This news article also contains photo of statement from HCSO that confirms BC claimed to have arrived home "a few minutes before" she made the call to HCSO at 6:55pm:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/hun...y-authorities-look-70-year-old-may-taken-home
There are two things I find particularly unusual -and frankly disturbing- about PaPaw's case: A consistent pattern of ever-changing stories, and things being "debunked." Example include:
CORRECTION: I have been informed by a different source in the family who is closer to Papaw that he DOES NOT lock his house when he works in the shop. He'd usually leave the garage door on Becca's side of the garage attached to the house open and sometimes even the front door unlocked, then the shop would be unlocked and usually one, or both, garage doors of the shop open.
Previously, I posted that he WOULD typically lock the house, but that was from a source who may have been guessing based on their own tendencies. Reminder that the house was completely locked up, as was the shop, and all garage doors were down when Becca arrived home.
I don't have much time today to address other comments, but wanted to get that out there.
(RBBM)
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ounty-10-March-2017-1&p=13453732#post13453732
Pmerle00 posted the above on June 23rd. Why wasn't she made aware of it sooner? I remember us talking about how odd it was that everything was locked up when BC came home if PaPaw was attacked in the shop, and especially so if this was a case of robbery gone wrong; it is virtually unheard of for a perp to take the time to make sure the place s/he is robbing is secure and protected. Did someone see the discussion on here, realize the state in which PaPaw's shop and the house were found indeed appeared suspicious and change their story?
Another example:
Allow me to clarify - before Becca left for work, in the course of a conversation with Papaw person-to-person, she asked him to pick up mascara from walmart. She texted him after she left, I'm not positive of the time or contents of that message, but I know it was normal for her to text him to let him know she arrived at her first patient ok.
(RBBM)
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ounty-10-March-2017-2&p=13528087#post13528087
I cannot go into details, but the explanation given by a family member in an FB post as to how and why PaPaw ended up going to Walmart to get the mascara that day is completely different than the information given to Pmerle00.
Things being "debunked" (or shown to be different than what Pmerle00 has been told):
I updated my previous post, but wanted to stress: the certificate' received was not a death certificate, but was a Letter of Testamentary, which required announcements in papers and the pension board. Yes, that type of letter is typically obtained when a person dies and an executor needs to settle an estate, but there are other applications, such as this one.
(RBBM)
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ounty-10-March-2017-1&p=13511195#post13511195
Public records show otherwise
.
DFD pension board sent out a letter to members just prior to Papaw's disappearance requesting a confirmation that the payments should maintain as they had been - OR if they didn't respond, then it would go to semi-annual payments.
(RBBM)
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ounty-10-March-2017-2&p=13526202#post13526202
As per DPFPS publications, they were required to respond by Feb. 28th
if they wanted the payments to go to semi-annual; otherwise, their payments would have stayed monthly. Therefore, this is misinformation and a moot, irrelevant point, IMO. If it is true that the distribution form had not been returned at the time of PaPaw's disappearance, then the potential problem would have been that the DROP payments would have stopped altogether because PaPaw was no longer there to sign the form.
Pmerle00 also shared with us:
Papaw has been drawing pension and DROP regularly. He also regularly works with my uncle (his SIL) doing flooring jobs (concrete staining), which provides additional income.
(RBBM)
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ounty-10-March-2017-3&p=13564481#post13564481
So -as suspected-, at least
PaPaw's regular/non-DROP payments would have continued as usual without him being declared deceased.
Then this morning, I found a couple of quotes from Sheriff Meeks that I hadn't seen before (All BBM):
"'
His wife, she works in Dallas, came home around 7 p.m. and was unable to get a hold of him,' Meeks said."
and also
"Chambers often spent time in a workshop on the property.
'And thats where we observed indicators that he did not leave on his own,' Meeks said. '
Several items of his were also missing.'"
http://www.heraldbanner.com/news/up...cle_c5d512b2-0683-11e7-971c-e3cda73252a4.html
The article was last updated at 6:15pm on Mar. 11, not even 24 hours after PaPaw went missing, so perhaps Sheriff Meeks still wasn't familiar with all the facts and details of the case. But as Dayzee pointed out, two days later at the press conference, he stated BC had "returned home a few minutes prior to the call," which he said came in "at approximately 6:55pm."
I know I forget things from time to time and don't always remember things accurately. But it is the consistent pattern of inconsistencies that really trouble me here.
