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

[deugirtni]

Just wondering.. these known cases of elderly women being raped.. do these victims generally get taken, killed, and their remains hidden, all without a trace?

 

[RANCH]

S

Just wondering.. these known cases of elderly women being raped.. do these victims generally get taken, killed, and their remains hidden, all without a trace?

While I hope it isn't so it could of happened in this case. JMO

 

[Nikynoo]

@deugirtni post
"Maybe there is a reason for that (the bolded part above).
Surely LE will share those last photos of BT with her grieving family? Why would they not share them with them? That just doesn't sound reasonable or likely at all. I wonder what is up with that. imo."



@Nikynoo Can you explain a bit further, pls? Are you saying ----
---LE does not have possession of camera/phone now?
---LE might have had possession of cam/phone earlier, ~ 1st day, (prob'ly) got warrant, copied pix files?
-- Even if LE has copies of pix files, would not have authority to release to public, i.e., LE's use would be limited to internal LE investigatory use (not LE's photos to share)?
--- Same as above, but not even to release to BT's family (not LE's photos to share)?
--- All of above?
--- None of above?
Thx in adv.

Hi @al66pine
The photo's are property (the same as, for example, a phone or a camera). Just because you have possession of something that is not yours, does not mean, that you can use or dispose of the same.

So, RT owns the pics that he has taken and these cannot be used or disposed of without his permission. the LE pic of BT used for their c

The above pic, by the copyright notice, indicates to me that this picture has been manipulated by the Colorado River Sheriffs Department. This is because they have used the original picture (prob provided by RT) and made a new image by manipulating it (e.g. cropping, zooming etc). This new image has its own copyright, because it is not the same as the original. This is my mind, makes this photo more likely to have been taken on the day that Barbara went missing.

My answers to your questions below in blue.

Even if LE has copies of pix files, would not have authority to release to public, i.e., LE's use would be limited to internal LE investigatory use (not LE's photos to share)? This is correct
--- Same as above, but not even to release to BT's family (not LE's photos to share)?This is correct

 

[Nikynoo]

Just wondering.. how often does a walker in the desert not get found for months, even though there is a person to say 'this is exactly the spot they were at' just before losing sight of the missing person? (Also factoring in other considerations such as it was only 1/4 mile to the RV, it was a couple who was sticking together (as opposed to a larger group where perhaps people might be going off in their own directions to see whatever sights interested them specifically), and talking about a person experienced in the environment).

There have been quite a few mentioned on this thread, the Amboy case, being a good example.

 

[LAhiker]

Hi @al66pine
The photo's are property (the same as, for example, a phone or a camera). Just because you have possession of something that is not yours, does not mean, that you can use or dispose of the same.

So, RT owns the pics that he has taken and these cannot be used or disposed of without his permission. the LE pic of BT used for their c

The above pic, by the copyright notice, indicates to me that this picture has been manipulated by the Colorado River Sheriffs Department. This is because they have used the original picture (prob provided by RT) and made a new image by manipulating it (e.g. cropping, zooming etc). This new image has its own copyright, because it is not the same as the original. This is my mind, makes this photo more likely to have been taken on the day that Barbara went missing.

My answers to your questions below in blue.

Even if LE has copies of pix files, would not have authority to release to public, i.e., LE's use would be limited to internal LE investigatory use (not LE's photos to share)? This is correct
--- Same as above, but not even to release to BT's family (not LE's photos to share)?This is correct

Thanks for this info -- it's interesting that RT still owns any photos. What confuses me is the following.
---If the photo in the cap and black bikini-top/bra was indeed taken on the day BT went missing, why wouldn't LE say so?
---I gather from what you're saying that even if LE has copies of the picture files that the photos still belong to RT and LE wouldn't have authority to release them. But why wouldn't RT give them permission to release them? If they support his public statement that he and BT were there -- and LE has told our VI that they do -- that would seem to be in his own interest.

IIRC, @10ofRods has pointed out that the photos may be evidence in a case (and might for whatever reason not have been much help in finding BT) and that that may be why LE hasn't released them. Or as I've mentioned, perhaps there's something improper or strange about the photos (for instance, BT could be naked) that makes LE not want to release them. But whatever scenario we consider, I'd be surprised if the reason they haven't released them is that RT hasn't given permission. JMO

 

[Nikynoo]

Thanks for this info -- it's interesting that RT still owns any photos. Why? He may not have them in his possession (for example if taken on a digital camera, LE may have downloaded them and/or made copies), this does not mean that he does not have ownership of them. Say for instance, that photos have be seized under a search warrant, that seizure does not transfer ownership of the property (in this case the photos). It changes possession, but not ownership.What confuses me is the following.
---If the photo in the cap and black bikini-top/bra was indeed taken on the day BT went missing, why wouldn't LE say so? Why do they need to?
---I gather from what you're saying that even if LE has copies of the picture files that the photos still belong to RT and LE wouldn't have authority to release them. Correct But why wouldn't RT give them permission to release them? Perhaps he has, we do not know. He definitely has given permission for the original of the cropped photo to be used for the purpose of finding Barbara. If they support his public statement that he and BT were there -- and LE has told our VI that they do -- that would seem to be in his own interest. I do not understand what it is you're trying to say here, could you please clarify?

IIRC, @10ofRods has pointed out that the photos may be evidence in a case (and might for whatever reason not have been much help in finding BT) and that that may be why LE hasn't released them. This is also correct, if the photos have been collected as evidence they will not be released to anyone, until they are released from evidence (DISCLAIMER: I do not work in crimianl law or know the rules of evidence for criminal cases in any jurisdiction) Or as I've mentioned, perhaps there's something improper or strange about the photos (for instance, BT could be naked) that makes LE not want to release them. But whatever scenario we consider, I'd be surprised if the reason they haven't released them is that RT hasn't given permission. Why? As explained earlier, they are not the property of LE, they cannot give them out to anyone, unless it is for police investigation purposes. If the family want pictures (and I haven't seen anything on this board from the VI indicating that his family has requested pictures and that request has been refused ) they should ask RT for them. JMO

Please see my responses in red. I hope this clarifies, let me know if not

 

[darring21]

Thanks for this info -- it's interesting that RT still owns any photos. What confuses me is the following.
---If the photo in the cap and black bikini-top/bra was indeed taken on the day BT went missing, why wouldn't LE say so?
---I gather from what you're saying that even if LE has copies of the picture files that the photos still belong to RT and LE wouldn't have authority to release them. But why wouldn't RT give them permission to release them? If they support his public statement that he and BT were there -- and LE has told our VI that they do -- that would seem to be in his own interest.

IIRC, @10ofRods has pointed out that the photos may be evidence in a case (and might for whatever reason not have been much help in finding BT) and that that may be why LE hasn't released them. Or as I've mentioned, perhaps there's something improper or strange about the photos (for instance, BT could be naked) that makes LE not want to release them. But whatever scenario we consider, I'd be surprised if the reason they haven't released them is that RT hasn't given permission. JMO

LE releases the picture to let the public know what she looks like and they have accomplished that goal with the release. They don't need to inform the public of when it was taken. LE doesn't need to release additional photos because they don't believe it will help solve the case.

 

[LAhiker]

Please see my responses in red. I hope this clarifies, let me know if not

Thanks. Not sure how to quote a quoted response with red interpolation, so will respond as a list.

1. I said it was interesting that RT owns any photos because I hadn't thought of it that way. I wasn't trying to make a point by saying so.

2. While LE would not have needed to say the cropped photo they released was taken that day, they did release it fairly quickly and I don't see why they wouldn't say so. But either way it's no big deal.

3. I was trying to say that if the photos supported RT's account of where and when they were -- as apparently he told people in BT's family and as the case detective told the VI -- that it might've been in RT's interest to authorize their release. But I realize there are other reasons that LE may not have released them, including the photos' possible evidentiary value.

4. As in the previous point, what I meant by saying that I would be surprised if the reason they haven't released the photos was RT not giving permission is that it sounds like it might have been in RT's interest to give such permission. I therefore think it's likely that LE did not release the photos for their own reasons, whatever those reasons might be. As to whether BT's family has asked either LE or RT for any photos, I cannot speak to that.

JMO

 

[Nikynoo]

Thanks. Not sure how to quote a quoted response with red interpolation, so will respond as a list.

1. I said it was interesting that RT owns any photos because I hadn't thought of it that way. I wasn't trying to make a point by saying so.

2. While LE would not have needed to say the cropped photo they released was taken that day, they did release it fairly quickly and I don't see why they wouldn't say so. But either way it's no big deal.

3. I was trying to say that if the photos supported RT's account of where and when they were -- as apparently he told people in BT's family and as the case detective told the VI -- that it might've been in RT's interest to authorize their release. But I realize there are other reasons that LE may not have released them, including the photos' possible evidentiary value.

4. As in the previous point, what I meant by saying that I would be surprised if the reason they haven't released the photos was RT not giving permission is that it sounds like it might have been in RT's interest to give such permission. I therefore think it's likely that LE did not release the photos for their own reasons, whatever those reasons might be. As for whether BT's family has asked either LE or RT for any photos, I cannot speak to that.

JMO

1. OK, no worries, I was worried that I had mis-interpreted your question.
2. I agree here. It would have been helpful (to us) if LE said, 'and here is a photo of Barbara taken on the day she went missing'. But perhaps thats not how they roll? I suspect, they took a likeness that matches with the description of what RT said she was wearing. In LE's eyes, jobs done, in our eyes, job not done, we want to know when and where.
3. I agree with you. Perhaps RT has gone past caring ( for various reasons) whether it supports his case or not. The only people he needs to prove his version of events to is LE.
4. No comment, not because I agree or disagree, I just don't have a view

Apologies for any typos, my keyboard is getting old (but I love her) and her keys are wearing out.

 

[Cherwell]

I was also wondering about Barbara's ill brother.
Is he worse ?
Am hoping the family hasn't told him as that would be an added burden to his health problems, which sounded serious-- from the msm articles.

Interesting that you say that, since a number of posters have expressed anger that the family weren't told earlier that B was missing.
However I think her brother was party to the phone call, so he does know. But otherwise they would have to have come up with an explanation for her non-arrival in Hong Kong. I think ultimately he would have needed to be told.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I was out on the West Coast last week and did some major hiking and running on much rougher terrain than desert. The hubs was with me and I feel pretty confident saying that there isn't a logical way I could have 'vanished' out of his sight in a quarter of a mile without there being more to the story.

I honestly don't know what happened to Barbra, but this whole situation just doesn't make sense to me. It's a shame there hasn't been any updates, but LE might be much further along on a theory than we know. Let's hope.

 

[GordianKnot]

Saying that Barbara's age somehow makes it unlikely for her to be a victim of sexual assault doesn't cut it for me.

Far too many older women are sexually assaulted today.

Here are just a few examples of recent attacks.

Police Make Arrest Following Rape Of 78-Year-Old Woman In Queens

Man posing as repairman beat, tried to rape 83-year-old woman: cops
https://nypost.com/2019/03/11/man-p...beat-sexually-assault-83-year-old-woman-cops/

Neighbor accused of trying to rape 88-year-old woman in Brooklyn

Two teens charged with raping 80-year-old

A few anecdotal stories of older women being sexually assaulted doesn't cut it for me.

Have you looked at the statistics?
Victims of Sexual Violence: Statistics | RAINN

Around only 3% of sexual assaults are perpetrated against women in BT's age range. And the majority of those are committed by people the victim knows.

Factoring that stat in with the plethora of other hugely improbable things that would have had to occur in order for an abduction of BT to have occurred in the desert in that brief window, that scenario is at the dead bottom of my list.

We might as well go ahead and say that it's possible aliens abducted her.

JMO.

 

[rosesfromangels]

A few anecdotal stories of older women being sexually assaulted don't cut it for me.

Have you looked at the statistics?
Victims of Sexual Violence: Statistics | RAINN

Around only 3% of sexual assaults are perpetrated against women in BT's age range.

Factoring that in with the confluence of other hugely statistically improbable things that would have had to occur in order for an abduction of BT to have occurred in the desert in that brief window, that scenario is at the dead bottom of my list.

We might as well go ahead and say that it's possible aliens abducted her.

JMO.

In general, I agree, but keeping all possibilities open (except aliens), until we get more details from LE.
I still think the most likely is the scenario RT reported. Statistically, he is well out of the Perp range.
Remaining Victim friendly *unless* other facts from LE suggest a crime.

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[Nikynoo]

A few anecdotal stories of older women being sexually assaulted doesn't cut it for me.

Have you looked at the statistics?
Victims of Sexual Violence: Statistics | RAINN

Around only 3% of sexual assaults are perpetrated against women in BT's age range.

Factoring that stat in with the confluence of other hugely improbable things that would have had to occur in order for an abduction of BT to have occurred in the desert in that brief window, that scenario is at the dead bottom of my list.

We might as well go ahead and say that it's possible aliens abducted her.

JMO.

talking of statistics, I think @rosesfromangels stated some statistics about the chances of an elderly gentleman murdering his spouse.

 

[LietKynes]

talking of statistics, I think @rosesfromangels stated some statistics about the chances of an elderly gentleman murdering his spouse.

My guess would be that most people are killed by someone known to them.
Hoping LE will post an update this week.
Or the VI will chime in.
Something.
If Barbara's gone, the chances of determining a cod will be slim.
A bash to the skull would show or strangulation (hyoid bone broken ?) , but smothering would not. Imo.

 

[Nikynoo]

My guess would be that most people are killed by someone known to them.
Hoping LE will post an update this week.
Or the VI will chime in.
Something.
If Barbara's gone, the chances of determining a cod will be slim.
A bash to the skull would show or strangulation (hyoid bone broken ?) , but smothering would not. Imo.

I would not be too sure about determining cod. They managed to determine cod in the Amboy case I believe.

I think @rosesfromangels also had statistics about your intial point too!

 

[deugirtni]

There have been quite a few mentioned on this thread, the Amboy case, being a good example.

If you are talking about the case where the husband was found quickly, but the wife was found later (Schmeirer) - there was nobody to tell detectives where exactly the wife had been located; they found the man, but they had no idea whether the woman had been beside him the entire time they were together, nor at the time when he succumbed; she could've been anywhere.
So, not a good example, imo.

 

[deugirtni]

LE releases the picture to let the public know what she looks like and they have accomplished that goal with the release. They don't need to inform the public of when it was taken. LE doesn't need to release additional photos because they don't believe it will help solve the case.

They perhaps don't 'need' to mention this photo as being taken hours before her disappearance, but I'd be interested to see another missing person case where police had an hours-earlier photo in their possession and did NOT identify it as such. Anyone?

 

[al66pine]

Logical Way of Vanishing? More to Story? Heatstroke?

I was out on the West Coast last week and did some major hiking and running on much rougher terrain than desert. The hubs was with me and I feel pretty confident saying that there isn't a logical way I could have 'vanished' out of his sight in a quarter of a mile without there being more to the story....

@girlhasnoname Thanks for your post. sbm bbm
Exactly... could not have happened without there being more to the story.
And now, even after ~10,000 posts, we do not know the rest of the story.

But as to your similar situation, I'd hazard a guess -- there may some significant differences btwn you and BT, such as temperature humidity, perhaps your hydration, age, health, physical conditioning, etc.
I also believe that given high enough temperatures and sufficiently long exposure without hydration, that anyone is subject to heatstroke, and eventually the resulting unconsciousness, delirium, and death.
Still in the back of my mind as a possibility for BT. jmo.

 

[deugirtni]

Logical Way of Vanishing? More to Story? Heatstroke?

@girlhasnoname Thanks for your post. sbm bbm
Exactly... could not have happened without there being more to the story.
And now, even after ~10,000 posts, we do not know the rest of the story.

But as to your similar situation, I'd hazard a guess -- there may some significant differences btwn you and BT, such as temperature humidity, perhaps your hydration, age, health, physical conditioning, etc.
I also believe that given high enough temperatures and sufficiently long exposure without hydration, that anyone is subject to heatstroke, and eventually the resulting unconsciousness, delirium, and death.
Still in the back of my mind as a possibility for BT. jmo.

That would be a really good possibility, IF her husband didn't point out to police the spot where he last saw her, and the route to the quarter-mile-away RV. If poor BT succumbed to heatstroke after rounding that corner on her way back to the RV, then why did 9 or 10 days of searching by various methods fail to locate her? Doesn't make sense. imo.