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

[MsBetsy]

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

Yes, they are very good at being vague and not answering a direct question.
It's hard to tell whether they don't want to give an answer or they just don't know. Imo

 

[MsBetsy]

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

Yeah, well RT already seems convinced that he is the prime suspect so I'm not sure how much good it would do to make any misleading statements.
That doesn't mean they have not been watching him, though.
I was reading about missing persons procedures in California and it said that after 30 days they interview the family members again to see if there is any new information. I wonder if they have talked to him again.
Maybe that's why he doesn't have a lawyer anymore, if he decided he would not be needing one. Imo

 

[iscaremyself]

dbm

 

[katydid23]

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).

But RT didn't say they were on top of a hill, or at the rock formations climbing around, when they were separated.

He said they were 1/4 a mile from the RV and she was headed there at the time. If she was headed in the right direction at that point, I dot understand how she would have been lost in a few minutes time?

Maybe I am thinking too simply here. IDK

 

[RANCH]

But RT didn't say they were on top of a hill, or at the rock formations climbing around, when they were separated.

He said they were 1/4 a mile from the RV and she was headed there at the time. If she was headed in the right direction at that point, I dot understand how she would have been lost in a few minutes time?

Maybe I am thinking too simply here. IDK

You make a good point.

The only explanation I've thought of is that she was dehydrated which may have caused disorientation leading to BT going in the wrong direction at some juncture along the trail. JMO.

 

[MsBetsy]

But RT didn't say they were on top of a hill, or at the rock formations climbing around, when they were separated.

He said they were 1/4 a mile from the RV and she was headed there at the time. If she was headed in the right direction at that point, I dot understand how she would have been lost in a few minutes time?

Maybe I am thinking too simply here. IDK

Yes, exactly. He did not say and neither did LE.

She could have been partway down a hill or headed up a steep slope or surrounded by rocks or trees. Someone went there and took a picture and some of the trees were about eight feet high. I think the post was a few days ago.

The RV may not have been in sight, at least not the whole time. She may have been looking down where she was walking in front of her and at some point lost sight of the road, then tried to find it again but went down the wrong path by mistake.

We don't know what happened to her, but I would imagine if it was that easy to see the road then they could also be seen from the road.
If she was harmed in some way, I'm guessing it would have been done out of sight and hidden from the view of the road.
And if that did happen, why hasn't she been found? Unless she is carefully hidden out there, of course. Imo

 

[katydid23]

You make a good point.

The only explanation I've thought of is that she was dehydrated which may have caused disorientation leading to BT going in the wrong direction at some juncture along the trail. JMO.

Yes, that is a possibility. But if she was dehydrated and disoriented, how long could she travel before she fell out?

If she became disoriented in the middle of the desert then I could understand why she hasn't been found. But if she was only 1/4 mile away from the main road when she became debilitated, how far away would she get ?

 

[RANCH]

Yes, that is a possibility. But if she was dehydrated and disoriented, how long could she travel before she fell out?

If she became disoriented in the middle of the desert then I could understand why she hasn't been found. But if she was only 1/4 mile away from the main road when she became debilitated, how far away would she get ?

I really don't know how far a person like her could travel in those conditions before succumbing to the environment.

 

[10ofRods]

But RT didn't say they were on top of a hill, or at the rock formations climbing around, when they were separated.

He said they were 1/4 a mile from the RV and she was headed there at the time. If she was headed in the right direction at that point, I dot understand how she would have been lost in a few minutes time?

Maybe I am thinking too simply here. IDK

I must be missing your point. RT clearly discussed *some* of where they were. He’s clearly estimating how far they were from the RV - he has no direct proof of how far away they were, does he? Nothing he’s produced or even said (to our knowledge) specifically.

But he does tell family, I believe, that on that hike they went to the top of a hill, Barbara took a photo, he wants the police to look at a parking lot. He’s suspicious, he’s thinking abduction.

He is *not* as specific about where he last saw her. He says 1/4th mile (but unless he had a Fitbit or Apple Watch and was keeping track, how exactly would he know that?)

Unless, of course, he took LE to that place ¼ of a mile from the road (the one we’re *all* assuming is where she disappeared). There’s no record of him doing this, and so I take LE’s statement that they do not know exactly where Barbara was last seen means...that either RT was not sure about it, OR that LE has some other reason for wondering about where she disappeared).

The point is that LE considered (and searched) more than just ¼ a mile of trail. For a nearly unprecedented amount of time. In July. So I think they considered other options than that she disappeared in that ¼ mile. They say they don’t see a case for abduction....

 

[10ofRods]

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

I’m sorry. I wasn’t posting about your opinion, or mine. I didn’t realize that was what you wanted to discuss.

I was merely stating that LE has yet to indicate and in fact specifically denied that they think it was an abduction. Everyone can then think what they want about that, and decide whether to believe LE or not.

We have two main sources of info: LE (Nixle included of course and their known behaviors) and RT (televised interviews, VI Information gained from him).

Any of us can decide to discount one or both of those. But Barbara is still missing.

 

[RANCH]

I’m sorry. I wasn’t posting about your opinion, or mine. I didn’t realize that was what you wanted to discuss.

I was merely stating that LE has yet to indicate and in fact specifically denied that they think it was an abduction. Everyone can then think what they want about that, and decide whether to believe LE or not.

We have two main sources of info: LE (Nixle included of course and their known behaviors) and RT (televised interviews, VI Information gained from him).

Any of us can decide to discount one or both of those. But Barbara is still missing.

If you can post a link that say's LE has ruled out an abduction that would be helpful.

Until that link is provided I'll stand by my previous posts stating that LE has not ruled out an abduction in this case.

 

[MassGuy]

If you can post a link that say's LE has ruled out an abduction that would be helpful.

Until that link is provided I'll stand by my previous posts stating that LE has not ruled out an abduction in this case.

But as the search for Barbara entered its 10th day on Monday amid sweltering heat in the Californian and Arizona desert, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department dismissed the idea that she had been taken.

'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.

'When that information started coming out about [the other woman], that's what created the speculation [that Barbara had been abducted] but our investigation does not indicate any signs that she was abducted,' Miller said.

California police say missing hiker who vanished 'in her bikini' was NOT abducted | Daily Mail Online

 

[RANCH]

But as the search for Barbara entered its 10th day on Monday amid sweltering heat in the Californian and Arizona desert, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department dismissed the idea that she had been taken.

'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.

'When that information started coming out about [the other woman], that's what created the speculation [that Barbara had been abducted] but our investigation does not indicate any signs that she was abducted,' Miller said.

California police say missing hiker who vanished 'in her bikini' was NOT abducted | Daily Mail Online

Doesn't say that LE has ruled out an abduction.

 

[MassGuy]

Doesn't say that LE has ruled out an abduction.

So they need to literally come out and say “we have absolutely ruled out an abduction,” for you to believe that they don’t believe it happened?

They have said they don’t believe it, nor have they found any indication it happened.

That idea was laughable when her husband said it; more-so when the search turned up nothing.

 

[Nikynoo]

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?

there are exemptions though, that they can rely on not to provide that information. I believe that an ongoing investigation is one exemption. However, if you look at the wording of the latest press article, it gives me pause for thought - anyone here familar with FOIA in the appropriate state?
BBM
"The Sheriff's Department declined The Arizona Republic's request for public records, including an initial police report and 911 recording, stating that they are considered investigatory documents and are exempt from disclosure under California law. "
Family suspects foul play in disappearance of Bullhead City woman

In legal speak (in the UK), considered is used when it is an opinion. If it was truly exempt, they would quote the relevant law (code) for exemption, but this could just be the way the reporter wrote the article.

 

[Nikynoo]

Arizona FOIA Laws | National Freedom of Information Coalition.The Arizona Public Records Law does have some exceptions which include: student records, research records, donor information, or if the release of a record would constitute an invasion of personal privacy and that invasion outweighs the public’s right to know, of if the disclosure of a record is detrimental to the best interests of the state. Arizona law also requires individuals who are making a FOIA request for commercial purposes to state those purposes.



View Document
A. In a special action brought pursuant to this article for the release of any record created or received by or in the possession of a law enforcement or prosecution agency that relates to a criminal investigation or prosecution and that visually depicts the image of a witness under eighteen years of age or a victim as defined in section 13-4401, the petitioner shall establish that the public's interest in disclosure outweighs the witness's or victim's right to privacy.

It seems to me that anyone can request a copy of a public record (not just news agencies). I suspect that FOIA requests have been denied on the privacy grounds stated above, it does not state information can be withheld for a criminal investigation per se. Anyone with any knowledge on FOIA here?

 

[MsBetsy]

Arizona FOIA Laws | National Freedom of Information Coalition.The Arizona Public Records Law does have some exceptions which include: student records, research records, donor information, or if the release of a record would constitute an invasion of personal privacy and that invasion outweighs the public’s right to know, of if the disclosure of a record is detrimental to the best interests of the state. Arizona law also requires individuals who are making a FOIA request for commercial purposes to state those purposes.



View Document
A. In a special action brought pursuant to this article for the release of any record created or received by or in the possession of a law enforcement or prosecution agency that relates to a criminal investigation or prosecution and that visually depicts the image of a witness under eighteen years of age or a victim as defined in section 13-4401, the petitioner shall establish that the public's interest in disclosure outweighs the witness's or victim's right to privacy.

It seems to me that anyone can request a copy of a public record (not just news agencies). I suspect that FOIA requests have been denied on the privacy grounds stated above, it does not state information can be withheld for a criminal investigation per se. Anyone with any knowledge on FOIA here?

Yes, that's what I'm thinking, too. To release the 911 call would be an invasion of privacy.
When I looked up information about releasing a 911 call I found an article that said officials cannot release recordings without a court order finding "that the right of the public to the release of the recording outweigh the privacy interests of the individual who made the call or any person involved in the incident."

The source is the Freedom Forum Institute 911 recordings and transcripts- state statutes.
I don't know how to link it.

So it seems to me that a court order would be needed, and even then, it might not be granted. Imo

 

[Nikynoo]

Yes, that's what I'm thinking, too. To release the 911 call would be an invasion of privacy.
When I looked up information about releasing a 911 call I found an article that said officials cannot release recordings without a court order finding "that the right of the public to the release of the recording outweigh the privacy interests of the individual who made the call or any person involved in the incident."

The source is the Freedom Forum Institute 911 recordings and transcripts- state statutes.
I don't know how to link it.

So it seems to me that a court order would be needed, and even then, it might not be granted. Imo

This link?
911 Recordings & Transcripts-State Statutes | Freedom Forum Institute

Arizona

• No indication of unusual rules or restrictions.
• Arizona Supreme Court affirmed an appeals court ruling that police can release only transcripts and not tapes to satisfy public-records laws if they have privacy concerns.

 

[MsBetsy]

This link?
911 Recordings & Transcripts-State Statutes | Freedom Forum Institute

Arizona

• No indication of unusual rules or restrictions.
• Arizona Supreme Court affirmed an appeals court ruling that police can release only transcripts and not tapes to satisfy public-records laws if they have privacy concerns.

Yes, thanks!
Although I did not see the specific information related to Arizona. I just read a general statement.
So I guess they could release the transcripts?
I still feel like they would not release it unless there was a criminal element or they thought the public could help in help in some way.
Or if it would jeopardize the case.
There might be many reasons.
Imo

 

[Cherwell]

But he does tell family, I believe, that on that hike they went to the top of a hill, Barbara took a photo, he wants the police to look at a parking lot. He’s suspicious, he’s thinking abduction.

Are you sure about that? I've always thought there was a possibility that they might have made an earlier stop and gone for another short walk, which would account for some of the time. So the hill might have been on that earlier walk, if they did that.