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

[MsBetsy]

They would be forced to release it through the FOIA. [Freedom of Information Act]

Her nephew submitted a FOIA request for that call and it was denied, at this time, because of ongoing investigation.

If it was a 'simple' missing hiker case, then I think they would approve the FOIA request. JMO

Well, I wouldn't call it "simple" because they have used all their resources to find her and haven't had any success.

There may be no need to release the 911 call. If they thought it would help in any way they would probably release it.
It's not uncommon that LE will not release information about the investigation to family members or the public. Imo

 

[katydid23]

Well, I wouldn't call it "simple" because they have used all their resources to find her and haven't had any success.

There may be no need to release the 911 call. If they thought it would help in any way they would probably release it.
It's not uncommon that LE will not release information about the investigation to family members or the public. Imo

But there is a legal mandate that they are REQUIRED to release that 911 call, if someone requests if through the Freedom Of Information Act.

It is not up to their discretion, it is a legal requirement.

The only way they can postpone that request is if they claim it is an ongoing investigation.

If they thought there was no foul play, and she was missing due to misadventure, then why not release the call, as legally required?

 

[GordianKnot]

I’ve said this before, but you don’t give a polygraph to someone when you buy his story.

Clearly there were red flags here, and suspicion on the part of law enforcement.

They either weren’t sure what they were dealing with, or there were indications that the narrative wasn’t true.

Which jibes with the strange way they have discussed this publicly.

BBM:

Well, I'm about to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, too, but you know the old saying:

"Repetition is the key to Something-Or-Other."
I can't remember the rest of that old saying, but regardless....
Point being, repetition is key!

Anyway, with regard to LE's public stance, bringing forward (again) an earlier video clip:

Husband of missing 69-year-old hiker says police consider him a suspect

Per the reporter in that vid, authorities have said:

• No evidence that BT was abducted.
• Not a single trace of BT having been found.
• They are "unaware" of how long RT and BT were separated before she disappeared.
• They "don't know" how far BT was from the RV at the time they became separated.

That LE said both of those bolded things is quite startling.

There is NO logical explanation for the 2 bolded bullet points...if one assumes LE believes RT's version of events is true, at least.

The last 2 bullet points do make perfect sense if one assumes LE does not believe RT's account of what happened that day.

In addition to saying that there is no evidence BT was abducted, LE's also said they don't believe BT was abducted.
LE said this in response to RT's statements that he thought she had been abducted.

LE could not be telegraphing any more clearly their outright skepticism that RT has told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth concerning the circumstances surrounding BT's disappearance.

"It's as plain as the nose on Pinocchio's face." ~ Gordian

JMO.

 

[MsBetsy]

Wouldn't that be strange behaviour on his part, not to tell anyone else where they were hiking?

Doesn't he want others to know that important info if they want to help him find her?

We don't know who he told afterwards. The media described the general location and there was an intensive search conducted there for about nine days so it's not as if it was not known where they were. Imo

 

[MsBetsy]

But there is a legal mandate that they are REQUIRED to release that 911 call, if someone requests if through the Freedom Of Information Act.

It is not up to their discretion, it is a legal requirement.

The only way they can postpone that request is if they claim it is an ongoing investigation.

If they thought there was no foul play, and she was missing due to misadventure, then why not release the call, as legally required?

Yes, they did say it was an ongoing investigation.
But just because they have not released the call does not mean there is a criminal element to the investigation. The only statement they have ever made about the status of the investigation is that they do not suspect foul play.
We have no idea what evidence they have found, if at all, since they have not said anything other than it is an ongoing investigation. Imo

 

[katydid23]

We don't know who he told afterwards. The media described the general location and there was an intensive search conducted there for about nine days so it's not as if it was not known where they were. Imo

Exactly. And that^^^ is my original point. We do have some information about where they were allegedly hiking, when she went missing.

We do know which trail they were probably traveling on, when he says she disappeared. And it seems that the highway and the RV would have been visible when she went missing. That was my original point.

 

[katydid23]

Yes, they did say it was an ongoing investigation.
But just because they have not released the call does not mean there is a criminal element to the investigation. The only statement they have ever made about the status of the investigation is that they do not suspect foul play.
We have no idea what evidence they have found, if at all, since they have not said anything other than it is an ongoing investigation. Imo

If they don't suspect foul play, then why not release the call, as required by law?

 

[10ofRods]

I think we have a pretty clear idea where they were hiking. It is pretty obvious from the maps we have seen here and from the pictures posted here. The main trail begins right at the highway, exactly where they parked the RV.

The only other 'trails' are obscure paths leading through cactus brush etc. No way they walked through that mess.

I think it is obvious they were on the main trail. He said he stopped to snap photos of the dry creek bed and rock formation. So we have a pretty good idea of where they were when he said she continued on. JMO

Respectfully disagree. The trail that intersects the "main trail" at about 1/4 of a mile in is not obscure. It is a commonly used trail, quite a bit wider than a deer trail, and it heads down toward the Research Center. Also, the trial that leads to the dry wash from that point looks to be as wide as the actual trail. You can see the dogs start down it in the SAR video (IMO) and they are called back due to the tracking method the handlers are using.

He apparently said the "dry creek bed" thing to a reporter who arrived on site and it was part of a now-unavailable TV broadcast (I've asked, I've been told the station no longer has the footage; the reporter does not want to be "involved in the case" and can't say whether they remember what he said). However, I do remember it (and heard it more than once, as it was local news here, as well as in Vegas).

They were on the main trail - but not the entire time. The "main trail" does not go to the top of any hill or pile of rocks. There are no trails across the rocks. There are about 5 short spur trails leading into the rocks, toward the top of them. But we don't know which one they were on.

However, it's clear that LE used the intersection between the main trail and the trail that leads down to the wash as a central point in the search, as it shows up several times in the video. What we don't know is whether Barbara was actually right there. But it doesn't support RT's story that he went to the wash to take pictures. At the time it made a lot of sense to me, because dry washes do photograph beautifully and that's why there's a trail to it. That trail goes beyond the dry wash and to a rock formation that looks a lot like the rock formation that's easy enough to hike to the top (the granite formations are not easy to scramble up, that I know from personal experience).

So, if they climbed a hill, they were no longer on the main trail. A lot of people decide to go down the back of the rocks and there's a trail that circles around and goes back down to the wash.

We don't know where they were, but the SAR dogs appear to start their search at the junction between 2 trails (and I believe it's the junction 1/4 of a mile from the road, or else it would have been obvious to LE that RT was lying).

 

[MsBetsy]

But there is a legal mandate that they are REQUIRED to release that 911 call, if someone requests if through the Freedom Of Information Act.

It is not up to their discretion, it is a legal requirement.

The only way they can postpone that request is if they claim it is an ongoing investigation.

If they thought there was no foul play, and she was missing due to misadventure, then why not release the call, as legally required?

I don't think they are allowed to release the 911 call without a court order, because of privacy issues or other legal concerns.
I'm not sure they are necessarily mandated to release the call, either, if the conditions meet any of the exemptions, such as a threat to National Security or an active investigation.
I would think the media, or someone, would have to seek a court order.
At least that's what I've seen in other investigations.
Many have sent messages to several sources requesting this, but so far we have heard nothing. Imo

 

[RANCH]

BBM:

Well, I'm about to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, too, but you know the old saying:

"Repetition is the key to Something-Or-Other."
I can't remember the rest of that old saying, but regardless....
Point being, repetition is key!

Anyway, with regard to LE's public stance, bringing forward (again) an earlier video clip:

Husband of missing 69-year-old hiker says police consider him a suspect

Per the reporter in that vid, authorities have said:

• No evidence that BT was abducted.
• Not a single trace of BT having been found.
• They are "unaware" of how long RT and BT were separated before she disappeared.
• They "don't know" how far BT was from the RV at the time they became separated.

That LE said both of those bolded things is quite startling.

There is NO logical explanation for the 2 bolded bullet points...if one assumes LE believes RT's version of events is true, at least.

The last 2 bullet points do make perfect sense if one assumes LE does not believe RT's account of what happened that day.

In addition to saying that there is no evidence BT was abducted, LE's also said they don't believe BT was abducted.
LE said this in response to RT's statements that he thought she had been abducted.

LE could not be telegraphing any more clearly their outright skepticism that RT has told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth concerning the circumstances surrounding BT's disappearance.

"It's as plain as the nose on Pinocchio's face." ~ Gordian

JMO.

When LE say's they are unaware of how long RT and BT were separated before she disappeared and how far from the RV she was, I take that to mean they don't know if she hiked quite a distance away before disappearing for some unknown reason.

They didn't rule out an abduction so they could be referring to that. Or that she is still out there in the desert somewhere. JMO.

 

[RANCH]

If they don't suspect foul play, then why not release the call, as required by law?

Maybe they are still investigating the possibility of foul play. JMO

 

[10ofRods]

Wouldn't that be strange behaviour on his part, not to tell anyone else where they were hiking?

Doesn't he want others to know that important info if they want to help him find her?

He obviously told 911 the approximate area and then, presumably where he last saw her, because otherwise, he would be deemed 1) impaired or 2) suspicious. Everything else about him looking for her falls apart if he has no clue where they just were. So, yeah, it seems clear that RT told the police approximately where he last saw her.

If they don't suspect foul play, then why not release the call, as required by law?

I think there's a strong tendency for CA LE to investigate every tip in a missing person case. So, if people call in tips regarding foul play (as at least one person posted on FB that they did and we don't know how many people may have called in tips), then there's an ongoing investigation in the Special Investigations Unit. And I watch cases that have been going on for 30 years and still open (not cold).

Investigating foul play is quite different from suspecting it. If a lead results in increasing suspicion, as time goes by, until it seems that someone truly is a POI and needs to come in and do more talking with LE, then the police have to say "We suspect foul play" or similar.

Right now, they're just investigating all leads.

 

[10ofRods]

When LE say's they are unaware of how long RT and BT were separated before she disappeared and how far from the RV she was, I take that to mean they don't know if she hiked quite a distance away before disappearing for some unknown reason.

They didn't rule out an abduction so they could be referring to that. Or that she is still out there in the desert somewhere. JMO.

Huh? They did pretty much rule out abduction. Since that's a public safety matter (is there a serial killer out there?) if they are back to thinking of an abduction, they really ought to warn the public.

At any rate, having their spokesperson say there was no reason to suspect an abduction is close to ruling it out.

They are throwing some shade at RT's account (if they totally believed him, then they'd know where they separated, right? From that they would know how far the RV was).

I take it to mean that they aren't quite sure if they started the search from the right pin.

 

[MsBetsy]

BBM:

Well, I'm about to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, too, but you know the old saying:

"Repetition is the key to Something-Or-Other."
I can't remember the rest of that old saying, but regardless....
Point being, repetition is key!

Anyway, with regard to LE's public stance, bringing forward (again) an earlier video clip:

Husband of missing 69-year-old hiker says police consider him a suspect

Per the reporter in that vid, authorities have said:

• No evidence that BT was abducted.
• Not a single trace of BT having been found.
• They are "unaware" of how long RT and BT were separated before she disappeared.
• They "don't know" how far BT was from the RV at the time they became separated.

That LE said both of those bolded things is quite startling.

There is NO logical explanation for the 2 bolded bullet points...if one assumes LE believes RT's version of events is true, at least.

The last 2 bullet points do make perfect sense if one assumes LE does not believe RT's account of what happened that day.

In addition to saying that there is no evidence BT was abducted, LE's also said they don't believe BT was abducted.
LE said this in response to RT's statements that he thought she had been abducted.

LE could not be telegraphing any more clearly their outright skepticism that RT has told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth concerning the circumstances surrounding BT's disappearance.

"It's as plain as the nose on Pinocchio's face." ~ Gordian

JMO.

I didn't find anything unusual about the bolded statements.

How could they know how long they were separated before she disappeared? It may have been an hour or it may have been 15 minutes. Robert wouldn't know, other than the last time he saw her. In his mind that is likely when she "disappeared."
It is kind of an unusual question to begin with. Nobody just "disappears", unless maybe they have super powers.
They don't know if she got lost or had some kind of accident or if someone harmed her, so how could they know exactly when she went missing?
So I don't really know any other way they could have answered that question.

As for not knowing how far away from the RV Barbara was, I'm not sure why they didn't just say it was about 1/4 of a mile. That was what has been consistently reported. Maybe at that time they just didn't know the exact distance, since there may be a difference between the way the trail leads and the actual distance, especially if there is more than one way to get back to the RV. They would have no idea if she went off the main trail and began walking a different trail. A poster here said she made a wrong turn and ended up on the road.

Either way, it doesn't suggest that they suspect he was lying about where they were, as they have also stated that they asked RT the same questions as in any missing persons case and they based their search on the last place RT had seen her. They also stressed to the media that they do not suspect foul play. Imo

 

[Nerissa]

I didn't find anything unusual about the bolded statements.

How could they know how long they were separated before she disappeared? It may have been an hour or it may have been 15 minutes. Robert wouldn't know, other than the last time he saw her. In his mind that is likely when she "disappeared."
It is kind of an unusual question to begin with. Nobody just "disappears", unless maybe they have super powers.
They don't know if she got lost or had some kind of accident or if someone harmed her, so how could they know exactly when she went missing?
So I don't really know any other way they could have answered that question.

As for not knowing how far away from the RV Barbara was, I'm not sure why they didn't just say it was about 1/4 of a mile. That was what has been consistently reported. Maybe at that time they just didn't know the exact distance, since there may be a difference between the way the trail leads and the actual distance, especially if there is more than one way to get back to the RV. They would have no idea if she went off the main trail and began walking a different trail. A poster here said she made a wrong turn and ended up on the road.

Either way, it doesn't suggest that they suspect he was lying about where they were, as they have also stated that they asked RT the same questions as in any missing persons case and they based their search on the last place RT had seen her. They also stressed to the media that they do not suspect foul play. Imo

Good points...& why I'd love to be in the minds of LE...erm, well, up to a point & all...

Anyway: re: Sheryl Powell - remote area, no witnesses - yet: husband cleared in two days

Why? Why was he cleared - what evidence out there in the middle of nowhere to let LE know, enough to clear him, he had utterly nada to do with it...?

And RT. So: why hasn't LE cleared him? It's actually not as remote....roads, parking areas, ....there's pics, supposedly....

Why hasn't LE cleared him?

If LE was following RTs story: we'd know how far since she went 'missing' she was from RV & from RT - that shouldn't be in question....it's only in question if LE thinks RT's story stinks to high heaven

We only have RT's story - LE has RTs story & a heck of a lot more we aren't privy to.

In Sheryl's case: she went missing right where her husband said she outta have, right?
They didn't question that. In fact they cleared the guy pretty well pronto....they had evidence he was telling the truth: that's why

Why are they questioning RT's narrative then? And LE is. No mistake about that. Because they either don't have evidence he IS telling the truth
OR
they have evidence he is NOT telling the truth

JMO

 

[TxMother67]

BBM:

Well, I'm about to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, too, but you know the old saying:
"Repetition is the key to Something-Or-Other."
I can't remember the rest of that old saying, but regardless....
Point being, repetition is key!
JMO.

SBM

God, I needed this LAUGH! You rock, Gordian!

 

[RANCH]

Huh? They did pretty much rule out abduction. Since that's a public safety matter (is there a serial killer out there?) if they are back to thinking of an abduction, they really ought to warn the public.

At any rate, having their spokesperson say there was no reason to suspect an abduction is close to ruling it out.

They are throwing some shade at RT's account (if they totally believed him, then they'd know where they separated, right? From that they would know how far the RV was).

I take it to mean that they aren't quite sure if they started the search from the right pin.

Pretty much is your opinion and it doesn't mean it's been ruled out to me. That also doesn't meant a serial killer is on the loose.

If they don't have evidence that proves there was or wasn't an abduction what are they going to warn the public about? JMO

 

[bronbaby]

i mean no offence towards LE when i say, it may be possible that LE don't always tell the public the truth. they may for example, state they do not suspect foul play, when in actual fact, they do. this is done to garner information, (watch a person's movements/surveillance etc) in building a case.
JMO

 

[RANCH]

I didn't find anything unusual about the bolded statements.

How could they know how long they were separated before she disappeared? It may have been an hour or it may have been 15 minutes. Robert wouldn't know, other than the last time he saw her. In his mind that is likely when she "disappeared."
It is kind of an unusual question to begin with. Nobody just "disappears", unless maybe they have super powers.
They don't know if she got lost or had some kind of accident or if someone harmed her, so how could they know exactly when she went missing?
So I don't really know any other way they could have answered that question.

As for not knowing how far away from the RV Barbara was, I'm not sure why they didn't just say it was about 1/4 of a mile. That was what has been consistently reported. Maybe at that time they just didn't know the exact distance, since there may be a difference between the way the trail leads and the actual distance, especially if there is more than one way to get back to the RV. They would have no idea if she went off the main trail and began walking a different trail. A poster here said she made a wrong turn and ended up on the road.

Either way, it doesn't suggest that they suspect he was lying about where they were, as they have also stated that they asked RT the same questions as in any missing persons case and they based their search on the last place RT had seen her. They also stressed to the media that they do not suspect foul play. Imo

I find the comments made by LE as being vague and therefore it's easy to use those comments to find multiple conclusions as to there meaning. JMO

 

[MsBetsy]

Good points...& why I'd love to be in the minds of LE...erm, well, up to a point & all...

Anyway: re: Sheryl Powell - remote area, no witnesses - yet: husband cleared in two days

Why? Why was he cleared - what evidence out there in the middle of nowhere to let LE know, enough to clear him, he had utterly nada to do with it...?

And RT. So: why hasn't LE cleared him? It's actually not as remote....roads, parking areas, ....there's pics, supposedly....

Why hasn't LE cleared him?

If LE was following RTs story: we'd know how far since she went 'missing' she was from RV & from RT - that shouldn't be in question....it's only in question if LE thinks RT's story stinks to high heaven

We only have RT's story - LE has RTs story & a heck of a lot more we aren't privy to.

In Sheryl's case: she went missing right where her husband said she outta have, right?
They didn't question that. In fact they cleared the guy pretty well pronto....they had evidence he was telling the truth: that's why

Why are they questioning RT's narrative then? And LE is. No mistake about that. Because they either don't have evidence he IS telling the truth
OR
they have evidence he is NOT telling the truth

JMO

Yeah, I don't know why in some cases LE publicly clears people and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they don't reveal that someone is a suspect until there is an arrest.
I didn't know in Sheryl's case they publicly cleared her husband in two days.

I remember people speculating in Mollie Tibbetts case that her boyfriend or family member was involved for the longest time until finally they were cleared.
Maybe that's a good question to ask the media. If enough people request that they ask LE at least if they have a suspect or if her husband has been cleared maybe we will get an answer. There have been so many requests so far but we havent heard much, except for the latest article.
Maybe if they asked a specific question, LE will provide an answer. Even a yes or no would be enough. Imo