CA CA - Bob Harrod, 81, Orange County, 27 July 2009 - # 8

[DollyPardonMe]

I'm pretty sure that posting this sort of thing without providing a source is not permitted here. It isn't the detective's responsibility to prove these claims.

I provided a source! I think the detective in charge of Mr Harrod's case is reliable enough..

 

[RabidBadger]

I provided a source! I think the detective in charge of Mr Harrod's case is reliable enough..

Anyone could say they talked to any detective. Doesn't make it a fact.

 

[Angelo]

I provided a source! I think the detective in charge of Mr Harrod's case is reliable enough..

Did you speak with Radomski Dolly?

 

[Cubby]

Yes Cubby..I apologize..I should realize that I must be very careful the way I word my posts on THIS thread..My original post should have read..

Per Det D Radomski the dental records of the body found did not match those of Bob Harrod. My prayers go out to the family of the deceased when the coroner does release the name because I am sure the family will be devastated to get the news.

Dolly,

It is not "THIS thread". When something is stated as fact, a source must be listed or linked across the board at WS. It has nothing to do with Radomski or a rule out via dentals.

You stated the San Bernardino Coroner has identified the remains found in Highland, CA.
You must provide a source for the information indicating the remains have been identified.

tia

 

[cocomod]

I'd really like to know what the point was with going to trial with this civil suit, when all along Bob's handwritten notes indicate the money was a gift?

Was it to try and persuade those following Bob's case PPD is wrong about having ruled out their (by their, I mean Bob's daughters) POI and they were corrrect? Was it to deliberately muddy the waters? Stall for time hoping people would forget?

Because I really just do not get it.

Possibly I am reading the court document wrong, but the way that I read it is that there was a list of money given to the hairdresser, and this list was on a yellow piece of paper. I do not think that the yellow piece of paper specifically mentions that this money was gifted. I think she was intimating that the paper just acknowledges each individual amount given to his dear friend. Either way, it is abundantly clear to most of us, including the judge, that this money was not meant to be repaid. No loan documents - as there were for family members that continued to ask Bob for more and more money. No repayment implied. I am SO happy that she prevailed and that these blood sucking "children" of Bob's has to pay her attorney fees for taking her to court over nothing!

Sorry if I sound bitter, but I have an extreme adversion to blood sucking offspring!

 

[Cubby]

I read it to indicate Bob notated both the amounts and that the amounts are a gift. She clearly acknowledged she withheld paperwork indicating it was a gift. She would not have acknowledged to the court Bob's handwritten note stated gift, if no note existed. She gave a reason why she withheld that paperwork.

My previous post was verbatim from the court docs.

 

[cocomod]

I am sorry Cubby, I was not trying to be argumentative. I just read the documents a little differently than you did. The wording in two different places in the legal document reads :

1 - PAULA testified that she did find a “yellow piece of paper” written by her father identifying all the money that he had given PADDLEFORD as an apparent gift.

2 - In fact, she testified that while she found everyone else’s contract with her father, including her own, she found none for PADDLEFORD, she did not know what may have been paid back and the “yellow piece of paper” she found showing the money that HARROD had given PADDLEFORD.


BBM, IBM

When I read "as an apparent gift", I did not read that the yellow paper necessarily stated this terminology. Instead, I read that the paper just noted each of the amounts given to Paddleford. Since there was no loan documents, it appeared that the amounts were an apparently a gift. Again, my interpretation only.

 

[Cubby]

I am sorry Cubby, I was not trying to be argumentative. I just read the documents a little differently than you did. The wording in two different places in the legal document reads :

1 - PAULA testified that she did find a “yellow piece of paper” written by her father identifying all the money that he had given PADDLEFORD as an apparent gift.

2 - In fact, she testified that while she found everyone else’s contract with her father, including her own, she found none for PADDLEFORD, she did not know what may have been paid back and the “yellow piece of paper” she found showing the money that HARROD had given PADDLEFORD.


BBM, IBM

When I read "as an apparent gift", I did not read that the yellow paper necessarily stated this terminology. Instead, I read that the paper just noted each of the amounts given to Paddleford. Since there was no loan documents, it appeared that the amounts were an apparently a gift. Again, my interpretation only.

I didn't think you were being argumentative.... I gotcha. I misread earlier. Clearly they had no proof the money was a loan, while having tons of documentation when Bob did intend for money to be a loan - he was quite clear about documenting it accordingly.

 

[Cubby]

I hope Mr. Harrod does not end up paying the costs.

Sadly, he already has. :cry:

 

[believe09]

Still waiting official word on the possible match ruled in or ruled out, correct?
As to the court documents, I would say that PB's statements pretty much sums everything up. If I were the co conservators I would be going after their own counsel for filing frivilous law suits and wasting Bob's hard earned money on losses like this one and the previous motions that were thrown out. Not to mention the pointless delay in finally filing the appropriate documents for the audits. JMVHO.

 

[believe09]

Still waiting official word on the possible match ruled in or ruled out, correct?
As to the court documents, I would say that PB's statements pretty much sums everything up. If I were the co conservators I would be going after their own counsel for filing frivilous law suits and wasting Bob's hard earned money on losses like this one and the previous motions that were thrown out. Not to mention the pointless delay in finally filing the appropriate documents for the audits. JMVHO.

 

[Cubby]

I've seen nothing to indicate the remains have been identified. No official word. Nothing on the coroners press release website indicating the remains have been identified. Nothing that I can find in MSM either.

 

[sarx]

I've seen nothing to indicate the remains have been identified. No official word. Nothing on the coroners press release website indicating the remains have been identified. Nothing that I can find in MSM either.

Thanks for this. I keep popping in while working something else, and keep getting confused, especially after I went to the Coroner's page and saw nothing.

 

[Montjoy]

Mr. Harrod's first wife, Georgia, also knew the hairdresser. According to Mr. Harrod's former neighbor, when Georgia was too ill to leave her home the hairdresser would come to the house to do her hair.

Indeed. It was a kindness which I'm sure gave Georgia some comfort and helped her feel like a lady again, instead of just feeling sick. It was also company -- someone checking in to see how she was doing and chatting. There were likely times when Georgia's health was failing and she saw her hairdresser more often than one of her daughters (but I can't guess how she would have felt about that). The hairdresser also paid her respects at Georgia's memorial service, and Bob was certainly happy to see her there.

The money he would have given the hairdresser was peanuts to him, and I'm sure he gave it more happily than the money he gave his daughters when he requested they stay away from him for several months.

I hope that there is an accounting to ensure that the esteemed trustees of the Harrod Trust do not use their father's money to pay for this travesty.

 

[Cubby]

Angelo, you might want to add the document to the media and document thread for Bob's case.

Missing! Timeline Forum and Media links - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Oops. I added the wrong link. Here's the correct link for the documents.

CA CA - Bob Harrod-Documents No discussion - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[GrainneDhu]

BTW....The hairdresser was awarded costs!

Considering that the judge ruled that the plaintiffs met exactly ZERO of the elements required, I'm not at all surprised the judge awarded the defendant costs.

I was actually laughing out loud reading the judgment. I don't know how the judge managed to preside without breaking into hysterical laughter.

 

[cocomod]

I actually wonder if the judge was as disgusted as we are with these "offspring" of Bob.

I too laughed at his ruling. He couldn't have made it more clear that this case absolutely wasted his time.

 

[Cubby]

I actually wonder if the judge was as disgusted as we are with these "offspring" of Bob.

I too laughed at his ruling. He couldn't have made it more clear that this case absolutely wasted his time.

His time, the courts time. I don't think Bob's daughters could make their priorities any clearer than they have by focusing so heavily on Bob's pocket book, bank accounts and assets. The court documents prove it.

 

[believe09]

In the court docs, another subject captured my interest...PB testified that she had seen her father 4 days prior to his disappearance and that he appeared to be of sound mind. (page 3 statement of facts, line 26.)

Huh. Guess the dementia theory did not originate with her.

However, since we know she attended the family meeting the day before the disappearance, I am curious as to how this falsehood might look considering the investigation into the MP/Presumed Homicide case....is that perjury? Can that sworn statement be used against her in say a grand jury setting? Is it even material to the investigation?

Additionally...and this speaks to the splitting hairs thing...she claims she spoke to him on the morning of the disappearance. A claim that cannot be verified, but no matter. I wonder if he seemed "of sound mind" on that day. The day after the evening of long knives, KWIM?

 

[Montjoy]

I don't know how the judge managed to preside without breaking into hysterical laughter.

It's possible that feelings of anger and disgust killed any humor in the situation for him.