CA CA - Barbara Thomas, 69, from Bullhead City AZ, disappeared in Mojave desert, 12 July 2019 #9

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
MsBetsy said:
Yeah, i

Yeah, it's been posted over and over again since the second thread.
I think the recent article may be a little misleading. It's written as if there is new information, but it's the same as it's always been from the beginning.
I was hoping for a recent update or at least some clarification on the status of the investigation. Imo
Click to expand...

It’s the same information for us, but most people aren’t following this case in detail, so this article is a good reminder and summary for them. It may even be new for a lot of people. Anyone here losing hope can see that the case isn’t cold.
 
squareandrabbet said:
I agree. Saying that Barb was not equipped as she was to wander in the wilderness for multiple days, is not blaming her. It's just stating a fact as to the likelihood of her longevity in this situation: people wearing as little clothing as possible with no water, in fact drinking a diuretic, won't survive 9 days in 110+ temps in the desert with no shelter. Thus the chance that Barb survived in such a circumstance is slim to none.

I myself wilt under very little heat. I do wonder why Barb wasn't better prepared upon this walk "in case she got lost"; but that's I'm a pessimist in addition to being a heat wimp, and would always expect/worry to get lost in such a situation. Clearly Barb isn't a glass-half-empty fraidy cat like me.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure there actually was a walk
 
Lilibet said:
It’s the same information for us, but most people aren’t following this case in detail, so this article is a good reminder and summary for them. It may even be new for a lot of people. Anyone here losing hope can see that the case isn’t cold.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course, it's good to review all the information.
But we have been hoping and waiting for some new information or a turn in the investigation for so long which may very well happen soon. This just isn't it.

It's also important to note, for anyone who is not familiar with the media thread or all of the public statements, that LE made these statements right after the search and there has not been an update regarding the status of the investigation since then.
It seemed to me the article was implying that some of these statements were new, which can be misleading to some.
I was confused at first and I've been following since the very beginning! Imo
 
wary said:
I can’t swear what LE’s exact words were, but I had the impression that they said that their search did not find evidence of her. Obviously, the photos were not part of their search, so the photos may simply not have been addressed in their statement.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that thought (although I am also not sure if "search" was specified as you describe). It just seems that IMO the two statements, while not directly contradictory, are incongruous with each other. When giving an update on the case, it is easier to imagine it being said as "While photo evidence places BT in this area on the 12th, our search has not found any evidence of her."

I guess I am trying to say that omitting mentioning the photos feels very intentional to me.

Whatever the motivation for that, I bet it is for the same reason that LE hasn't released a photo of her taken that day. You'd want possible witnesses and searchers to have the most accurate image possible - unless there is an important reason to keep the photos out of public view.

MOO
 
Sunnymicki said:
Yes, I understand that thought (although I am also not sure if "search" was specified as you describe). It just seems that IMO the two statements, while not directly contradictory, are incongruous with each other. When giving an update on the case, it is easier to imagine it being said as "While photo evidence places BT in this area on the 12th, our search has not found any evidence of her."

I guess I am trying to say that omitting mentioning the photos feels very intentional to me.

Whatever the motivation for that, I bet it is for the same reason that LE hasn't released a photo of her taken that day. You'd want possible witnesses and searchers to have the most accurate image possible - unless there is an important reason to keep the photos out of public view.

MOO
Click to expand...
I think those statements were specifically in regard to the search updates. They didn't say much about the investigation or mention any evidence, except to conclude that they found no evidence of her being there. Imo
 
MsBetsy said:
I think those statements were specifically in regard to the search updates. They didn't say much about the investigation or mention any evidence, except to conclude that they found no evidence of her being there. Imo
Click to expand...

And I agree that they were talking about searching. I'm not disputing that.

But if they had photos that they were confident placed her where RT said they were, why not publicly acknowledge that? It is very pertinent to the scope of the search - and valuable for searchers to see an image of what she actually looked like that day.

The fact that they haven't said a single public word (if I am not mistaken) about having a photo of BT taken that day in that area really makes me really wonder what they found on them or from them.
 
Handsome Sailor said:
a real estate agent who was not allowed to use a cell phone?

huh?
Click to expand...

It was RT who was helping Barbara sell her house when they met.
Barbara's family are the ones who said she wasn't allowed to have a phone while at home after marrying RT.
Her son and nephew (?) let her use a burner phone while she was in HongKong visiting her brother and family.
She apparently wasn't able to use a phone when with RT.

No one knows why.
Although one could guess.

This was discussed in previous threads and seemed to 'stand out' to some.
A sort of red flag ?
Imo.
 
Last edited:
<modsnip>

Please, will someone provide exact verbatim quote from LE saying they do "not suspect foul play" and a link? Or vid w those words from LE's mouth. Thanks in adv.
Here's an LE stmt, w exact quote & link, which is not the same as ^.
"...'We don't think she was abducted.... There's no evidence to suggest she was abducted,' spokeswoman Jodi Miller....' *
Maybe some ppl reading this ^ conclude that LE does not suspect foul play?
------------------------------------------------------------------
* From @RANCH, post 241. Thank you, Ranch.
"Here is the quote from the Daily Mail article.
'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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sunnymicki said:
And I agree that they were talking about searching. I'm not disputing that.

But if they had photos that they were confident placed her where RT said they were, why not publicly acknowledge that? It is very pertinent to the scope of the search - and valuable for searchers to see an image of what she actually looked like that day.

The fact that they haven't said a single public word (if I am not mistaken) about having a photo of BT taken that day in that area really makes me really wonder what they found on them or from them.
Click to expand...
BBM

Ita.
Most likely the reason for the secrecy around her disappearance.

Why not let the public know what she was wearing and what type of drink container ?
Basic, easily answered questions.

The secrecy of LE keeping not revealing what the last photos were or where they were taken has caused people to become slightly suspicious.
If this is all open and there's no foul play-- why not let the public see the pics and know what to look for.

We have only RT's version of what she was wearing and where they were.
And we're on the 9th thread of this case because his version makes no sense.

The last video of Hannah Graham showed exactly what she was wearing ,what her purse looked like, and what direction she was walking.
And the description of Morgan Harrington was exact down to her boots.
Unfortunately none of that saved them, but at least the public knew what to look for !
 
al66pine said:
<modsnip>

Please, will someone provide exact verbatim quote from LE saying they do "not suspect foul play" and a link? Or vid w those words from LE's mouth. Thanks in adv.
Here's an LE stmt, w exact quote & link, which is not the same as ^.
"...'We don't think she was abducted.... There's no evidence to suggest she was abducted,' spokeswoman Jodi Miller....' *
Maybe some ppl reading this ^ conclude that LE does not suspect foul play?
------------------------------------------------------------------
* From @RANCH, post 241. Thank you, Ranch.
"Here is the quote from the Daily Mail article.
'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
Click to expand...

It would seem nobody has found a direct quote and that is why no response.

This is not a direct quote, but could be what members are relying on:

A spokeswoman for the sheriff’s department told ABC News there is no evidence at this time suggesting foul play.
 
LietKynes said:
BBM

Ita.
Most likely the reason for the secrecy around her disappearance.

Why not let the public know what she was wearing and what type of drink container ?
Basic, easily answered questions.

The secrecy of LE keeping not revealing what the last photos were or where they were taken has caused people to become slightly suspicious.
If this is all open and there's no foul play-- why not let the public see the pics and know what to look for.

We have only RT's version of what she was wearing and where they were.
And we're on the 9th thread of this case because his version makes no sense.

The last video of Hannah Graham showed exactly what she was wearing ,what her purse looked like, and what direction she was walking.
And the description of Morgan Harrington was exact down to her boots.
Unfortunately none of that saved them, but at least the public knew what to look for !
Click to expand...

Why the LE secrecy? I agree that it could be that the pictures don’t show what RT describes. Same with the 911 call. LE wouldn’t make those things public if they are investigating someone. Releasing it to the public wouldn’t help find Barb and could jeopardize their investigation.
JMO
 
Sunnymicki said:
And I agree that they were talking about searching. I'm not disputing that.

But if they had photos that they were confident placed her where RT said they were, why not publicly acknowledge that? It is very pertinent to the scope of the search - and valuable for searchers to see an image of what she actually looked like that day.

The fact that they haven't said a single public word (if I am not mistaken) about having a photo of BT taken that day in that area really makes me really wonder what they found on them or from them.
Click to expand...
I sure would like to know if the pictures allegedly taken on that day were taken with a cell phone, a newish digital camera or a vintage camera.
 
sillybilly said:
It would seem nobody has found a direct quote and that is why no response.
This is not a direct quote, but could be what members are relying on:
A spokeswoman for the sheriff’s department told ABC News there is no evidence at this time suggesting foul play.
Click to expand...
@SillyBilly. :)
Thank you very much for your enlightening response. No wonder I could not find it. Seems it was not a quote but reporter's paraphrase or attribution.

Comparison:
----- LE stmt "...'We don't think she was abducted.... There's no evidence to suggest she was abducted,' spokeswoman Jodi Miller....' * from Daily Mail, dated July 22. bbm
----- Reporter's paraphrasing or stmt attributed to LE: "A spokeswoman for the sheriff’s department told ABC News there is no evidence at this time suggesting foul play." from abcnews dated July 17 in a msn webcache. bbm

-------------------------------------------------------
*. "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" July 22, dailymail.co.uk.
 
Snipped by me:
LietKynes said:
"...My mother and I were close. ... (We) spoke on the phone often..."

 ^^^ Am assuming this was before she met and married RT. As she was not allowed a cellphone after the marriage; according to the VI.
Click to expand...

I did not think it was stated that Barbara was “not allowed” to have a cell phone, just that she didn’t have one. Am I mistaken?
 
LietKynes said:
Thanks, @artsy1 !

Interesting article and some discrepancies from what was earlier discussed.

"...My mother and I were close. ... (We) spoke on the phone often..."

 ^^^ Am assuming this was before she met and married RT. As she was not allowed a cellphone after the marriage; according to the VI.
Click to expand...
snipped for focus and BBM, I would imagine that they would speak on the landline?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 194 more.
Total: 4,686 (members: 195, guests: 4,491)

Online statistics

Members online
195
Guests online
4,491
Total visitors
4,686
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,434
Messages
17,968,883
Members
228,768
Latest member
clancehan
Back
Top