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

[MimosaMornings]

'They told me I was being deceptive': Husband of missing 69-year-old bikini-clad hiker admits cops think he's the prime suspect after failing a polygraph as Mojave Desert search enters day 6

The person who was last with her says he does not believe she is out there!

MO observe

So that’s why he’s not out putting up posters or trying to get media attention.

Complete strangers aren’t afraid to go out there and look for Barbara, I’m just can’t fathom not going to look for my mom or have a conversation IN PERSON with RT.

 

[GordianKnot]

More precisely- the simplest explanation is that they haven't looked in the place where the evidence is; obviously I know.

Which could mean she wasn't ever in that area at all, or it could also mean she is just outside the finite spots they did search in that area.

There are more than enough cracks and crevices and Chollas for her to be hidden in/under.

Lots of people get lost in the desert under very similar circumstances (minus the bikini and the beer).

Dogs don't find every corpse and searchers sometimes walk right over bodies.

Lots of people also get murdered by their SO.

Not enough verifiable evidence to tell which is which.

If I were on his jury, he would be acquitted.

BBM:

I agree with you.
This is why we're still spinning our wheels round and round on this thread...when we're not kicking the tires.
He's not been charged with anything, but if I were on RT's hypothetical jury, I would also vote for acquittal based on the publicly known facts.

However, I would add this caveat:

Absence of evident evidence is not evidence of the absence of evidence.

By which I mean, we shouldn't assume that we're in possession of all the known facts.

The SBSCO are the gatekeepers of the evidence, and they don't have a history of throwing open the floodgates and letting it all pour out for the public to see.

LE's done some work behind-the-scenes at locations other than where RT reported her missing, as evidenced by the fact that they went to the convenience store RT stopped at and asked for footage.
They didn't publicly release the info that they collected video surveillance from the store.
We know it only because we have a VI on this case.

We don't know what LE knows.

No-body cases can be successfully prosecuted.
No evidence cases cannot.

LE has a bear of a case here to solve.

An absolute bear.

JMO.

 

[LietKynes]

So that’s why he’s not out putting up posters or trying to get media attention.

Complete strangers aren’t afraid to go out there and look for Barbara, I’m just can’t fathom not going to look for my mom or have a conversation IN PERSON with RT.

Ita.
Unless you were afraid of someone ?
Not saying anyone is; but it's a valid consideration.
If he were still alive, I'd be afraid to have a chat with Richard Kuklinski.

 

[LietKynes]

'They told me I was being deceptive': Husband of missing 69-year-old bikini-clad hiker admits cops think he's the prime suspect after failing a polygraph as Mojave Desert search enters day 6

The person who was last with her says he does not believe she is out there!

MO observe

Agreed. ^^^

And imo --where does someone get that notion ?
From which dark area was it pulled ?
LE DO NOT go around telling people that.
They (police spokeswoman) said this early on in the first thread that they hadn't told RT this.
And I have to hand it to the LE investigating this "missing persons' " case; they've been tight-lipped.

LE possibly have facts of which we know nothing.
And they do not tip their hand by blabbing unnecessarily to someone who they have not publicly cleared.

No one has been cleared at this date.
And LE have not come out and said much of anything, and certainly not that this is a closed case, and Barbara is just missing.
No one vanishes like that in a flat area with a few minutes or less walk to the RV.

If someone took Barbara, why not give a description of a car/truck speedily driving away or any vehicle description ?
The person who provided the flat area photos and the path lined on either side with Cholla cactus said that there was a stream of traffic while they were taking pictures.
Not a desolated and deserted road with no one driving by for hours.

 

[Jade]

More precisely- the simplest explanation is that they haven't looked in the place where the evidence is; obviously I know.

Which could mean she wasn't ever in that area at all, or it could also mean she is just outside the finite spots they did search in that area.

There are more than enough cracks and crevices and Chollas for her to be hidden in/under.

Lots of people get lost in the desert under very similar circumstances (minus the bikini and the beer).

Dogs don't find every corpse and searchers sometimes walk right over bodies.

Lots of people also get murdered by their SO.

Not enough verifiable evidence to tell which is which.

If I were on his jury, he would be acquitted.

Just what charges would you be acquitting him of?

If there were charges brought and a jury was seated there would be corresponding evidence from LE that brought them to the point of trial.

I would hope a jurist would want to review all submitted and presented evidence before acquitting.

Evidence which we would not be privy to on WS.

The burden of proof would differ depending on the charge.

Are you acquitting for a criminal trial or civil?


All imo

 

[LietKynes]

OK, question: if LE had any inkling based upon the never-seen photos that Barb might be wearing different/more clothing, or what types of clothing she brought to drive around in before stripping down to her sunbathing outfit; and they thought Barb might have had a chance to don those clothes for any reason; why wouldn't LE include a slug in their MisPers info saying "May also be wearing such-and-such"?

Fair enough.
Good question !
One would assume LE would make this point.

 

[Jade]

OK, question: if LE had any inkling based upon the never-seen photos that Barb might be wearing different/more clothing, or what types of clothing she brought to drive around in before stripping down to her sunbathing outfit; and they thought Barb might have had a chance to don those clothes for any reason; why wouldn't LE include a slug in their MisPers info saying "May also be wearing such-and-such"?

>>>>>>>>>>>

Snipped by me



Since RT’s statement is BT never entered the trailer after she left him on the trail they would have no reason to think she could have changed clothes.

And if they didn’t believe RT about whether she entered the trailer or not why would they believe what he said she might have been wearing if it was beyond his initial statement?

RT said himself they don’t believe him and suspect him.


From cases I’ve followed when LE doesn’t say much they are up to something and think that it doesn’t make any difference to put out additional details.


RT, however, could sit for interviews and express any thoughts about possible clothing changes.


Be interesting to know what BT was wearing when she dropped off the dog. Maybe there were cameras and LE already knows what she was wearing at the drop off.



all imo

 

[squareandrabbet]

Snipped by me



Since RT’s statement is BT never entered the trailer after she left him on the trail they would have no reason to think she could have changed clothes.

And if they didn’t believe RT about whether she entered the trailer or not why would they believe what he said she might have been wearing if it was beyond his initial statement?

RT said himself they don’t believe him and suspect him.


From cases I’ve followed when LE doesn’t say much they are up to something and think that it doesn’t make any difference to put out additional details.


RT, however, could sit for interviews and express any thoughts about possible clothing changes.


Be interesting to know what BT was wearing when she dropped off the dog. Maybe there were cameras and LE already knows what she was wearing at the drop off.



all imo

Agreed; but the question being asked at the time was, what, if anything, is different from the verbal description of Barb; vs. what type of photo RT gave LE of Barb at the campsite, which apparently we still haven't seen and hasn't been published in the press.

By and large I agree with you. I think if Barb's "actual outfit" isn't shown in her Missing poster, it's because her underwear/bikini are (a) nice thick Spandex/perspiration wicking type material that show nothing; (b), are pretty much everyone's standard stylistic definition of what you think of when someone says "black bikini top and bottoms".

Arizona residents can probably answer how many businesses are generally OK with you running around in a bikini (underwear or swim); plus I thought we have a neighbor of BT's saying that she saw her taking her dog off to the kennel in the morning. Personally, I tend to think it's still "No Shirt No Shoes No Service" unless maaaaaaybe you're standing next to the beach (FL or similar); but then again, I have only ever made brief visits to a warm climate; and the dress policy of stores wasn't something I was studying at that time.

 

[LietKynes]

Agreed; but the question being asked at the time was, what, if anything, is different from the verbal description of Barb; vs. what type of photo RT gave LE of Barb at the campsite, which apparently we still haven't seen and hasn't been published in the press.

By and large I agree with you. I think if Barb's "actual outfit" isn't shown in her Missing poster, it's because her underwear/bikini are (a) nice thick Spandex/perspiration wicking type material that show nothing; (b), are pretty much everyone's standard stylistic definition of what you think of when someone says "black bikini top and bottoms".

Arizona residents can probably answer how many businesses are generally OK with you running around in a bikini (underwear or swim); plus I thought we have a neighbor of BT's saying that she saw her taking her dog off to the kennel in the morning. Personally, I tend to think it's still "No Shirt No Shoes No Service" unless maaaaaaybe you're standing next to the beach (FL or similar); but then again, I have only ever made brief visits to a warm climate; and the dress policy of stores wasn't something I was studying at that time.

Waaaay back in the earliest days of the first Barbara thread, a member of WS had said they contacted the kennel and the staff said she had on a blue shirt and dark pants.

 

[Stripehaven]

BT may have been wearing her swimsuit under the clothes seen at the kennel. RT could clear that up.

 

[CSIDreamer]

BT may have been wearing her swimsuit under the clothes seen at the kennel. RT could clear that up.

She had an entire house hooked to the back of the truck. It isn't like she was having wardrobe emergencies.

Under her clothes works, too.

 

[LietKynes]

BT may have been wearing her swimsuit under the clothes seen at the kennel. RT could clear that up.

bbm
Ita.
Oh, yes.
There's a lot RT could clear up if he cared to do that.
However anyone betting on that possibility would more than likely not have any takers.
Ever.
Imo.

 

[Seajay]

Snipped by me



Since RT’s statement is BT never entered the trailer after she left him on the trail they would have no reason to think she could have changed clothes.

And if they didn’t believe RT about whether she entered the trailer or not why would they believe what he said she might have been wearing if it was beyond his initial statement?

RT said himself they don’t believe him and suspect him.


From cases I’ve followed when LE doesn’t say much they are up to something and think that it doesn’t make any difference to put out additional details.


RT, however, could sit for interviews and express any thoughts about possible clothing changes.


Be interesting to know what BT was wearing when she dropped off the dog. Maybe there were cameras and LE already knows what she was wearing at the drop off.



all imo

I guess it just comes down to the question of, “do you find RT credible.”

 

[LietKynes]

This is just me snooping around ... but if I were LE I might have asked permission to search that RV and truck....
And then gauged the response.
LE are a nosy bunch in their line of work, so it wouldn't have seemed unusual.

 

[lstric]

Who cares what she was wearing. She's missing!

 

[Seajay]

Who cares what she was wearing. She's missing!

Ok, back to reality. She may be dead.

It’s a question of how credible each individual finds RT. IMO

 

[CSIDreamer]

Who cares what she was wearing. She's missing!

I posted a page or two back, you may have missed it. Actually, what she was wearing does matter. There's actually a description that puts her squarely in underwear. My question was if she is truly found in underwear then her street clothes should have been accounted for the day she went missing. Otherwise, where are they?

 

[Seajay]

Also, what she is wearing is important in evidence, whether or not any is found to substantiate statements made of her disappearance. IMO

 

[LietKynes]

I posted a page or two back, you may have missed it. Actually, what she was wearing does matter. There's actually a description that puts her squarely in underwear. My question was if she is truly found in underwear then her street clothes should have been accounted for the day she went missing. Otherwise, where are they?

Agreed.
Let's say she wore pants/shorts and a blouse to drop off Lexie at the kennel.
Did she go back home and then change into the swimsuit/under garments ?
One would think that no, she changed into that attire after arriving at the hiking area.
So RT says she was never in the RV that day, at all ?
Or just that she didn't access the RV after they arrived at Kelbaker and were returning from their 'walk' ?
Sorry for so many questions.
Just a few theories I have.
The only way I see her missing in her underwear would be if someone (the random kidnapper) ambushed her while she was changing.

 

[Gigi3]

Just checking in... I see we are still at a stalemate

I’m still of the opinion that LE is working behind the scene. I do hope she is found soon!

Thanks to you all for keeping this thread alive and letting others know that Barb is NOT forgotten!