NY NY - Robert Mayer, 46, Dix Hills, 14 Jun 2013 - # 2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's so sad, all these missing people who haven't been found.

Maybe I'm weird, (okay scratch the maybe, I am weird) but I've always thought about how many places one could hide a body on Long Island. If all the hidden bodies came out at once we'd be flabbergasted. Just driving on the expressways and parkways, do I pass a hidden body every day? Like Ocean Parkway. Who knows how long those bodies would've stayed hidden (although Hurricane Sandy may have flushed them out).

Oh my gosh! I'm exactly the same way. I work in Tempe, not far from where Adrienne Salinas disappeared. I constantly think, she could be in this planter, behind this scrappy fence, under this bush. It's awful.
 
There's also been mention of the Daily News reaching out to IM. Hope to see that come to fruition.
 
Hi All, am I reading into this too much? I just reviewed the FAQ page on FB. It states that the last call on his phone was to/from Ida. She says she last spoke to him at 9am. Does this mean he received zero calls or made zero calls after 9am? Seems a bit odd for a guy working on location (not in an office), and uses his phone for both business and personal, not to get a call between 9am--2:45pm. And yet the phone goes dead at 2:45 with hardly any use?

I would think a guy that works on location far from home and is using a business phone, would generally fully charge it the night before in case his union supervisors, coworkers, and family would need to reach him.

If this is the case, we can conclude that the battery didn't die from use, the phone was purposely disabled. Also, unless he had a throw away phone no one knew of, hard to believe he voluntarily walked off with a GF or someone. He would have surely made a call to tell them "plan on time" or something of that nature. If you're planning to walk away from your life with someone else, you are surely checking in with that person at some point to make sure all is on schedule.

And, if you are that careful to have a 2nd phone for this purpose, and are careful enough not to make even 1 suspicious call on your regular phone that day, why take the company phone with you? Why not just leave it in the car even after you disable it?

Maybe I'm just grasping at straws and reading too much into it, but more than ever as each day passes, I am sadly fearing the worst for RM.
 
Jerry I have the same phone and it takes a whole lot of emailing, texting, tweeting, facebooking, candy crushing and surfing the web to get my battery to completely die by 2:45 PM.
 
Hmmm... and on FB we have the usual continued ignoring of a very simple yes or no question. :banghead:
 
Hi All, am I reading into this too much? I just reviewed the FAQ page on FB. It states that the last call on his phone was to/from Ida. She says she last spoke to him at 9am. Does this mean he received zero calls or made zero calls after 9am? Seems a bit odd for a guy working on location (not in an office), and uses his phone for both business and personal, not to get a call between 9am--2:45pm. And yet the phone goes dead at 2:45 with hardly any use?

I would think a guy that works on location far from home and is using a business phone, would generally fully charge it the night before in case his union supervisors, coworkers, and family would need to reach him.

If this is the case, we can conclude that the battery didn't die from use, the phone was purposely disabled. Also, unless he had a throw away phone no one knew of, hard to believe he voluntarily walked off with a GF or someone. He would have surely made a call to tell them "plan on time" or something of that nature. If you're planning to walk away from your life with someone else, you are surely checking in with that person at some point to make sure all is on schedule.

And, if you are that careful to have a 2nd phone for this purpose, and are careful enough not to make even 1 suspicious call on your regular phone that day, why take the company phone with you? Why not just leave it in the car even after you disable it?

Maybe I'm just grasping at straws and reading too much into it, but more than ever as each day passes, I am sadly fearing the worst for RM.

BBM My husband's phone is a company phone that he uses as a personal phone as well. I can't imagine a worker in the field not using his phone at all after 9am. I don't know what to think and it's frustrating. :banghead:
 
If he was going to go away with someone else, i.e. if he had a plan, he probably had another phone. Butt that would not explain away no calls from 9am onward, on his work phone, unless that was normal. No texts either?
 
Hi I'm new here.

Do we know for sure that RM went into house? Maybe he just passed by after seeing his wife was not there. Maybe there was a disagreement in the am convo. And he felt bad.
 
I can't get the texting issue out of my head. RM had secrets to keep from IM. IM Probably snooped RM's phone. How else would she know he was texting a guy that she just so happened to have issues with (per NCNY). So a second phone is not out of the realm for me. Even to this day very conflicting information is being posted. IM has asked everyone not to give up looking for RM while remaining so secretive. My gut is telling me all was not well in the Mayer home. My gut is telling me he walked.
 
The two strange things for me are the car at the train station. If the information is true that the car was found in a spot that RM had always parked in years before when he used then train regularly then it must have either been RM or someone quite close to him that parked that car. If he left on his own it could be that he just parked there out of habit or he wanted the car found. Someone else, who knew where he liked to park, left the car there in an effort to make it look as if RM was the driver.
Also, he was cited at 2:15 at the scrap yard. There are numerous posts referring to a video camera that sees him coming home and leaving again around the same the phone went dead. To me that is peculiar. I suppose if he was planning to leave he could have came home, turned the phone off. And for some reason it hasn't been found.
 
Which question is that?

The question: Was he or was he not seen leaving his driveway at 2:50 PM on a neighbor's video camera?

The answer to this question is apparently not YES or NO. It also is not, "I don't know" and not, "We thought it was his car but it turned out not to be".

Instead the answer is:

1) "I can't keep" [not] "answering the same questions over and over." Really helpful. :stormingmad:
2) "The investigation is ongoing and that information is out of date." Investigations usually gather MORE information, not less. Either he was on the video from the beginning or he wasn't.

YES or NO. Period. So much easier than explaining why you aren't answering.
 
The question: Was he or was he not seen leaving his driveway at 2:50 PM on a neighbor's video camera?

The answer to this question is apparently not YES or NO. It also is not, "I don't know" and not, "We thought it was his car but it turned out not to be".

Instead the answer is:

1) "I can't keep" [not] "answering the same questions over and over." Really helpful. :stormingmad:
2) "The investigation is ongoing and that information is out of date." Investigations usually gather MORE information, not less. Either he was on the video from the beginning or he wasn't.

YES or NO. Period. So much easier than explaining why you aren't answering.

Exactly 100% on target. I have been saying it for the past week, it is a SIMPLE QUESTION......and it is TOO IMPORTANT of a detail to be leave out. It changes the scope of the entire timeline. A simple answer to this question, IMO would NOT affect the "protection" of her family, and be a HUGE HELP to all she is "asking" help from!!
 
The question: Was he or was he not seen leaving his driveway at 2:50 PM on a neighbor's video camera?

The answer to this question is apparently not YES or NO. It also is not, "I don't know" and not, "We thought it was his car but it turned out not to be".

Instead the answer is:

1) "I can't keep" [not] "answering the same questions over and over." Really helpful. :stormingmad:
2) "The investigation is ongoing and that information is out of date." Investigations usually gather MORE information, not less. Either he was on the video from the beginning or he wasn't.

YES or NO. Period. So much easier than explaining why you aren't answering.

Also, if we had STRAIGHT, CLEAR ANSWERS to most questions, they wouldnt be asked over and over again. Because the answers arent straightforward, people try and ask the same question a different way. If you really step back and look at how many questions are answered DIRECTLY and CONCISELY, you would be amazed on how FEW there really are!!

IM seems to get annoyed at the repeated questions, but her method of answering them is what is causing this. Is it the lawyer in her, refusing to say something for some God known reason? Makes NO SENSE if she is truly seeking help. JMO!
 
If he was going to go away with someone else, i.e. if he had a plan, he probably had another phone. Butt that would not explain away no calls from 9am onward, on his work phone, unless that was normal. No texts either?

Now that I think about it, the last call from IM was most likely when she tried to reach him and he didn't answer. I don't recall any mention of no other calls throughout the day, though. Since we're only getting bits and pieces, I don't want to assume that the last call they're talking about is the 9am call. JMO
 
Now that I think about it, the last call from IM was most likely when she tried to reach him and he didn't answer. I don't recall any mention of no other calls throughout the day, though. Since we're only getting bits and pieces, I don't want to assume that the last call they're talking about is the 9am call. JMO

I HATE TO assume, but I thought it through before I posted. The last call on his phone had to be from her, obviously. When people asked who the last call to/from was, it would have been SILLY or even RIDICULOUS for them to say it was IM looking for him at 2:30--2:45. This would have been an obvious fact.

I would THINK the question referred to the last person he called or call received before IM started calling looking for him after he was running late.

But then again, nothing would surprise me at this point.
 
IMO, I think he was seen in the videotape. There are only 2 reasons to rescind this information:

1 - LE asked her not to reveal it
2 - She doesn't want it known

Perhaps he was being followed that day and there is another car on the tape that they are investigating and don't want the perps to... I don't know, flatten the car at a scrap yard?
 
Also, if we had STRAIGHT, CLEAR ANSWERS to most questions, they wouldnt be asked over and over again. Because the answers arent straightforward, people try and ask the same question a different way. If you really step back and look at how many questions are answered DIRECTLY and CONCISELY, you would be amazed on how FEW there really are!!

IM seems to get annoyed at the repeated questions, but her method of answering them is what is causing this. Is it the lawyer in her, refusing to say something for some God known reason? Makes NO SENSE if she is truly seeking help. JMO!

Agreed!

It's evasion at the highest level.

Makes me wonder if LE already knows exactly what happened to RM and are just putting their ducks in a row.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
2,278
Total visitors
2,411

Forum statistics

Threads
602,268
Messages
18,137,816
Members
231,285
Latest member
NanaKate321
Back
Top