CA CA - Barbara Thomas, 69, from Bullhead City AZ, disappeared in Mojave desert, 12 July 2019 #10

Status
Not open for further replies.

Seattle1

#LiveLikeLizzy
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
27,225
Reaction score
298,953
I don't think anybody would take a single beer anywhere.

I'd expect the T's to have packed out at minimum a six-pack, and I wouldn't have really blinked if we discovered they took a 24-pack on a week's vacation either. They could have leftovers.

My point has been that RT described BT as wearing a black bikini, hiking boots -- and a beer clutched in her hand, at the end of their 2 mile hike.

She reportedly had no phone, no back pack, supplies, etc. according to the person that hiked with her, and saw her last.

Video news reports have cited that they had a gallon of water, but Barbara did not have the water when she disappeared in the 100+ degree heat.

I think it very likely they had more beer and possibly the gallon of water inside the locked trailer.

I agree with others that have said it seems strange that BT would be carrying a beer at the end of her 2 mile hike, unless she was carrying the empty can to deposit in recycle bin.

MOO
 

Micheline

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
569
Reaction score
1,526
He did say that but he also said that Barbara was the one who walked the dog and Robert never walked the dog.
Maybe he was repeating what the neighbors said.
You might have to read the whole post to understand it, but he was giving examples of how RT'S behavior was suspicious and how he was secretive and kept to himself. Imo

He was not giving examples of why RT's behavior was suspicious.
He openly suspects RT and encourages others to do the same.

Someone is not suspicious for not being the one who walks the dog or for wanting privacy.

I still would like to know why someone is paranoid for not walking the dog.

Things are taken to extremes here. I really like you as a user, please do not fall into that trap.
 

Gigi3

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2019
Messages
1,507
Reaction score
23,495
O/T but worth mentioning:

@PommyMommy, I just noticed you've reached a major milestone here on WS! Over 2oo, ooo "likes" received!!
That's amazing...and such a testament to your valuable contributions to so many cases here.

Just think, you're now breathing the same rarified air as MassGuy, having now joined him in the "200k" club.
A club of which you and he are the only 2 members, on account of you guys are in a class all of your own!
Well done and congrats!
Great post! I have to agree, but I appreciate everything you, massguy, and pommy add to any of the threads here.
Still checking in and wondering where Barbara could be!
 

Seattle1

#LiveLikeLizzy
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
27,225
Reaction score
298,953
BBM

I want to hear that 911 call.
She has been missing for more than two months.
Exactly what reason would they have-- not to release it ?

The standard response is usually "releasing the 911 call could interfere with ongoing investigation."

On the same subject - recently read that Rhode Island is "going quiet."

Rhode Island is one of about a dozen states that prohibit the release of 911 recordings or transcripts without the written consent of the caller or by court order. The goal generally is to protect the privacy of callers in what may be one of the most stressful moments of their lives.

But states across the country are looking to curb access, a trend that troubles media representatives and others.

Going Quiet: More States Are Hiding 911 Recordings From Families, Lawyers and the General Public — ProPublica
 

HongKongPhooey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
3,701
Reaction score
39,852
He was not giving examples of why RT's behavior was suspicious.
He openly suspects RT and encourages others to do the same.

Someone is not suspicious for not being the one who walks the dog or for wanting privacy.

I still would like to know why someone is paranoid for not walking the dog.

Things are taken to extremes here. I really like you as a user, please do not fall into that trap.
The VI's contributions regarding RT's personality profile are very helpful in understanding the background to this situation and possibly the relationship dynamics.

I would not feel someone is guilty because they do not walk a dog.

I may feel someone is guilty if they are the last person to see their wife and the suggestions offered by them as to what may have happened seem totally unbelievable to me.

And to the polygraph also.

JMO
 

MsBetsy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Messages
18,821
Reaction score
165,350
He was not giving examples of why RT's behavior was suspicious.
He openly suspects RT and encourages others to do the same.

Someone is not suspicious for not being the one who walks the dog or for wanting privacy.

I still would like to know why someone is paranoid for not walking the dog.

Things are taken to extremes here. I really like you as a user, please do not fall into that trap.
I did not have a chance to clarify or explain last night as I was sick and had to give up trying to post altogether.

I'm not saying I believe or support the theory that RT's past involves nefarious activities and that somehow has something to do with his involvement.

I had just tried to summarize in my OP (although probably not very well) the theory that Matt and the rest of Barbara's family believe, and that they must truly believe this because they have said they are in fear for their safety.

So I tried to summarize the things that were said in support of RT being suspicious and secretive.
I don't think not walking the dog or not going out in some public places is suspicious because there are plenty of explanations for that.
Even walking away from others while on a business call (which was one of the examples) does not necessarily mean anything other than he just wanted some privacy.
So I was just summarizing the reason behind the theory in a neutral way, without any judgement or opinions of my own.

But I don't see any evidence or have any reason to believe that RT was involved in some type of organized kidnapping myself. I don't believe those examples indicate anything out of the ordinary.

I still have not seen any evidence that a crime has been committed at all.

IMO
 

MsBetsy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Messages
18,821
Reaction score
165,350
I'm torn. Sometimes he comes across with the amiability of a retired hot dog stand operator, or a hayseed country jake. Other times, I detect colorless antagonism, a looming tower of darkness...moo
Which times were those?

As far as I know, we have only seen him talk in about a minutes worth of interviews over two months ago.
 

Cherwell

Ice Cream
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
6,088
Reaction score
14,707
He did say that but he also said that Barbara was the one who walked the dog and Robert never walked the dog.
Maybe he was repeating what the neighbors said.
You might have to read the whole post to understand it, but he was giving examples of how RT'S behavior was suspicious and how he was secretive and kept to himself.

In many, many households it's always the same person who walks the dog, or does so more often than other family members. I know this because I have a dog, I am the one who takes him out, and I see who is out with their dogs. My mother always walked her dogs, her partner of many years never did as far as I recall, although he thought the world of them.

It is a matter of preference or convenience, and I find it ridiculous that anyone would read something sinister into it. A desperate attempt to paint normal behaviour as "suspicious".
 

MsBetsy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Messages
18,821
Reaction score
165,350
In many, many households it's always the same person who walks the dog, or does so more often than other family members. I know this because I have a dog, I am the one who takes him out, and I see who is out with their dogs. My mother always walked her dogs, her partner of many years never did as far as I recall, although he thought the world of them.

It is a matter of preference or convenience, and I find it ridiculous that anyone would read something sinister into it. A desperate attempt to paint normal behaviour as "suspicious".
Yes, when I was married I always walked the dog. I don't think I remember my husband walking him one time.

I have another dog now and it's my daughter's job to walk the dog.

Although on the weekends she sleeps late and the poor dog can't wait so of course I take the little guy out.
 
Last edited:

cazador

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
536
Reaction score
5,872
Website
el-cazador.blogspot.com
So where do you suppose the DOJ got their information from? Wonder what her description of clothing, or lack of, was given in the 911 call?
DOJ had to get their info from the police report taken from RT.. All info RT gave them was recorded and written. That info leads to an 80 person search team with specialists including helicopter.
Jmho
 

Nikynoo

Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
2,928
Reaction score
15,543
So do we rely on California DOJ (who would have received a description based on what the husband said since he is the only person who can say for sure what she was wearing at the time she disappeared), or do we go with NamUs (who would have received a description based on what the husband said since he is the only person who can say for sure what she was wearing at the time she disappeared)?
Does it really matter? The only discrepancy that I can see is the colour of the hat and the description is right and wrong in both instances. I believe that the hat was red AND white
 

Nikynoo

Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
2,928
Reaction score
15,543
DOJ is supposed to be accurate ... BUT They have her walking around in her underwear... That is Not the woman I see in ALL the pictures provided to us.. jmho
underwear/bikini - i dont think there is a world of difference between the two and I don't think that the discrepancy is relevant to finding Barbara nor is it relevant in any other way, unless I am missing something?
 

Nikynoo

Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
2,928
Reaction score
15,543
^^^ Saving this thoughtful post as I'd referenced the discrepancy already.

Seems like a small mistake to make -- but RT was the last to see her; so why the change in description ?
You're not the only one who's wondering this. :(
Although to be completely fair, some people in their 70's become senile or forgetful.
But that's doubtful with this person.
Imo
QUOTE]
SBM - I suspect that is when the description was entered that was when the discrepancy arose. Nothing more that an admin error.
 

Nikynoo

Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
2,928
Reaction score
15,543
Arizona doesn’t have a missing persons case in this one, do they?
Hi @10ofRods , yes, I think both Arizona and Cali will have cases, see https://post.ca.gov/Portals/0/post_docs/publications/Missing_Persons_Investigations.pdf . However, as the DOJ website still shows that the case is with the San Bernardino Office, it would appear that this office is still investigating, alternatively, it just could take some time to update the data.

PC §14205(c) requires the agency taking the initial missing persons report “to promptly notify” and send copies of the report to the department that has jurisdiction over the missing person’s resident address and to the agency where the missing person was last seen. It is recommended that the initial investigation should be handled by the agency of jurisdiction where the missing person was last seen. This includes entry of the missing person into the Department of Justice’s MPS (Missing Persons System) and coordinating a bilateral investigation with the agency of the missing person’s residence. Once this agency has exhausted all investigative leads, the case should be transferred to the agency that has jurisdiction over the missing person’s residence. This would include making the proper computer notation with the Department of Justice as to the agency responsible for the investigation. Any future leads should be routed to the agency with jurisdiction based on the missing person’s residence. It is imperative that all agencies involved in the missing person investigation work closely together, enhancing the probability of locating the missing person.
 

Gigi3

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2019
Messages
1,507
Reaction score
23,495
I did not have a chance to clarify or explain last night as I was sick and had to give up trying to post altogether.

I'm not saying I believe or support the theory that RT's past involves nefarious activities and that somehow has something to do with his involvement.

I had just tried to summarize in my OP (although probably not very well) the theory that Matt and the rest of Barbara's family believe, and that they must truly believe this because they have said they are in fear for their safety.

So I tried to summarize the things that were said in support of RT being suspicious and secretive.
I don't think not walking the dog or not going out in some public places is suspicious because there are plenty of explanations for that.
Even walking away from others while on a business call (which was one of the examples) does not necessarily mean anything other than he just wanted some privacy.
So I was just summarizing the reason behind the theory in a neutral way, without any judgement or opinions of my own.

But I don't see any evidence or have any reason to believe that RT was involved in some type of organized kidnapping myself. I don't believe those examples indicate anything out of the ordinary.

I still have not seen any evidence that a crime has been committed at all.

IMO
Good post MsBetsy. I personally do not believe the organized kidnapping theory, but I can see why Barb’s family might have latched on to it. In this theory it may seem crazy, but it gives them the hope that she is still alive.
Also, I truly believe at first, the family supported RT and did not want to think something nefarious had happened. However, over time and information their opinions started to change.
I hope our VI and his family are doing well. It’s been a while since we’ve heard from him. If we are frustrated by the lack of information, I can NOT imagine how they must be feeling. I hope Barbara is found soon!
All of this is MOO!!
 

Reasonable & Just

United We Stand
Joined
Feb 18, 2019
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
20,694
Are the temperatures getting cool enough for new searches? Are any planned that we know of?

I'm recalling our VI's words from RT - something about how this could have happened at any time. Could be taken in a sinister way*, but could also be that she has gotten lost before.

Would love to know what actions her husband is taking to find her. I wish him luck in bringing her back home.

[ETA - clarifying that it could seem sinister, since the time that it actually did happen occurred right before she was to leave on an international trip, and also around the time she starting rebuilding a relationship with her son.]
 
Last edited:

Micheline

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
569
Reaction score
1,526
The VI's contributions regarding RT's personality profile are very helpful in understanding the background to this situation and possibly the relationship dynamics.

I would not feel someone is guilty because they do not walk a dog.

I may feel someone is guilty if they are the last person to see their wife and the suggestions offered by them as to what may have happened seem totally unbelievable to me.

And to the polygraph also.

JMO

True but these insight are given with a "guilty" thought in mind. It is not unbiased information.

Which is completely logical, this is what we do, we always want to seek some sort of blame or blame ourselves in hard situations, it sort of delays the moment that we have to face our grieve when we are ready for it, so it is functional.
I do not mean this in a derogatory way.

I have seen nothing in RT's version of events that come across as totally unbelievable, paranoid, a guilty man talking or any such thing.
I think he adored his wife,.
 

Micheline

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
569
Reaction score
1,526
I did not have a chance to clarify or explain last night as I was sick and had to give up trying to post altogether.

I'm not saying I believe or support the theory that RT's past involves nefarious activities and that somehow has something to do with his involvement.

I had just tried to summarize in my OP (although probably not very well) the theory that Matt and the rest of Barbara's family believe, and that they must truly believe this because they have said they are in fear for their safety.

So I tried to summarize the things that were said in support of RT being suspicious and secretive.
I don't think not walking the dog or not going out in some public places is suspicious because there are plenty of explanations for that.
Even walking away from others while on a business call (which was one of the examples) does not necessarily mean anything other than he just wanted some privacy.
So I was just summarizing the reason behind the theory in a neutral way, without any judgement or opinions of my own.

But I don't see any evidence or have any reason to believe that RT was involved in some type of organized kidnapping myself. I don't believe those examples indicate anything out of the ordinary.

I still have not seen any evidence that a crime has been committed at all.

IMO

Thanks for explaining MsBetsy, I understand your post now. Hope you feel better today!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top