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

[RANCH]

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.

The quotes you provided do not state that LE knows what actually happened. I want LE to state specifically that an abduction has been ruled out by them before I stop feeling that it's a possible reason for BT's disappearance. JMO

 

[HongKongPhooey]

The quotes you provided do not state that LE knows what actually happened. I want LE to state specifically that an abduction has been ruled out by them before I stop feeling that it's a possible reason for BT's disappearance. JMO

I understand your point of view, but how can they rule anything out until they definitively know what happened to her?

 

[PommyMommy]

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....

BBM

RT told family that Barbara took a 360 photo that morning from the top of a hill. He didn't say it was on the same walk from which Barbara supposedly disappeared, although it could have been since the timeline doesn't make any sense at all as it stands. MOO

 

[RANCH]

I understand your point of view, but how can they rule anything out until they definitively know what happened to her?

I'm not expecting them to do that. All I wish is to post that an abduction is still a possible reason for BT to disappear. JMO

 

[CSIDreamer]

I'm not expecting them to do that. All I wish is to post that an abduction is still a possible reason for BT to disappear. JMO

Well, you can post that all you want. No one is stopping you. JMO.

 

[10ofRods]

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?

I do know that the case is in California, not Arizona and the regards in question are held by San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office. Here's a rundown on California's laws:

Access to Public Records in California | Digital Media Law Project

Notice that preliminary materials can be held back in cases where the State is a party (as it would be in this case if it is a criminal case). Also that webpage says "Law Enforcement" documents in general. However, search warrants would be public.

Search warrants, if served in Arizona, have to be filed in Arizona, I believe. Which is one thing that worries me. It's expensive/time consuming enough to do things in one's own state/county but at least SBSCO's main office is in the same place as the Court. I have no idea what sort of thing they have to do to get a search warrant in AZ, if they ever decide to seek one. And if they did seek one, we on WS don't know about it. I wonder if that would fall under Arizona's privacy clause?

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.

He never mentions an earlier stop and in absence of mentioning that and in the presence of him using pictures from the Kelbaker hike to show police they were there, and the fact that RT says they can see a parking lot with cars in it nearby to where Barbara went missing from the top of the hill and wants LE to check out those license plate numbers it's unreasonable to assume they went to some other place and some other hill. Even if they did, RT says they saw a parking lot with cars near to where Barbara went missing. From a hill. While they were hiking. It makes no sense for RT to point to a hill miles away and a parking lot miles away, IMO.

Also note that the SAR team climbed the boulder pile/hill and posted pictures of themselves on top of it. We have puzzled over which "parking lot" was visible (and we don't exactly which pile of rocks, either, there are two candidates), but the main pile of rocks/hill would have had a view of the turn-out just north of where the RV was parked. WSers who went out there say that the southern turn-out would not be visible from that hill.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

BBM

RT told family that Barbara took a 360 photo that morning from the top of a hill. He didn't say it was on the same walk from which Barbara supposedly disappeared, although it could have been since the timeline doesn't make any sense at all as it stands. MOO

We don't know where this hilltop photo was taken from, but since RT apparently wanted LE to investigate the drivers of the cars visible in said photo as potential BT abductors, it's only rational that the photo was (or was claimed to be) taken in the vicinity of where BT went missing. (Unless he was suggesting that someone from the photo then proceeded to follow them to the disappearance location.)

IMO

 

[10ofRods]

BBM

RT told family that Barbara took a 360 photo that morning from the top of a hill. He didn't say it was on the same walk from which Barbara supposedly disappeared, although it could have been since the timeline doesn't make any sense at all as it stands. MOO

Doesn't he also say that there's a "parking lot" that he wants investigated? That they saw from the top of a hill? It doesn't have to be the 360 photo hill, but it does have to be a gain in elevation or else there's no parking lot with license plates to investigate. I think two WSers have gone out and said that there is a parking area just north of where the RV was parked, in which there could have been visible cars, if they had climbed up the "hill" near Kelbaker/HH.

It's that hill that I'm speaking of. It makes no sense to me that RT would indicate another area (with another trail and hill) miles away and say he wants LE to run plates on cars.

Since RT seems confused about his times (he may have also told family that the hike began in the morning - and for all we know, it did - they could have been to Kelbaker/HH by 11 am or a bit earlier), I'm not trusting his use of "morning" and "afternoon" as time designators. But if in fact they had already been out hiking once before and now they hiked to another hill (the one where he sees the suspicious cars), that's even more exertion in one day. I would not be surprised, btw, if they started out before noon and she goes missing at 2:30 (so that they were out there for 3 hours at that point). But I'll be very surprised if RT thinks that cars at a distant location are somehow following them around and are responsible for Barbara's disappearance.

LE must surely doubt his version of events if he claims that, and be wondering about the general state of his memory and critical thinking. I'm sticking with "RT pointed out a nearby parking lot" and I have since concluded, due to @Sroads work (and someone else went out there too - was it @cazador?) and concluded that there are two nearby pull outs but only one is visible from the Granite Hills/Mountain area (the northern one). Surely that's the one that RT claims to have a picture of?

 

[CharlestonGal]

2 months and still nothing. Such a shame. She seems like a nice lady.

 

[Nikynoo]

I do know that the case is in California, not Arizona and the regards in question are held by San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office. Here's a rundown on California's laws:

Access to Public Records in California | Digital Media Law Project

Notice that preliminary materials can be held back in cases where the State is a party (as it would be in this case if it is a criminal case). Also that webpage says "Law Enforcement" documents in general. However, search warrants would be public.

Search warrants, if served in Arizona, have to be filed in Arizona, I believe. Which is one thing that worries me. It's expensive/time consuming enough to do things in one's own state/county but at least SBSCO's main office is in the same place as the Court. I have no idea what sort of thing they have to do to get a search warrant in AZ, if they ever decide to seek one. And if they did seek one, we on WS don't know about it. I wonder if that would fall under Arizona's privacy clause?



He never mentions an earlier stop and in absence of mentioning that and in the presence of him using pictures from the Kelbaker hike to show police they were there, and the fact that RT says they can see a parking lot with cars in it nearby to where Barbara went missing from the top of the hill and wants LE to check out those license plate numbers it's unreasonable to assume they went to some other place and some other hill. Even if they did, RT says they saw a parking lot with cars near to where Barbara went missing. From a hill. While they were hiking. It makes no sense for RT to point to a hill miles away and a parking lot miles away, IMO.

Also note that the SAR team climbed the boulder pile/hill and posted pictures of themselves on top of it. We have puzzled over which "parking lot" was visible (and we don't exactly which pile of rocks, either, there are two candidates), but the main pile of rocks/hill would have had a view of the turn-out just north of where the RV was parked. WSers who went out there say that the southern turn-out would not be visible from that hill.

Ooops, my bad!

The following explains the exemptions under the law of California and can be found here (its a Q&A site)-https://firstamendmentcoalition.org...viously-public-statement-claiming-exemptions/ .
"....under California’s Public Records Act, police investigatory records are exempt from disclosure under Government Code § 6254(f), which exempts “[r]ecords of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures…or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional,
law enforcement, or licensing purposes.” Gov. Code, § 6254(f).

Police are required to release a limited amount of information related to arrests and requests for assistance, unless the disclosure of such information “would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation.” Id.

This information includes “the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency and the time and nature of the response thereto, including, to the extent the information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other incident investigated is recorded, the time, date, and location of occurrence, the time and date of the report, the name and age of the victim, the factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved.” Gov’t Code § 6254(f)(2).

.......the exemption contained in 6254(f) is discretionary, and therefore, if a police department wanted to release more records related to this incident, it could without running afoul of the Public Records Act.



Edited to make more relevant.

 

[PommyMommy]

We don't know where this hilltop photo was taken from, but since RT apparently wanted LE to investigate the drivers of the cars visible in said photo as potential BT abductors, it's only rational that the photo was (or was claimed to be) taken in the vicinity of where BT went missing. (Unless he was suggesting that someone from the photo then proceeded to follow them to the disappearance location.)

IMO

Not only do we not know where the photo was taken but we don't know the "vicinity" of where BT went missing. Both are assumptions as far as I'm concerned.

As @Kapua so eloquently stated in the last thread, the narrative is flawed. However, we cannot discuss on the public thread how the narrative is flawed (per TOS) therefore it can't be solved here.

And before I get myself into trouble I'll just say this, I sincerely doubt that anyone at the SBCSO got their panties in a wad when RT was questioned and polygraphed. He was the last one to see her per his own account and it is only normal to do so. I am not making any accusations; merely pointing this out. MOO

 

[PommyMommy]

Doesn't he also say that there's a "parking lot" that he wants investigated? That they saw from the top of a hill? It doesn't have to be the 360 photo hill, but it does have to be a gain in elevation or else there's no parking lot with license plates to investigate. I think two WSers have gone out and said that there is a parking area just north of where the RV was parked, in which there could have been visible cars, if they had climbed up the "hill" near Kelbaker/HH.

It's that hill that I'm speaking of. It makes no sense to me that RT would indicate another area (with another trail and hill) miles away and say he wants LE to run plates on cars.

Since RT seems confused about his times (he may have also told family that the hike began in the morning - and for all we know, it did - they could have been to Kelbaker/HH by 11 am or a bit earlier), I'm not trusting his use of "morning" and "afternoon" as time designators. But if in fact they had already been out hiking once before and now they hiked to another hill (the one where he sees the suspicious cars), that's even more exertion in one day. I would not be surprised, btw, if they started out before noon and she goes missing at 2:30 (so that they were out there for 3 hours at that point). But I'll be very surprised if RT thinks that cars at a distant location are somehow following them around and are responsible for Barbara's disappearance.

LE must surely doubt his version of events if he claims that, and be wondering about the general state of his memory and critical thinking. I'm sticking with "RT pointed out a nearby parking lot" and I have since concluded, due to @Sroads work (and someone else went out there too - was it @cazador?) and concluded that there are two nearby pull outs but only one is visible from the Granite Hills/Mountain area (the northern one). Surely that's the one that RT claims to have a picture of?

BBM

I don't recall anything about a parking lot being investigated or that "they" saw a parking lot.

My understanding is that RT told family BT took a 360 photo that morning from the top of a hill, the photo included a parking lot with vehicles, and LE was investigating the license plates.

Later, dbdb11 said that RT was very upset that LE wasn't looking at the vehicle owner's as potential suspects but instead looking at him. MOO

 

[Leney]

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!

Surprisingly I agree that repetition is key.
I believe LE has plenty of proof of not only her being there that day, they probably have a good idea of the location/s.

I have never believed this to be an "old" picture.

Search underway for lost hiker in Mojave Desert

 

[LietKynes]

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

SABBM

That. ^^^
Great post.

At this time , that is the only possibility; imo.
They need to find her.
The saddest part about Barbara being hidden is that someone had to have concealed her and walked away, knowing she was beyond help.
And unable to cry out to a passerby.
It's clearer now than at the beginning of her vanishing.

Staying within TOS -- it could have been a random stranger who was also out hiking that day.

 

[10ofRods]

2 months and still nothing. Such a shame. She seems like a nice lady.

I know, it's so sad. Today is 2 months.

Not only do we not know where the photo was taken but we don't know the "vicinity" of where BT went missing. Both are assumptions as far as I'm concerned.

As @Kapua so eloquently stated in the last thread, the narrative is flawed. However, we cannot discuss on the public thread how the narrative is flawed (per TOS) therefore it can't be solved here.

And before I get myself into trouble I'll just say this, I sincerely doubt that anyone at the SBCSO got their panties in a wad when RT was questioned and polygraphed. He was the last one to see her per his own account and it is only normal to do so. I am not making any accusations; merely pointing this out. MOO

Yes, you are so right there. It is entirely an assumption as to where she went missing. In fact, if we assume something even slightly different about the place of her disappearance, some plausible scenarios arise (as opposed to "disappeared into thin air"). If we assume something different (even slightly) about the timing of her disappearance, it also gets easier to figure out what *could* have happened.

I also think SBCSO would issue some kind of alert if they ever came across evidence that someone in the area was randomly abducting women.

 

[LietKynes]

BBM

I don't recall anything about a parking lot being investigated or that "they" saw a parking lot.

My understanding is that RT told family BT took a 360 photo that morning from the top of a hill, the photo included a parking lot with vehicles, and LE was investigating the license plates.

Later, dbdb11 said that RT was very upset that LE wasn't looking at the vehicle owner's as potential suspects but instead looking at him. MOO

BBM

I have found the bolded significant from day one.
LE are not following the narrative that was put forth to them by the husband.
As in, how dare they ?
Musing out loud and I find it curious.

Most people would be front and center , holding pressers, speaking to any media who would listen, selling belongings to help fund further searches, etc.

 

[10ofRods]

BBM

I don't recall anything about a parking lot being investigated or that "they" saw a parking lot.

My understanding is that RT told family BT took a 360 photo that morning from the top of a hill, the photo included a parking lot with vehicles, and LE was investigating the license plates.

Later, dbdb11 said that RT was very upset that LE wasn't looking at the vehicle owner's as potential suspects but instead looking at him. MOO

Gotcha. I still think that if RT used a photo from miles away (next set of hills is miles away) and asked LE to investigate random license plates in some pull out not near where Barbara disappeared, they must really think him a kook.

RT claims Barbara took the 360 photo, IIRC. Unless she was doing so with her eyes closed, she would have seen the parking lot in the photo. If in fact that photo exists and in fact she took it. Of course, again, we have only RT's view to go on.

I do not recall anything about LE actually investigating those license plates. Is there a source for that?

 

[MsBetsy]

I understand your point of view, but how can they rule anything out until they definitively know what happened to her?

Yes, I think that may have been part of the point in the OP.
If they don't know what happened to her, they can't rule anything out yet.
Because they have not found any evidence indicating whether she met with foul play, had an accident, or even that she is deceased, they have not ruled out any scenario. At least as far as we know. Imo

 

[10ofRods]

Surprisingly I agree that repetition is key.
I believe LE has plenty of proof of not only her being there that day, they probably have a good idea of the location/s.

I have never believed this to be an "old" picture.

Search underway for lost hiker in Mojave Desert

I agree with you. The picture was circulated so widely on July 12-13 and virtually every human who saw it in MSM (except people on WS) do not question that it was taken that day - and so, would use it as a mental reference point in remembering what Barbara was wearing. Almost no one reads full articles, they just look at pictures. Twitter was filled with that picture (and SBSCO helped with making that happen).

PLUS, the rocks behind her look like the same age, shape and type as the rocks near Kelbaker/HH so if it's not the same day, it's a bit misleading. I know people here think she looks younger in the picture, I think it's just a pixelated picture that was part of her standing in front of the sandstone formation near Kelbaker/HH.

That being said, we don't know exactly which side of the boulder pile she was at, or when. Or where they went afterwards. If in fact they had already climbed someplace else earlier in the day, then they had to have gone way off course from I-40 (south of I-40 is mostly lava fields, there are no sandstone boulder outcroppings other than the ones at Kelbaker for many miles - there are several right in that vicinity though, so they could have gone to the primitive camp - but that's just a mile away, surely SAR looked there?)

They left Bullhead at 8:15, without stops, it was 10:30ish (they had to drive in the truck lane) with no stops to Kelbaker. But they did stop at least once (convenience store, on/off I-40, plus parking, plus purchase - so 20 minutes IME).

They could not have gotten to Kelbaker (15 minutes from the I-40) until about 11-ish. If they walked right away, then they were out there 4.5 hours before RT calls and says he saw her last one hour earlier. 3.5 hours. If they found another place to stop with a "hill" to climb...miles away...why does RT think those cars have anything to do with Barbara's disappearance? That makes it sound like a deliberate red herring. But if he says the cars were at that stop less than a mile north of where they were, it makes lots more sense and he doesn't sound so loopy.

If they paused, opened the awning, had lunch, poured beer into a container, etc., that makes sense to me. However...2 hours is a long time to be out in the heat. Age, weight, dress, hydration, time of day, color of sand - all variables.

 

[PommyMommy]

Gotcha. I still think that if RT used a photo from miles away (next set of hills is miles away) and asked LE to investigate random license plates in some pull out not near where Barbara disappeared, they must really think him a kook.

RT claims Barbara took the 360 photo, IIRC. Unless she was doing so with her eyes closed, she would have seen the parking lot in the photo. If in fact that photo exists and in fact she took it. Of course, again, we have only RT's view to go on.

I do not recall anything about LE actually investigating those license plates. Is there a source for that?

I don't know whether or not LE investigated the license plates. I tend to think they did. Per dbdb11, RT told family they were looking into it and later dbdb11 said that RT was upset that they weren't doing so. MOO