CA CA - Barbara Thomas, 69, from Bullhead City AZ, disappeared in Mojave desert, 12 July 2019 #7

[oceanblueeyes]

So "We don't think she was abducted." Means LE has ruled out an abduction?

Not to me. The "we don't THINK' is merely a belief or an assumption on LEs part, and nothing more.

The same assumptions I've seen them make in other cases that turned out to be wrong.

Until they positively know what actually happened to Barbara they cannot confirm anything to be true backed up with any supporting evidence to affirm a mere belief that foul play isnt involved or that she wasn't kidnapped.

The truth is LE has no idea what happened to Barbara.

I have seen LE say this same thing countless times when someone is missing that they have no evidence foul play was involved. Yet, later ...even months or years later it is learned foul play was indeed involved all along from the minute the victim went missing and/or was abducted, and the body was finally located.

LE said the same ridiculous thing about the McStay family of four, concluding they were willingly missing without proof, until all 4 bodies were found almost four years later in graves where their murderer put them.

I absolutely have learned to pay no mind to what any LEs beliefs are on any unsolved case when they dont even have a clue at the time as to what really happened.

A belief or thinking something is not an affirmation of anything. Its merely an unsupported assumption without any proof of evidence to support any of it.

Jmho

 

[Curiousobserver]

Unless it happened further down the road, after (as speculated) she took the wrong trail and rejoined the road elsewhere.

This is the only scenario where I think abduction could have happened. She ended up down the road, out of sight and accepted a ride.

I am puzzled on this one.

On the one hand it is very common to get lost, even in the desert, and its extremely difficult to find lost people.

On the other hand its should have been easy for her to find her way back to the RV.

There are lots of unknown here, no data from LE, no hard-digital data we have seen. The only thing we have is a statement from her husband and so we are limited to parsing his every word to look for inconsistencies.

I don't agree that his actions are too far out of the ordinary considering the circumstances.

I am surprised that if there was foul-play that LE hasn't acted in some visible way yet. They have had time to uncover digital inconsistencies (phone, gps, camera metadata, credit cards, video).

 

[rosesfromangels]

{{I overlooked using multi-quote w this, sorry for any confusion.}}
Post 611 by LietKynes:
"You have a good point there. But it would show that a person cared enough about their missing spouse that they'd be willing to consider legal action."

@LietKynes Thanks for your post, clarifying your question and thought. bbm.
Yes, agreeing that if RT hired a PI to find her, it would tend to be seen as caring for missing spouse. Personally, I'm not seeing that as "legal action" so I was puzzled about meaning of post but am now following that idea.

What is unclear to me is RT's reason for hiring atty. Anyone w MisPers-spouse may hire atty to speak on their behalf ---
--- to the public/MSM, but that is a very expensive $$$ choice for that purpose, esp if solely for that purpose. As others said, victims' advocacy groups could also assist him w this, esp w soc. media outreach & activities.
--- to LE. Why? Perhaps to provide info to locate BT. Maybe not. The information LE seeks to find the MisPers could be, in some cases, the very same info that could incriminate the person giving it. A person hiring atty in this circumstance may or may not care for missing spouse.
jmo, on some possibilities.

He was wise to hire an attorney if he thought (as he stated), that he was being viewed with suspicion.
An attorney might also be used to obtain info, or for negotiation purposes.

RT is a man of means. This is a typical behavior for a business man.
I don’t take it as anything other than being intelligent.

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[cazador]

He was wise to hire an attorney if he thought (as he stated), that he was being viewed with suspicion.
An attorney might also be used to obtain info, or for negotiation purposes.

RT is a man of means. This is a typical behavior for a business man.
I don’t take it as anything other than being intelligent.

Amateur opinion and speculation

He is a business man ?
If so, What kind and where

Thank You

 

[happyday]

He was wise to hire an attorney if he thought (as he stated), that he was being viewed with suspicion.
An attorney might also be used to obtain info, or for negotiation purposes.

RT is a man of means. This is a typical behavior for a business man.
I don’t take it as anything other than being intelligent.

Amateur opinion and speculation

It’s always smart for someone in his position to hire an attorney. That doesn’t bother me at all.

 

[LietKynes]

It’s always smart for someone in his position to hire an attorney. That doesn’t bother me at all.

True.
RT is no fool.
He comes across as an efficient thinker who plans ahead.
Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Knutmeg]

Clarification: I'm new here and I posted something about BT's son's public FB page posts without realizing the rules. I didn't want to create controversy or spread gossip so I'm just going to remove what I posted, but what I was talking about is mentioned in another thread. I apologize! I'm going back to lurking now haha

 

[Twistinginthewind]

RT said LE kept him in the cruiser at the scene for 5 hours, questioned him, and had him take a polygraph within the first 2 days IIRC.

Perhaps during this timeframe, based on their interviews with RT, getting answers to questions, etc. that is when they arrived at their conclusion as stated to MSM that they didn't think BT was abducted.

LE not thinking BT was abducted (this was a decision they made to eliminate this possibility very early on in terms of how to respond to RT's report of his wife disappearing while on a hike in the middle of the desert, IMO) is another reason why they spent 9 days and $80,000+ searching for her right there where RT said she went missing.

Because they did not believe she was abducted. Or they wouldn't have searched the area where her husband said she suddenly went missing for her for 9 long days. MOO

 

[Richmond]

According to this MSM article, they ruled out her being kidnapped or abducted:
"California police rule out husband's claims that his bikini-clad wife, 69, who disappeared during their hike was KIDNAPPED as search for her enters its tenth day:
'We don't think she was abducted. It's a very remote area. There's no evidence to suggest she was abducted,' spokeswoman Jodi Miller told DailyMail.com.
...
California police say missing hiker who vanished 'in her bikini' was NOT abducted | Daily Mail Online

bbm
Also, LE didn't just say, "We don't think she was abducted." They also said, "There's no evidence to suggest she was abducted."

 

[JudgeJoe]

Hi @Knutmeg- welcome to WS! Just so you know, we can’t reference social media unless victim’s or LE identified/arrested suspect. No family, friends etc. because it’s against TOS. That way WS threads have information that is verified, not gossip, guesses or gripes. Keeps things clean that way!

 

[LietKynes]

RT said LE kept him in the cruiser at the scene for 5 hours, questioned him, and had him take a polygraph within the first 2 days IIRC.

Perhaps during this timeframe, based on their interviews with RT, getting answers to questions, etc. that is when they arrived at their conclusion as stated to MSM that they didn't think BT was abducted.

LE not thinking BT was abducted (this was a decision they made to eliminate this possibility very early on in terms of how to respond to RT's report of his wife disappearing while on a hike in the middle of the desert, IMO) is another reason why they spent 9 days and $80,000+ searching for her right there where RT said she went missing.

Because they did not believe she was abducted. Or they wouldn't have searched the area where her husband said she suddenly went missing for her for 9 long days. MOO

Absolutely.^^^

It's time to find Barbara and bring her home.
LE need to look at the gps history of RT's vehicle and the cell phone pings if any and start looking elsewhere.
But still in the desert.
Just not where they were hiking.

 

[RANCH]

RT said LE kept him in the cruiser at the scene for 5 hours, questioned him, and had him take a polygraph within the first 2 days IIRC.

Perhaps during this timeframe, based on their interviews with RT, getting answers to questions, etc. that is when they arrived at their conclusion as stated to MSM that they didn't think BT was abducted.

LE not thinking BT was abducted (this was a decision they made to eliminate this possibility very early on in terms of how to respond to RT's report of his wife disappearing while on a hike in the middle of the desert, IMO) is another reason why they spent 9 days and $80,000+ searching for her right there where RT said she went missing.

Because they did not believe she was abducted. Or they wouldn't have searched the area where her husband said she suddenly went missing for her for 9 long days. MOO

I think that LE searched for BT for as long as they did because they don't know what happened to her not that they know for sure she wasn't abducted. JMO

 

[al66pine]

No Evidence of Abduction? No Evd of Foul Play? Which One?

RT said LE kept him in the cruiser at the scene for 5 hours, questioned him, and had him take a polygraph within the first 2 days IIRC.
Perhaps during this timeframe, based on their interviews with RT, getting answers to questions, etc. that is when they arrived at their conclusion as stated to MSM that they didn't think BT was abducted....

@Twistinginthewind Thanks for your post, w bbm & sbm, re LE's (preliminary?) conclusion. Not sure if it was only two days, but could have been . Seems likely imo that line of thought was already developing as LE made clear stmt, ~ 8 - 9(?) days post-disappearance, about case being reassigned to SIU.

LE phrasing: Telling, imo, LE said no evidence of abduction, did not say found no evidence of foul play.
jmo.

 

[LietKynes]

No Evidence of Abduction? No Evd of Foul Play? Which One?

@Twistinginthewind Thanks for your post, w bbm, re LE's (preliminary?) conclusion. Not sure if it was quite as early as two days, but could have been . Seems likely imo that line of thought was already developing as LE made clear stmt, ~ 8 - 9(?) days post-disappearance, about case being reassigned to SIU.

LE phrasing: Telling, imo, LE said no evidence of abduction, did not say found no evidence of foul play.
jmo.

Lavendar Bolding mine

Thanks, @al66pine ; I missed that entirely !
Takes this case to another level.
LE have been very careful about what they're saying.
I have faith they're working diligently for Barbara, and the truth will be revealed.
The waiting is hard.

It's difficult to imagine what Barbara's family is going through.

 

[JudgeJoe]

Clarification: I'm new here and I posted something about BT's son's public FB page posts without realizing the rules. I didn't want to create controversy or spread gossip so I'm just going to remove what I posted, but what I was talking about is mentioned in another thread. I apologize! I'm going back to lurking now haha

Hee hee- I know what you mean, but I think most of us here have had a post (or more) removed in the course of posting, thinking, venting, replying, etc. No biggie! So no need to lurk! We’re one big thinktank. So if you have an idea, toss it on out. Personally I can’t imagine how a woman just disappears in a desert, so I’m pretty quiet on this one. Hopefully new information will come to light soon.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I agree with LE's assessment that the area is so remote, they don't think BT was abducted.

That location where RT said they pulled off to go for a '2 mile walk' is literally in the middle of The Mojave Desert, in a National Park, is not a major road with regular traffic, is many miles from any villages or rest areas or stores or watering holes, and it was in the middle of the day in the middle of July and over 90 degrees. Not a time when a lot of people would be driving through there, and not a place where anyone but this older couple decided to stop.

That's why LE said the location was so remote that they didn't think BT was abducted. Then they interviewed RT and searched for BT for 9 days, and still found no evidence she was abducted.

Here is google driving directions map of approximately where RT said they stopped, from their home in Bullhead City, AZ, where he said they left from that morning. There are no villages or towns or cities anywhere nearby within an hour plus drive, and it is not a major road leading to any major cities or points of interest.

It is remote.

So remote, trained desert SAR officers whose jurisdiction is the desert in this county who search for and rescue people who go missing all the time, said it was the reason why they think she wasn't abducted. I don't doubt their expertise and opinion, and don't see why anyone would under these circumstances. MOO

 

[darring21]

No Evidence of Abduction? No Evd of Foul Play? Which One?

@Twistinginthewind Thanks for your post, w bbm & sbm, re LE's (preliminary?) conclusion. Not sure if it was only two days, but could have been . Seems likely imo that line of thought was already developing as LE made clear stmt, ~ 8 - 9(?) days post-disappearance, about case being reassigned to SIU.

LE phrasing: Telling, imo, LE said no evidence of abduction, did not say found no evidence of foul play.
jmo.

JUL 19, 2019
Video: The search continues for 69-year-old hiker Barbara Thomas
At the end of this video, the reporter says, "Investigators say the questions they asked RT are standard for missing person investigations stressing they do not suspect foul play in this case."

Seems like they've said both no evidence of abduction and they do not suspect foul play. Why believe one and ignore the other?

 

[coastal]

Clarification: I'm new here and I posted something about BT's son's public FB page posts without realizing the rules. I didn't want to create controversy or spread gossip so I'm just going to remove what I posted, but what I was talking about is mentioned in another thread. I apologize! I'm going back to lurking now haha

Welcome, Knutmeg!

No need to lurk. Just read the "rules", respect them, and you'll be fine!

Terms of Service - Terms of Service - Short, Plain Language Version

 

[RANCH]

I agree with LE's assessment that the area is so remote, they don't think BT was abducted.

That location where RT said they pulled off to go for a '2 mile walk' is literally in the middle of The Mojave Desert, in a National Park, is not a major road with regular traffic, is many miles from any villages or rest areas or stores or watering holes, and it was in the middle of the day in the middle of July and over 90 degrees. Not a time when a lot of people would be driving through there, and not a place where anyone but this older couple decided to stop.

That's why LE said the location was so remote that they didn't think BT was abducted. Then they interviewed RT and searched for BT for 9 days, and still found no evidence she was abducted.

Here is google driving directions map of approximately where RT said they stopped, from their home in Bullhead City, AZ, where he said they left from that morning. There are no villages or towns or cities anywhere nearby within an hour plus drive, and it is not a major road leading to any major cities or points of interest.

It is remote.

So remote, trained desert SAR officers whose jurisdiction is the desert in this county who search for and rescue people who go missing all the time, said it was the reason why they think she wasn't abducted. I don't doubt their expertise and opinion, and don't see why anyone would under these circumstances. MOO

View attachment 200171

What about sroads saying cars drove by every few minutes?

I'm not doubting anyone's expertise but I feel that an abduction, while not likely, is still a possibility in this case. JMO.

 

[MsBetsy]

He is a business man ?
If so, What kind and where

Thank You

Maybe because he works in sales, he might be considered a business man.
It doesn't necessarily mean he owned his own business. Imo