CA CA - Barbara Thomas, 69, from Bullhead City AZ, disappeared in Mojave desert, 12 July 2019 #5

[GordianKnot]

The facts are ugly.

How can anyone possibly know “he was in love with his wife?”

That’s presumptuous.

Exactly.

To quote another great author, Thomas Wolfe:
"Which of us has known his brother? Which of us has looked into his father's heart?"

There's no way of knowing how RT feels/felt about BT.

JMO.

 

[RANCH]

Sorry, what change? Reporting a post and asking a mod? You should definitely do it when you are concerned.

I don't think that RT should be considered as a POI here on Websleuths due to lack of evidence at this time.

I'm sure others disagree. JMO

 

[Micheline]

I really appreciate your thoughts.
Just asking, how do we know, or how could we even begin to prove he was still in love with his wife?
No need to reply if you don't want to.
I wish every marriage was a loving one.
Chi

I have explained that a couple of times in previous posts.

Just an example, if he tries to "sell the story that she is the equivalent of a pile of money, irresistible etc" then take a look at this:

He knows his wife is 69, that women in general are found to be an object of desire in their twenties or even younger, that to the average man a 69 yo in bikini, even if carrying a beer is no kidnapping to Vegas material.
Or better he should know that, that such a story will never be perceived as a probability.
But that thought does not cross his mind, because to him she is all of those things at the very moment he is suggesting this scenario.

 

[chihuahua]

I agree. I'm not sure why some people are posting as fact that RT is lying.

I haven't seen any proof of that yet.

Is he lying?

That's a possibility but just because you don't like his story or your "nose" tells you something that doesn't make it a fact. JMO

I don't think any of us are saying RT is lying as a fact.
The only thing we have to really go by is his own words. At this link. Man says police think he is a suspect in wife's disappearance
"UPDATE JULY 22: Robert Thomas says that police are now looking at him as a suspect in his wife's disappearance while the couple was on a hike in the Mojave Desert."
And this
Husband of missing bikini-clad hiker says cops view him as prime suspect
"Robert Thomas told Inside Edition in an interview that aired Wednesday that investigators consider him a prime suspect because "it was just the two of us" in the sweltering desert. He also told the outlet he failed a lie detector test."
Now of course he claims he failed a polygraph because of lack of sleep. I will take him at his word on this.
Just saying,
Chi

 

[Reasonable & Just]

I don't think that RT should be considered as a POI here on Websleuths due to lack of evidence at this time.

I'm sure others disagree. JMO

I know. It's an unusually sticky situation that does feel like a TOS violation, but somewhat on the line because he himself came out saying he is the "prime suspect", but LE has said nothing. Thinking back, I self-reported my posts twice. It may be worth someone asking again if they are concerned.

 

[chihuahua]

Using my own post to reply. "Robert Thomas told Inside Edition in an interview that aired Wednesday that investigators consider him a prime suspect because "it was just the two of us" in the sweltering desert. He also told the outlet he failed a lie detector test."
So, at least he seems to think he is the prime suspect in the eyes of LE.
Why? I guess because he claims to have failed.
Prime suspect, imo, is a step towards calling himself a person of interest to LE. They have not named anyone as such, just to further clarify. I am not accusing him of anything.
jmo
Chi

 

[Reasonable & Just]

I have explained that a couple of times in previous posts.

Just an example, if he tries to "sell the story that she is the equivalent of a pile of money, irresistible etc" then take a look at this:

He knows his wife is 69, that women in general are found to be an object of desire in their twenties or even younger, that to the average man a 69 yo in bikini, even if carrying a beer is no kidnapping to Vegas material.
Or better he should know that, that such a story will never be perceived as a probability.
But that thought does not cross his mind, because to him she is all of those things at the very moment he is suggesting this scenario.

I hear what you are saying. To me, it sounded like he was blaming her. As for being 69, that is irrelevant. We know predators typically choose based on availability, and especially in an "instant abuction" scenario like that. Her being alone and a woman would suffice.

Also, if DV/controlling behavior is a factor - survivors could tell many stories of being blamed for being seductive to other people when in fact they are making no effort at all to attract attention, may be ill (or uncomfortably pregnant and not looking for love), trying to downplay their looks, etc.

What they ultimately realize is that it's not about them being irresistible and treasured by a passionate lover; it's about the abuser and their need to blame their partner for something. ETA - I don't know if/how this fits into this particular story, but it's worth keeping in mind.

 

[chihuahua]

Legaleze:
Person of interest - Wikipedia
""Person of interest" is a term used by U.S. law enforcement when identifying someone involved in a criminal investigation who has not been arrested or formally accused of a crime. It has no legal meaning, but refers to someone in whom the police are "interested,"
vs suspect Suspect - Wikipedia
"In law enforcement jargon, a suspect is a known person accused or suspected of committing a crime."
So that is the legal jargon.
For what that's worth, there it is.
Chi

 

[Micheline]

We can’t sleuth him, but we are free to point out the absurdity of the story that he is relaying.

Some don’t think it’s crazy, and that’s fine.

If this is a kidnapping, all I can say is “how convenient.”

What a fortunate abductor.

Of you are referring to me with "some don't think it's crazy", please read my posts again.

I said that such a story will never be perceived as a probability, but that to RT it being realistic.

 

[Lilibet]

Since there don’t appear to be any mods on duty right now, here is what the rules say about being “victim friendly.” It’s always a good idea to seek the opinion of a mod, rather than tell people how to post.

VICTIM FRIENDLY

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way, and only when such behavior is relevant to the case.

The "victim friendly" rule extends to the family members of victims and suspects. Sleuthing family members, friends, and others who have not been designated as suspects is not allowed. Don't make random accusations, suggest their involvement, nor bash and attack them. Posting their personal information, including names, addresses, and background data -- even if it is public -- is not allowed. That does not mean, however, that statements made by family members and other third parties cannot come into discussion as the facts of the case are reported in the media.

Rules - Etiquette & Information

 

[MassGuy]

Of you are referring to me with "some don't think it's crazy", please read my posts again.

I said that such a story will never be perceived as a probability, but that to RT it being realistic.

Yes, to him it is realistic, which is IMO precisely the reason he told it.

It’s like the person who claims they were carjacked in the middle of the night, by a stranger on a rural road (Diane Downs).

To her, that sounded like a perfectly reasonable story to tell.

Doesn’t mean I have to buy it.

 

[rosesfromangels]

Of you are referring to me with "some don't think it's crazy", please read my posts again.

I said that such a story will never be perceived as a probability, but that to RT it being realistic.

There is an important nuance to this statement, and to me it suggests another thoughtful, exploratory discussion with RT could prove beneficial.

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[GordianKnot]

I have explained that a couple of times in previous posts.

Just an example, if he tries to "sell the story that she is the equivalent of a pile of money, irresistible etc" then take a look at this:

He knows his wife is 69, that women in general are found to be an object of desire in their twenties or even younger, that to the average man a 69 yo in bikini, even if carrying a beer is no kidnapping to Vegas material.
Or better he should know that, that such a story will never be perceived as a probability.
But that thought does not cross his mind, because to him she is all of those things at the very moment he is suggesting this scenario.

BBM:

Are you suggesting that RT's concluding that an attractive woman who's in a bikini and carrying a beer is most likely going to be abducted by someone is proof of his love for BT?

Because if that's the way his mind works, I find it disturbing.

Why would any man's brain formulate the thought that
"attractive woman on roadside = ripe for the picking?"

I could understand thinking that a passing vehicle might be more inclined to stop to ask an attractive woman if she needed any kind of help, or to check to make sure that she was okay, or to offer to give her a lift into the closest town.

But the fact that his mind seemed to track along the lines of, "She WAS wearing a bikini, and she had a beer in her hand, so somebody took her" does not speak to me of evidence of his love.

It speaks to me of something else entirely.

JMO.

 

[Reasonable & Just]

BBM:

Are you suggesting that RT's concluding that an attractive woman who's in a bikini and carrying a beer is most likely going to be abducted by someone is proof of his love for BT?

Because if that's the way his mind works, I find it disturbing.

Why would any man's brain formulate that "attractive woman on roadside = ripe for the picking?"

I could understand thinking that a passing vehicle might be more inclined to stop to ask a woman if she needed any kind of help, or to check to make sure that she was okay, or to offer to give her a lift into the closest town, but that his brain seemed to track along the lines of, "She WAS wearing a bikini, and she had a beer in her hand" does not speak to me of evidence of his love.

It speaks to me of something else entirely.

JMO.

And a quick reminder that this was stated in two separate interviews. Once was troubling enough.

 

[Micheline]

Yes, to him it is realistic, which is IMO precisely the reason he told it.

It’s like the person who claims they were carjacked in the middle of the night, by a stranger on a rural road (Diane Downs).

To her, that sounded like a perfectly reasonable story to tell.

Doesn’t mean I have to buy it.

I don't believe it was said with the intention for you to buy it.
He still holds out hope, and because to him she is precious he believes in a kidnapping, more so since that scenario leaves a possibillity for her still being alive unlike in the lost in the desert scenario. IMO

 

[rosesfromangels]

BBM:

Are you suggesting that RT's concluding that an attractive woman who's in a bikini and carrying a beer is most likely going to be abducted by someone is proof of his love for BT?

Because if that's the way his mind works, I find it disturbing.

Why would any man's brain formulate that "attractive woman on roadside = ripe for the picking?"

I could understand thinking that a passing vehicle might be more inclined to stop to ask a woman if she needed any kind of help, or to check to make sure that she was okay, or to offer to give her a lift into the closest town, but that his brain seemed to track along the lines of, "She WAS wearing a bikini, and she had a beer in her hand" does not speak to me of evidence of his love.

It speaks to me of something else entirely.

JMO.

I understand your point, and as a woman, I appreciate it.
However, for reference, my colleague from Bullhead portrays it as a “bad area”. Perhaps RT felt that being in a bikini could attract attention from “bad people”?

Speculation only

 

[GordianKnot]

Yes, to him it is realistic, which is IMO precisely the reason he told it.

It’s like the person who claims they were carjacked in the middle of the night, by a stranger on a rural road (Diane Downs).

To her, that sounded like a perfectly reasonable story to tell.

Doesn’t mean I have to buy it.

Indeed.

The fact that he thinks this is a reasonable story to pitch, speaks to his thought process.

I find it incredibly telling.

And disturbing.

JMO.

 

[RANCH]

We can’t sleuth him, but we are free to point out the absurdity of the story that he is relaying.

Some don’t think it’s crazy, and that’s fine.

If this is a kidnapping, all I can say is “how convenient.”

What a fortunate abductor.

I don't feel that his story is crazy or absurd.

I consider RT as a victim at this point and I will not insult him with that kind of language.

That doesn't mean I don't have some doubts about his story, I just feel that at this point I will not denigrate him. JMO

 

[Micheline]

BBM:

Are you suggesting that RT's concluding that an attractive woman who's in a bikini and carrying a beer is most likely going to be abducted by someone is proof of his love for BT?

Because if that's the way his mind works, I find it disturbing.

Why would any man's brain formulate that "attractive woman on roadside = ripe for the picking?"

I could understand thinking that a passing vehicle might be more inclined to stop to ask a woman if she needed any kind of help, or to check to make sure that she was okay, or to offer to give her a lift into the closest town.

But the fact that his mind seemed to track along the lines of, "She WAS wearing a bikini, and she had a beer in her hand, so somebody took her" does not speak to me of evidence of his love.

It speaks to me of something else entirely.

JMO.

No, I was suggesting that to RT she is the equivalent of a pile of money, attractive kidnapping to Vegas material to a man who would come across her on that road.

The fact that he says he believes this happened, on camera, tells me to him that scenario is realistic on the very moment he is telling it.
Hence he did not harm his wife or else it would not be realistic to him either.

The way he said: "If someone has her, which I am sure someone has...etc"
That wasn't acting. I am pretty sure of that.

 

[Lilibet]

Indeed.

The fact that he thinks this is a reasonable story to pitch, speaks to his thought process.

I find it incredibly telling.

And disturbing.

JMO.

I think he could have expressed his abduction theory without implying that “bikini and beer” is what made her a target. I gave him the benefit of the doubt about this initially, but it does seem weird the more I think about it. It’s a little too close to the “mini skirt led to rape” idea. JMO