NY NY - Robert Mayer, 46, Dix Hills, 14 Jun 2013 - # 4

[BunnyHop]

So the sneakers were checked out? By who? TIA

It's a mystery............

 

[Jerry516]

I am speaking on behalf of Robert Mayer, who is still missing.

Im confused about the interpretation here----Honest question, and not meant sarcastic---if he is missing and no one has seen him, how are YOU speaking on his behalf?

 

[BunnyHop]

I am speaking on behalf of Robert Mayer, who is still missing.

Can you please elaborate? TIA.

Muchas Gracias.

 

[CatFancier]

Move on please

 

[desensitized]

can someone please run down a new list of "facts" in this case, while making note of facts that have been "misinterpreted" or changed? there may be a small detail that at first glance was written off as insignificant, but if that small detail has changed multiple times, it might bethe most important clue. (not that IM is intentionally misleading, but maybe because she too thought that fact was insignificant and didn't give it the attention it needed).

 

[CuriousAmI]

The morning phone call. IM first stated she spoke to RM at 9am and it was a nice conversation -about Italy vacation, Father's Day celebration. Call ended with IM saying RM said "bye, I love you". This was in print and video.

New report is call was dropped.

 

[Force Ten]

I dropped FB months ago. If you don't mind me asking, What do you think happened to RM? Just speculating.

I have no idea. Well I do have ideas but....I know he didn't disappear willingly. At least according to the evidence. At this point, I wish he did. As time drags on it doesn't look good for Mr. Mayer.

 

[CuriousAmI]

I have no idea. Well I do have ideas but....I know he didn't disappear willingly. At least according to the evidence. At this point, I wish he did. As time drags on it doesn't look good for Mr. Mayer.

How do you know he didn't disappear willingly? What evidence?

 

[Blythe]

I have no idea. Well I do have ideas but....I know he didn't disappear willingly. At least according to the evidence. At this point, I wish he did. As time drags on it doesn't look good for Mr. Mayer.

Well, I agree that if he didn't disappear willingly, it doesn't look good for him. I have considered, however, that he did take off voluntarily. Just curious, what to your thinking refutes that possibility? I don't know anything about him or the family so I can only base my speculation on my own experiences of human nature.

 

[ElizaAvalon]

can someone please run down a new list of "facts" in this case, while making note of facts that have been "misinterpreted" or changed? there may be a small detail that at first glance was written off as insignificant, but if that small detail has changed multiple times, it might bethe most important clue. (not that IM is intentionally misleading, but maybe because she too thought that fact was insignificant and didn't give it the attention it needed).

These are in random order, as they pop into my head.

Well, I think the phone is missing. But at one time it was states that the phone was found.

His wallet was left at home but I have not seen it stayed definitively that anyone in the household saw the wallet before they realized RM was missing.

IM and RM had a phone conversation at 9 AM. it has been written that it was a few minutes long. No mention has been made as to whether or not the wallet was discussed during this conversation.

The car was last seen on a neighbor's security camera according to NCNY. But the FAQ on the FB site still says he was last seen at Arrow scrap yard in west Babylon.

His transaction at Arrow was minimal. I think I read that there is a receipt (?). I have seen IM write on FB that he sold copper.

He went to work and coworkers saw him and his car there.

His phone pinged Rt 110 in Melville or Huntington Station around 1:45. (I think)

He left for work at 4:30 AM.

His car was found at the Deer Park train station in almost the exact place he used to park his car when he commuted 5 years ago. The the seat was pushed forward and a water bottle on the seat. The club was nit engaged to the steering wheel. His lunch pail and tools are missing from the trunk. Tracking dogs did not pick up his scent at his car. The car was found by a friend of the family and I thought I read originally that the son was with the family friend.

His bike, a lime green mountain bike, is missing but no one knows for sure how long it has been missing.

 

[desensitized]

any ideas of what has occurred are welcomed in this forum. please share what evidence leads you to believe he definitely didn't leave willingly. I would
love a fresh perspective sine we've beat everything else to death

 

[LivingJuicy]

I was away from WS a day or so and I thought of RM often. I started to question his car parked where it was and feel that someone staged the car there. And is throwing everything off by saying he wouldn't park there. Like, something most have happened to him, he would NEVER park there. Now, I just don't clknow why and whom. I had it much more articulated earlier but the beer has set in... I am getting angry, where is he!? Ill have to admit that the small amounts of media I has seen via tv online don't add up and really make me wonder. I hate feeling this way as I have no fingers to point but I saw zero emotion with what I watched.

 

[desensitized]

These are in random order, as they pop into my head.

Well, I think the phone is missing. But at one time it was states that the phone was found.

His wallet was left at home but I have not seen it stayed definitively that anyone in the household saw the wallet before they realized RM was missing.

IM and RM had a phone conversation at 9 AM. it has been written that it was a few minutes long. No mention has been made as to whether or not the wallet was discussed during this conversation.

The car was last seen on a neighbor's security camera according to NCNY. But the FAQ on the FB site still says he was last seen at Arrow scrap yard in west Babylon.

His transaction at Arrow was minimal. I think I read that there is a receipt (?). I have seen IM write on FB that he sold copper.

He went to work and coworkers saw him and his car there.

His phone pinged Rt 110 in Melville or Huntington Station around 1:45. (I think)

He left for work at 4:30 AM.

His car was found at the Deer Park train station in almost the exact place he used to park his car when he commuted 5 years ago. The the seat was pushed forward and a water bottle on the seat. The club was nit engaged to the steering wheel. His lunch pail and tools are missing from the trunk. Tracking dogs did not pick up his scent at his car. The car was found by a friend of the family and I thought I read originally that the son was with the family friend.

His bike, a lime green mountain bike, is missing but no one knows for sure how long it has been missing.

I would like to add that the security footage from the neighbors house is also listed as "last seen" on the NAMUS site.

 

[Blythe]

So RM didn't leave willingly because the car was parked in the LIRR station, the seat was in a forward position, and the dogs didn't track his scent?

Am I missing other "evidence"?

 

[ElizaAvalon]

So RM didn't leave willingly because the car was parked in the LIRR station, the seat was in a forward position, and the dogs didn't track his scent?

Am I missing other "evidence"?

Well... Who knows what it means? I've been on both sides of the fence I can't even count how many times.

I was squarely on the foul play side for a very long time. Until we found out that his tools were missing from the trunk. Now I think he could have run away with someone.

Hearing things like he would never park there and then later finding out that he did, indeed, park right there in almost the very spot as an LIRR commuter, doesn't help.

There are many things we can't discuss and those things shade my opinion too

 

[Blythe]

And it isn't an attempt to defraud creditors and/or insurance carriers because there have been no bankruptcy filings or insurance claims.

 

[cluciano63]

Anyone can up and leave, IMO, no matter how a family or situation appears to others, even those living with the person who does it. I recall being (at first) most surprised by Tiffany Tehan a few years ago, young, married, with a new baby under a year old she was apparently devoted to. Yet she ran off with a new man, leaving baby behind too, and left her car in such a way to suggest foul play. And all the time, she was on the beach in Florida. Now, nothing surprises me. People will and do, anything. JMO

 

[Psychedelia]

Hm, okay. I hope this is allowed, since you can't quote a post from a past thread. Mods, PLEASE delete if not allowed, and apologies in advance!

This is from Thread #1 by our verified insider, regarding the texts. I had stated that I thought they were to a man, while some others here said that the 'he'/'him' that was mentioned here was referring to Rob.

Originally posted by NCNY; snipped by me:
---------------------
"All the information regarding calls and texts were combed through and all leads go nowhere with the phone... there was at one point early on that we thought of someone Rob associated with as he lied about being in touch with him when asked by IM only to find out they were in touch through texts.."
----------------------

Now that I reread, the part "in touch with him" is totally unclear. It made me think that we were talking about a man Rob was texting, but now I realize that this was written in a way that lacks clarity and could just be a grammar mistake. I'm a writer and editor, so I really comb through something when I'm interested. If the grammar in this is correct, Rob was texting a male. If we've got some messed-up sentence structure / grammar issues in this post (absolutely no offense to the poster!), this instance of "him" could definitely be a redundant mention of Rob.

Okay, now that I've nerded out on the word stuff -- who is this person? And of course, where is Rob?

 

[CatFancier]

Originally posted by NCNY; snipped by me:
---------------------
"All the information regarding calls and texts were combed through and all leads go nowhere with the phone... there was at one point early on that we thought of someone Rob associated with as he lied about being in touch with him when asked by IM only to find out they were in touch through texts.."
----------------------

Now that I reread, the part "in touch with him" is totally unclear. It made me think that we were talking about a man Rob was texting, but now I realize that this was written in a way that lacks clarity and could just be a grammar mistake. I'm a writer and editor, so I really comb through something when I'm interested. If the grammar in this is correct, Rob was texting a male. If we've got some messed-up sentence structure / grammar issues in this post (absolutely no offense to the poster!), this instance of "him" could definitely be a redundant mention of Rob.

Okay, now that I've nerded out on the word stuff -- who is this person? And of course, where is Rob?

I think it was written in a conversational tone so it's harder to understand. I'm not a writer but I take it to mean that he had been in touch with someone via text and he lied to IM about it because it had been an issue with her previously.

Maybe like, "Promise you won't talk to him?" "Okay." Then lied when asked because "I wasn't talking to him, I was texting."

 

[Sweetnspicy]

Hm, okay. I hope this is allowed, since you can't quote a post from a past thread. Mods, PLEASE delete if not allowed, and apologies in advance!

This is from Thread #1 by our verified insider, regarding the texts. I had stated that I thought they were to a man, while some others here said that the 'he'/'him' that was mentioned here was referring to Rob.

Originally posted by NCNY; snipped by me:
---------------------
"All the information regarding calls and texts were combed through and all leads go nowhere with the phone... there was at one point early on that we thought of someone Rob associated with as he lied about being in touch with him when asked by IM only to find out they were in touch through texts.."
----------------------

Now that I reread, the part "in touch with him" is totally unclear. It made me think that we were talking about a man Rob was texting, but now I realize that this was written in a way that lacks clarity and could just be a grammar mistake. I'm a writer and editor, so I really comb through something when I'm interested. If the grammar in this is correct, Rob was texting a male. If we've got some messed-up sentence structure / grammar issues in this post (absolutely no offense to the poster!), this instance of "him" could definitely be a redundant mention of Rob.

Okay, now that I've nerded out on the word stuff -- who is this person? And of course, where is Rob?

Reading that I get the same as you did the first time, that it is a male, which I was suggesting earlier, however, I know texting online, my grammar gets a bit messed up as I cant text as fast as I think...typing much better so I have to agree that it could be either way. I wish it was clearer. Although IMO I still think it was a needy/troublemaker friend of Rob's. although I cant say specifically why I hold to this. Just something in my gut tells me it was male even before reading this. I wish I could say exactly why
Sent from my SCH-I415 using Tapatalk 2