Logan at home on the morning of May 19. Ware described searching brushy terrain on both sides of the highway.3
The report also described relatives and friends circulating posters. Ware relayed accounts of someone leaving the car and said the descriptions did not match Logan’s photograph. That is an attributed account, not a witness statement independently inspected here or an identification of the person involved.3
Contact and Phone Information
A May 2017 written Crime Watch Daily report, now hosted by True Crime Daily, includes grandmother Ginnie Gebo’s recollection of speaking with Logan before work. She expected a later conversation that did not occur. Her recollection adds context to the home contact without establishing his subsequent route.4
Detective Frank Frawley described phone activity moving south, north and south again before stopping near the recovered vehicle. That was his reported description of the information; the underlying phone records were not inspected. A phone’s attributed movements should not automatically become an identified person’s itinerary.4
A Person Remembered
In FOX 13’s May 2026 coverage, great-aunt Mary Ware remembered a considerate young man who helped others and was appreciated by his teachers. The report also recalled his athletic life at Tumwater High School. These memories preserve something of Logan beyond the highway account.7
Sourced Accounts and Questions
Here’s where you come in. Can you keep the May 19 last-seen account separate from the May 20 vehicle recovery?2
Can you trace the described driver information to its original statement before treating an unknown person as Logan?3
Can you distinguish a phone record’s reported movement from evidence identifying who was carrying or using it?4
Keep the exact links, attributed observations and unresolved questions in a Research File in Almost Solved. Dates should retain the event they describe. A reader can help clarify the record by identifying what documentation could answer a question, while protecting the distinction between an observation, an interpretation and an established finding.
Show later developments and reported outcomes
Later Reporting and Public Appeals
Lisa Pemberton’s report for The Olympian, republished in The Chronicle on July 1, 2017, described a newly publicized account of a car near I-5 Exit 95. A woman reportedly believed one man was Logan and described two others. Frawley explained that her limited view affected the available description.5
The resulting sketch sought someone who might have information; it did not establish guilt. The publication date is not the observation date, and this account should not be merged with the milepost 92 recovery without documentation connecting them.5
Jim Jensen’s June 2025 FOX 13 roundup relayed a renewed sheriff’s cold-case appeal and used a broader May 18–20 window. It featured several unrelated cases. Shared coverage is not evidence of a connection, and the broader wording does not itself disprove the more specific home-contact account.6
Will Wixey and Dan Griffin’s May 2026 coverage described an Olympia gathering and a family request for information. The article identifies family material and earlier station reporting as its sources. The gathering documents continued remembrance, not a new sighting or an established answer about Logan.7
Scope and Method
Original witness statements, phone records, interview recordings and the investigative file were not inspected.
Prepared with AI assistance. Sources and references checked against the cited public materials. This paper is an original synthesis of the identified public sources; it does not reproduce article bodies, transcripts, or an investigative file.
Footnote References
- NamUs, MP34124, Logan Drew Schiendelman; reviewed November 2, 2026.
- Thurston County Sheriff, bulletin 16-2709; reviewed November 2, 2026.
- Janet Kim, FOX 13, Schiendelman family-search report, May 31, 2016.
- Crime Watch Daily, written Schiendelman case report, May 16, 2017.
- Lisa Pemberton, The Olympian; The Chronicle reprint, Main 5, July 1, 2017.
- Jim Jensen, FOX 13, Thurston cold-case appeal, June 3, 2025.
- Will Wixey and Dan Griffin, FOX 13, Schiendelman remembrance, May 16, 2026.