CA CA - Barbara Thomas, 69, from Bullhead City AZ, disappeared in Mojave desert, 12 July 2019 #4

[rosesfromangels]

It ends at the I40 6 miles south of where she was lost (well, there are some tiny ghost towns out past the I40, but they are not destinations). It's the major road in between Vegas and anyone who prefers to take the I40 out of SoCal to go to Vegas (it's more scenic, IMO - that's how my parents always went). Also people from Palm Springs go that way and some people make a weekend trip out of going to the Mojave Preserve and then topping it with a night in Vegas (heading back to northern Arizona, or even to El Paso or to Albuquerque).

This is great info; thank you.
Of all the theories presented, BT getting in a car, in a bikini with a beer, seems the hardest to fathom.

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[PaulR]

Because they might not have been trying to make him feel confident in the first place.

There’s a difference between telling someone that they are a suspect, and going to the media with that information.

This guy decided to do that himself for some reason.

Agreed, but if you want to keep the suspect in the dark about them being under suspicion, you shouldn't be telling them that they showed deception during the polygraph, regardless of whether they actually did or not. You probably want them too confident so they don't make a run for it, destroy evidence, etc.

 

[Liwthe]

Here's one example. The Lueck case.

Police arrest Ayoola Ajayi and seek aggravated murder charges in the death of MacKenzie Lueck
SABBM:
Nearly 24 hours before announcing the arrest, Brown had said there was no evidence of foul play in Lueck’s disappearance. Then, on Friday, Brown said breaks came when the Utah State Crime Lab confirmed tissue found at Ajayi’s home belonged to Lueck.

“This was outstanding detective work and cutting-edge technology,” the chief said.

So it appears they suspected it, but had no evidence (yet) of it. It sounds like a good policy to say this during an open investigation- which this case surely is.

 

[Reasonable & Just]

Agreed, but if you want to keep the suspect in the dark about them being under suspicion, you shouldn't be telling them that they showed deception during the polygraph, regardless of whether they actually did or not. You probably want them too confident so they don't make a run for it, destroy evidence, etc.

I can see a scenario where you are dealing with an emotional person, maybe someone who might actually feel remorse and see if you can get a confession. Failing that, maybe you let it go and let them stew a bit and make their moves while they wonder if they got away with something or not. Not saying that's the case here.

 

[10ofRods]

If they thought RT did it and were trying to make him feel confident, why would they tell him that he was deceptive on the polygraph?

To try and get him to talk more, contradict himself more, and then confess. Whether they thought he did it or not, it's a tactic that's successfully used many times to gain confessions.

 

[GordianKnot]

So it appears they suspected it, but had no evidence (yet) of it. It sounds like a good policy to say this during an open investigation- which this case surely is.

What would be the benefit or advantage to LE saying they suspect foul play at this point, particularly if they suspect it was someone close to her?

The context of LE saying they didn't have any evidence to suggest foul play has largely been in response to reporters asking them about RT's stated belief that BT was abducted by somebody because, y'know,
"She WAS wearing a bikini, and she had a beer in her hand." I believe LE's consistently stated they don't have evidence of foul play when they've been asked about his abduction theory.

In other words, they're saying they aren't buying what he's selling.

On account of he flunked his poly. So there's that.

JMO.

 

[MassGuy]

Agreed, but if you want to keep the suspect in the dark about them being under suspicion, you shouldn't be telling them that they showed deception during the polygraph, regardless of whether they actually did or not. You probably want them too confident so they don't make a run for it, destroy evidence, etc.

I think it’s situational. Sometimes you might want to turn up the heat, just to draw a reaction.

I’ve seen that done in some circumstances, especially if they are hoping a suspect might reach out to someone, or return to the crime scene.

This happened pretty early though, so I doubt that’s the case. I’d expect a move like this later on.

 

[PaulR]

What would be the benefit or advantage to LE saying they suspect foul play at this point, particularly if they suspect it was someone close to her?

In case you are watching them and think that their reaction will be to panic or otherwise do something foolish. For example, if you think they'll try to move the body.

 

[GordianKnot]

In case you are watching them and think that their reaction will be to panic or otherwise do something foolish. For example, if you think they'll try to move the body.

If they're trying to draw a reaction, though, they can just tell someone they flunked their polygraph.

Oh, wait! That's right.

They did.

JMO.

 

[Liwthe]

I meant that their intention is to keep information from the public for the sake of the investigation more so than as a ruse.

Why?

 

[MsFacetious]

In case you are watching them and think that their reaction will be to panic or otherwise do something foolish. For example, if you think they'll try to move the body.

People have led cops straight to the body before.... there are certainly reasons for the strategies they use.

But again they can also lie to suspects.... Jessica Lunsfords family and Shasta Groene's family were both told they failed polygraphs.... and they didn't. Neither had anything to do with it.

 

[PaulR]

If they're looking for a reaction, they can just tell someone they flunked their polygraph.

Oh, wait!

They did.

JMO.

Maybe. The only reaction we know he had was to be open about this to the press.

(Honestly? I don't think I'd tell the press if the cops said I was deceptive on the polygraph. Innocent or not.)

 

[MsFacetious]

Why?

To protect the integrity of the investigation.

 

[Liwthe]

Can you explain how that would work in this case? I can’t figure it out.

 

[Kapua]

I believe in polygraphs, and search dogs, and the power of off-road vehicles and helicopters to enable the dedicated search and rescue team of San Bernardino County to cover a wide area. (And kudos to them!) IMHO, she is not there.

 

[MsFacetious]

Can you explain how that would work in this case? I can’t figure it out.

We don't know because we aren't part of the investigation.
LE isn't in the habit of sharing more information than required with the public.
If they don't believe that sharing the information is going to help find the missing person or solve a crime, they don't.
How would it help for them to come out and say they believe there is foul play?

 

[Liwthe]

Maybe. The only reaction we know he had was to be open about this to the press.

(Honestly? I don't think I'd tell the press if the cops said I was deceptive on the polygraph. Innocent or not.)

Yes. To me (speculative of course as we all are here), it shows naivety.

 

[Liwthe]

We don't know because we aren't part of the investigation.
LE isn't in the habit of sharing more information than required with the public.
If they don't believe that sharing the information is going to help find the missing person or solve a crime, they don't.
How would it help for them to come out and say they believe there is foul play?

Does it help the public in the Dulos case? I don’t think so, but they did, and they do in many many cases.

Also I think the info can help. It can help families and loved ones feel that their suspicions are being taken seriously. It can help the community feel like LE is on the case.

I’m asking because people are speculating here on everything, so why not this? It’s certainly intriguing to me.

 

[MassGuy]

Does it help the public in the Dulos case? I don’t think so, but they did, and they do in many many cases.

I’m asking because people are speculating here on everything, so why not this? It’s certainly intriguing to me.

Charges were filed in the Dulos case for tampering with evidence. That’s why we saw the evidence in the probable cause statement.

An ongoing investigation without charges, is not comparable to an actual criminal case.

They had to release that information, as it is a matter of public record.

We are not privy to evidence in an ongoing investigation.

 

[Liwthe]

Charges were filed in the Dulos case for tampering with evidence. That’s why we saw the evidence in the probable cause statement.

An ongoing investigation without charges, is not comparable to an actual criminal case.

They had to release that information, as it is a matter of public record.

We are not privy to evidence in an ongoing investigation.

Yet there are many unsolved cases where foul play is suspected.