CA CA - Bob Harrod, 81, Orange County, 27 July 2009 - # 3

[believe09]

If Bob was wearing a hat, does that mean he was going out or did he wear it at home? He would have been wearing his glasses in anycase according to CA Exile, but I am now confused as to whether they were found to be in the house or not.

His keys and wallet were missing IIRC, which of course mean they were on his person I would think. And no additional search has located them, at least one that has been reported.

 

[Angelo]

If Bob was wearing a hat, does that mean he was going out or did he wear it at home? He would have been wearing his glasses in anycase according to CA Exile, but I am now confused as to whether they were found to be in the house or not.

His keys and wallet were missing IIRC, which of course mean they were on his person I would think. And no additional search has located them, at least one that has been reported.

CaExile said Mr. Harrod wore a hat when he left the house because he was bald. He might also put a hat on if he was in the yard.

 

[Cubby]

I really doubt there are official "docs" stating who all owed him money. BUT, if there are, we are working at a huge deficit here - where "others" are totally in the know.

I just can't be sure who all has access to the intricate financial records.

I hope LE has Bobs financial records. If we could find something online we can link to any online court docs which would tie to the money in this case. I don't know if any online records exist. I haven't had the time to sleuth any.

 

[Fairy1]

I hope LE has Bobs financial records. If we could find something online we can link to any online court docs which would tie to the money in this case. I don't know if any online records exist. I haven't had the time to sleuth any.

I wouldn't know where to begin! But I hope so too, Cubby. If they do, they may very well have their sights on the right individual(s).

 

[Fairy1]

I also think by the time LE began to realize Mr. Harrod was not a runaway groom they lost vaulable time and possible evidence. That is what happens in so many missing person cases. LE assumes, and sometimes wrongly.

ITA, Angelo. But by the same token, LE often has tunnel vision when it comes to suspects, and that can hurt an investigation also.

We know LE talked to some of the neighbors but did they actually walk the road and look for clues, we don't know.

We don't know. I sure wish we did! I would love to believe they went over his home with a fine tooth comb when he was reported missing, but I wouldn't stake my life on it.

I just can't imagine why someone would abduct an eighty-one-year-old man off the street. I can see a child or a woman, that happens all the time.

Me neither. Not a stranger anyway.

I wonder if LE has checked computers, cell phones, cell phone pings, and any other means they have to rule people in or out.

I would think all of these things have been checked. But again, I take nothing for granted.

 

[Cubby]

I have a question about this:

Does this mean that they can no longer be discussed as possible suspects here? If so, then that, in my mind, would completely stop any investigation cold. If we aren't allowed to consider them as possibilities, then what good is the group based theory-crafting? Besides.. the press get it wrong... a lot. For all we know, there SHOULD be an "at this time" added to the end of the sentence.

I understand you are just 'doing your job' Cubby.. but if we can't discuss the hairdresser or her husband or son any longer, then I will have to bow out. My goal is to explore ALL possibilities, not just the possibilities that WS allows me to discuss.

Yes, this means we can no longer discuss them as possible suspects. LE has officially cleared them and we have MSM to back that up. If at some point that changes and LE states publically they are reinvestigating a possible connection between the barber and her dh to Bobs disappearance we will then allow discussion. Continued discussion of any persons officially ruled out as being connected with a missing persons case is rumor and WS does not allow that. It would also put WS in a position to be sued for libel if we allowed continued discussion and rumor. Someone could accuse me of murder. If LE clears me and I have a solid alibi and others continue to discuss myself as a possible suspect I could sue them for libel. I will not put WS in that position. It is a solid rule here across ALL the forums, not just Bobs thread.

hth

 

[Montjoy]

I think that it is prudent not only libel protection. It's clear that people co-opt threads to try to distract investigations or deflect attention from themselves on a variety of websites. Often it has been the case that those wishing to do so repeatedly point fingers at others, often those cleared by LE. They may do it under the guise of being anonymous concerned citizens, or they may reveal themselves as players in the case. It would seem a disservice to justice to allow people to manipulate a forum that way. ...with chilling effects on conversation aimed at solving this mystery.

 

[cloudajo]

Glasses - Reference Info

LA Times Article (7/31/2009)
Harrod's car and glasses are at the house, Loomis said, but his wallet and keys are missing.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/31/local/me-missing-groom31

On 8/2/2009, daughter RB posted on another forum that Bob had some spare glasses but left the ones he wears most often sitting on the kitchen table.

On 8/12/2009, daughter PB posted on another forum that they found three pair of glasses and thought that was all he had, she doubts very seriously that he would have left without his glasses. He NEVER went without his glasses.

LA Times Article (2/2/2010)
His wallet and keys were gone but his car, glasses and credit cards were left behind.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/02/local/la-me-disappeared3-2010feb03/4

On 8/2/2010, daughter RB posted on another forum that he had numerous old pairs of glasses. After his disappearance they were able to find three pairs in the house but we later noticed in a fairly recent photograph that he was wearing another pair that were not found. So much for that idea and the media’s focus and staged filming of the glasses on the table for dramatic effect.

Pictures and videos of glasses:

OC Register Article (10/8/2009) Close up pic of glasses on kitchen table: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-214111--.html?pic=5

Bob out in the sun - looks like same pair of glasses rather than sunglasses: http://epaper.ocregister.com/Repository/OCWPlacentiaNewsTimes/2009/07/09/OCWPlacentiaNewsTimes_2009_07_09_FINAL.pdf#OLV0_Page_0001

Videos of Bob wearing glasses:

(starting about -01:10): http://www.ktla.com/videobeta/watch/?watch=ac85bbd7-919c-45df-8bff-de9407f59354&src=front

(starting about -00:45)
http://www.ktla.com/videobeta/787b9661-cce5-40f4-ae8a-ec7b54c23643/News/KTLA-Couple-Reunites-After-Six-Decades-Apart-Jaime-Chambers-reports

 

[Angelo]

If Bob was wearing a hat, does that mean he was going out or did he wear it at home? He would have been wearing his glasses in anycase according to CA Exile, but I am now confused as to whether they were found to be in the house or not.

His keys and wallet were missing IIRC, which of course mean they were on his person I would think. And no additional search has located them, at least one that has been reported.

Just an observation.

There are discrepancies on some of the articles of clothing Mr. Harrod was wearing the day he disappeared. Some reports say pants, some say shorts. The shirt he was wearing is also unknown. Then we have the hat.

Last August daughter R posted:

" Dad may have been wearing a pinkish/red stone masonic ring and a thin gold wedding band. May have been wearing white Reebocks type shoes, thin white knee-hi socks, white polyester pants, white belt, and an unknown color shirt over a white V-neck undershirt. Dad would have had a light colored hat to protect his head from the sun."

Maybe the family did not know what Mr. Harrod was wearing that day. Yes he would have put on a hat if he was going out, but did he?

 

[Fairy1]

Just an observation.

There are discrepancies on some of the articles of clothing Mr. Harrod was wearing the day he disappeared. Some reports say pants, some say shorts. The shirt he was wearing is also unknown. Then we have the hat.

Last August daughter R posted:

" Dad may have been wearing a pinkish/red stone masonic ring and a thin gold wedding band. May have been wearing white Reebocks type shoes, thin white knee-hi socks, white polyester pants, white belt, and an unknown color shirt over a white V-neck undershirt. Dad would have had a light colored hat to protect his head from the sun."

Maybe the family did not know what Mr. Harrod was wearing that day. Yes he would have put on a hat if he was going out, but did he?

I wonder too, would Bob have had his wallet and keys on his person if he hadn't intentionally left?

 

[Montjoy]

I wonder too, would Bob have had his wallet and keys on his person if he hadn't intentionally left?

Unfortunately, much of this sort of information about habits can be confused and confusing depending on the circumstances of someone's disappearance. If, say, Bob had been killed by someone with access to him in his house, who had access to his garage to transfer a body into a truck, and who had knowledge about some of his habits, it could be guessed that the killer could dispose of his wallet/keys/hat/glasses along with his body. Likewise, had a hypothetical killer provided a pretext about going on an errand together, s/he could have had Bob collect these items on his own. I'm not saying any of this happened (or not), but the items remaining or missing don't tell the full story given the kind of private access a (hypothetical) killer might have had. It wouldn't be the first time that a murderer took pains to make a disappearance look voluntary. Perhaps just (IMO) color me skeptical that an item taken or left behind paints a conclusive picture.

 

[cloudajo]

Keys

The below leads me to speculate that the daughters, SIL, and Bob’s neighbor had keys to Bob’s house at the time he went missing.

On other forums, various posts last year referencing keys/access to Bob’s house included: Daughter JM posted that she went down the hill to Bob’s house the day after Bob went missing to change the linens and get the house ready for Fontelle’s return. Daughter PB posted that she had her nephew (Bob’s grandson) try to go through Bob’s garage the day after Bob went missing. Daughter PB posted that if it had not been for the three daughters there on Wed to let Fontelle in, she doesn’t know how she would have gotten in. Daughter PB posted that she suggested Fontelle change the locks for her safety, and that Fontelle had not given them a key yet. And that she wouldn’t even give a key to the neighbor that had always had a key.

Michaels said he returned to the house after 3 p.m. to find the Harrods' longtime maid sitting on the front stoop, saying the door was locked. Bob Harrod talked to the housekeeper on the phone earlier that morning and told her to come. Michaels told police he thought Bob Harrod may have retired for a nap, and said he let himself and the maid in the back door. Bob Harrod wasn't in sight, but his keys and wallet were gone. Michaels told police he concluded Bob Harrod had visited a neighbor or gone for a walk. Michaels finished his tasks and the housekeeper cleaned and left. Michaels locked the house and headed home to Running Springs outside San Bernardino.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-214111--.html

About 9:30 a.m., Bob's son-in-law Jeff Michaels arrived to help get the house ready. Michaels told police that he worked at the home, then went to Home Depot about 2:40 p.m. to buy supplies. When he returned about 3:30 p.m., Bob's housekeeper was sitting on the front stoop because no one had answered the door. Michaels let himself in the back door and the housekeeper followed and cleaned.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/02/local/la-me-disappeared3-2010feb03/3
　

 

[Fairy1]

Unfortunately, much of this sort of information about habits can be confused and confusing depending on the circumstances of someone's disappearance. If, say, Bob had been killed by someone with access to him in his house, who had access to his garage to transfer a body into a truck, and who had knowledge about some of his habits, it could be guessed that the killer could dispose of his wallet/keys/hat/glasses along with his body. Likewise, had a hypothetical killer provided a pretext about going on an errand together, s/he could have had Bob collect these items on his own. I'm not saying any of this happened (or not), but the items remaining or missing don't tell the full story given the kind of private access a (hypothetical) killer might have had. It wouldn't be the first time that a murderer took pains to make a disappearance look voluntary. Perhaps just (IMO) color me skeptical that an item taken or left behind paints a conclusive picture.

IMO, a novice murderer would not have thought to take the wallet and keys. There are literally HUNDREDS of missing women who "left" their husbands or S/O's, but somehow forgot to take their purses, keys and cell phones.

 

[cloudajo]

Daughter PB posted on a forum yesterday that a year ago today a group of family members again went through the neighborhood where Bob lived and put up “corrected fliers that were done with the help of Project Jason.”

From the Project Jason flier:

CIRCUMSTANCES
Robert was last seen by his son-in-law at his home in Placentia, CA between 11:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. His keys and wallet are gone, but his car was left behind.

http://www.projectjason.org/aan/AAN_RobertHarrod.pdf

 

[JulieR]

Well it kind of seems to me if Bob had his glasses off he may have went missing while he was taking his afternoon nap. That is the only reason I can think of for someone who wears glasses all the time to take them off. Most likely the wallet and keys were in his pocket already.

 

[cloudajo]

Just revisiting this response to an 81 year-old father being gone from his home for hours.

• About 6PM, Michaels locked the house and headed home to Running Springs
• Daughter JM, SIL JM‘s wife, called Bob’s house later that night, and there was no answer
• Daughter JM called her sisters, RB and PB
• RB called Placentia Police to do a welfare check at the residence (Note: Article says “they” called, but RB posted on another forum that she made the call.)
• Officers checked the house and there were no signs of a struggle or foul play (Note: LE cannot go into the house without probable cause, so they didn’t go into the house, correct?)
• Daughter JM called FH in Missouri, and FH called in a missing persons report to police

Note: Daughter PB posted on Aug 11, 2009 on another forum that she was under the assumption that you could not file a missing persons report for 24 hours, even though they (meaning the PPD for the welfare check) were contacted approximately 8-9 hours later. She posted we have since found out that is NOT true and “F” filed a report from her daughter’s home in Kansas.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-214111--.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2010985815_disappeared08.html

 

[Angelo]

Daughter PB posted on a forum yesterday that a year ago today a group of family members again went through the neighborhood where Bob lived and put up “corrected fliers that were done with the help of Project Jason.”

From the Project Jason flier:

CIRCUMSTANCES
Robert was last seen by his son-in-law at his home in Placentia, CA between 11:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. His keys and wallet are gone, but his car was left behind.

http://www.projectjason.org/aan/AAN_RobertHarrod.pdf

To this day they have not corrected the timeline!

 

[Angelo]

Well it kind of seems to me if Bob had his glasses off he may have went missing while he was taking his afternoon nap. That is the only reason I can think of for someone who wears glasses all the time to take them off. Most likely the wallet and keys were in his pocket already.

Unless they were knocked off or fell off.

 

[believe09]

Yeah-the well being check has me puzzled. Should I stop mentioning that, lol? I wish we knew where grandson was between 6PM Monday night and Midnight that he was unavailable to go check on his GF or to have his wife etc...the sisters called each other-why not him? SO confused.

So original reports were that one of the daughters indicated Bob's most commonly worn glasses were in the house. Huh. So if he headed out the door in a hurry, he had a hat on his head but not his glasses?

Well that makes no sense at all.

 

[Montjoy]

IMO, a novice murderer would not have thought to take the wallet and keys. There are literally HUNDREDS of missing women who "left" their husbands or S/O's, but somehow forgot to take their purses, keys and cell phones.

You do have a point. Just the same, first off, most murderers are 'novice', for better or worse, so I'm not sure how valuable the distinction is. Second, (*and this is under some assumptions about what might have taken place*) not all novice murderers (or murders, full stop) have the ease of an elderly, trusting victim, private in a residence. Again, speaking hypothetically, if the murderer knew the victim's habits (perhaps was even coached on them by another party), and had (as may be the case, given the wonky timeline) hours to sort out the details, I wouldn't think it too hard to collect a couple items that the victim was known to take with him out of the house.

It may be argued that someone who is responsible for and would profit from a victim's death (beyond that of a disappearance) might want the victim's body to be discovered immediately. While this is true, I would imagine the party responsible would also hope not to be tied to the putative crime, and might hope that LE would stagger in their investigation. In that event, the best possible solution for that would be to have a missing person who is presumed dead for legal/estate purposes.

Again, not pointing fingers -- just looking at how the field of possibilities, means, motives, and opportunities could play out. (And still curious if family has offered a reward.)