CA CA - Barbara Thomas, 69, from Bullhead City AZ, disappeared in Mojave desert, 12 July 2019 #6

[155etta]

It hurts to take a step back when we ARE making progress. But i feel the need to clear this up for everyone...

based on the official missing persons report, the msm interviews from rob, the firsthand account rob relayed, and what police have stated, the only thing we can say for certain is that barbara WAS wearing SOMETHING on July 12th.

Beyond that we have two plus outfit options for the speculators.

Because of their age I have doubts, but otherwise I would REALLY be focusing in on the fact that the official missing person report has her listed as wearing underwear AND that RT claims he was taking pictures of rock formations. Could he have been taking pictures of BT in her underwear? I mean no disrespect but I keep getting hung up on "the underwear" thing and that he was taking pictures. Could they go together? From there I don't know what happened but I wonder if he didn't want to admit that that's what they were doing.

 

[Knox]

DOJ = Department of Justice.

I had missed this description, too, and was shocked when I looked it up earlier today:

Barbara Thomas

Tall black socks, what the heck?!! That's gonna be a really weird tan line!!

Robert's niece (did she post here once or twice?) also said she was wearing a bra and underwear very early on.

 

[al66pine]

How Many Times Did BT Vanish?

....
(VI’s sister’s text msg) and snipped by me for focus:
“they lost sight of each other for 5-10 minutes before she “vanished” and he went back to their rv ....

@firstsleuth Thx for your post w quote from @dbdb11's sister's text msg, which I snipped for focus. Let's say for sake of discussion, RT literally/verbatim
said on the phone to fam member - "We lost sight of each other for 5-10 min before she vanished."

Huh? What's that? If RT & BT had already lost sight of each other for 5-10 minutes, then she had already vanished/was out of site, before she "vanished."

How to understand/explain ^ stmt?
1. Under stress of the situation, RT spoke less precisely/less accurately than we sleuthers would wish for in every MisPers case? IOW maybe he just repeated that she vanished, a slip of the tongue anyone could make. Jmo, <<< possible.

2. During the 5-10 min RT & BT lost sight of each other, they were still within hearing range of each other, and they were speaking to one another? Then BT visually "vanished" afterward. Jmo <<< possible. (What would they be talking about, presumably talking loudly, then more loudly, as she walked further away?)

3. They lost sight of each other. Then something happened, something he does not want to talk about. Afterward he returned to RV. Jmo, <<< possible.

4. Other??? What explanation am I overlooking?

Taken w a few of his other stmts (polygraph, crime scene, prime suspect, etc.), ^ seems a bit unusual.

 

[MsBetsy]

RT is being held to a higher standard than those that post.
RT described it as a bikini.
Then it is being labeled as a "lie", as it appears that LE could believe it to be underwear.
Some appear to be hung up on this description. I personally am not.
I doubt LE is either.

Each one of these pictures are "bikinis". There is no "underwear" in the picture I posted.

For @GordianKnot viewing pleasure.

Black Bikini Set - ShopStyle

Yeah, I think they are interchangeable. Boy shorts can look just like bikini bottoms and they are more comfortable and let your skin breathe.
Better for walking. Imo

 

[10ofRods]

Because of their age I have doubts, but otherwise I would REALLY be focusing in on the fact that the official missing person report has her listed as wearing underwear AND that RT claims he was taking pictures of rock formations. Could he have been taking pictures of BT in her underwear? I mean no disrespect but I keep getting hung up on "the underwear" thing and that he was taking pictures. Could they go together? From there I don't know what happened but I wonder if he didn't want to admit that that's what they were doing.

Both outfits (bikini or underwear/bra) are "skimpy" and therefore similar. RT says he was taking photographs. Dbdb (VI) has stated emphatically that there are pictures of Barbara on the hike.

Ergo, RT was taking pictures of Barb in a bikini (or in bra and underwear) on a hike. During which, he says they became separated.

The two things (pictures of Barb and Barb in bikini) definitely go together when I picture what happened and try to wrap my mind around it.

 

[crhedBngr]

Both outfits (bikini or underwear/bra) are "skimpy" and therefore similar. RT says he was taking photographs. Dbdb (VI) has stated emphatically that there are pictures of Barbara on the hike.

Ergo, RT was taking pictures of Barb in a bikini (or in bra and underwear) on a hike. During which, he says they became separated.

The two things (pictures of Barb and Barb in bikini) definitely go together when I picture what happened and try to wrap my mind around it.

What's confusing is I've seen swimsuits designed to look like underwear! The link below is from 2018.

https://www.shefinds.com/collections/white-bathing-suits-underwear-trend/

I can see why there is confusion about Barbara's top.

ETA: Is @dbdb11 our only Verified Insider in this case? I thought I saw another Verified Insider post upstream.

 

[PaulaDC]

Tall black socks, what the heck?!! That's gonna be a really weird tan line!!

Robert's niece (did she post here once or twice?) also said she was wearing a bra and underwear very early on.

Compression socks perhaps.

 

[PommyMommy]

What's confusing is I've seen swimsuits designed to look like underwear! The link below is from 2018.

https://www.shefinds.com/collections/white-bathing-suits-underwear-trend/

I can see why there is confusion about Barbara's top.

ETA: Is @dbdb11 our only Verified Insider in this case? I thought I saw another Verified Insider post upstream.

dbdb11 is our only VI.

 

[wary]

What's confusing is I've seen swimsuits designed to look like underwear! The link below is from 2018.

https://www.shefinds.com/collections/white-bathing-suits-underwear-trend/

I can see why there is confusion about Barbara's top.

ETA: Is @dbdb11 our only Verified Insider in this case? I thought I saw another Verified Insider post upstream.

You might have seen someone who’s verified for expertise, or verified for another case. For example, 10ofRods posts a lot on this case, and is a Verified Anthropologist—no inside info on BT.

 

[crhedBngr]

Thanks, @PommyMommy and @wary!

 

[10ofRods]

Yep, definitely no inside info. Just me standing here baffled most of the time.

 

[LAhiker]

How Many Times Did BT Vanish?


@firstsleuth Thx for your post w quote from @dbdb11's sister's text msg, which I snipped for focus. Let's say for sake of discussion, RT literally/verbatim
said on the phone to fam member - "We lost sight of each other for 5-10 min before she vanished."

Huh? What's that? If RT & BT had already lost sight of each other for 5-10 minutes, then she had already vanished/was out of site, before she "vanished."

How to understand/explain ^ stmt?
1. Under stress of the situation, RT spoke less precisely/less accurately than we sleuthers would wish for in every MisPers case? IOW maybe he just repeated that she vanished, a slip of the tongue anyone could make. Jmo, <<< possible.

2. During the 5-10 min RT & BT lost sight of each other, they were still within hearing range of each other, and they were speaking to one another? Then BT visually "vanished" afterward. Jmo <<< possible. (What would they be talking about, presumably talking loudly, then more loudly, as she walked further away?)

3. They lost sight of each other. Then something happened, something he does not want to talk about. Afterward he returned to RV. Jmo, <<< possible.

4. Other??? What explanation am I overlooking?

Taken w a few of his other stmts (polygraph, crime scene, prime suspect, etc.), ^ seems a bit unusual.

Excellent observation. An alternate explanation which takes RT at his word is implied in the title of your post and in your first possibility. It could be that RT saw BT ahead of him, then she rounded a bend or went behind something, and then 5-10 minutes afterwards, when he expected to see her because she should've been on the path, she wasn't there. But I agree that it's an odd way to put it. JMO

 

[distracted]

Perhaps there are. Perhaps they didn't. Perhaps they do.

My point is that it's extremely unusual for the bikini/hat/sunglasses photo to NOT be labeled as the last known photo (or one of the last known photos) if indeed, that is what it is.

It is also extremely unusual if there are photos which place Barbara there (and, by "there," I mean in the area RT described to LE) that they have not been released as such. Shouldn't matter whether she is in the distance or not.

I'm not saying the photos don't exist. I'm saying that based on every other case I've followed, I don't think I've seen this NOT happen if there is video footage or photos available. That's it, that's all. And, MOO.

Absolutely. And I might add, the photo would be labeled as the last known photo and would also be clear about whether this is exactly what she was wearing or whether it is similar to what she's wearing in the photo when she went missing.

This distinction is missing in all of the reports I've read.

 

[distracted]

It hurts to take a step back when we ARE making progress. But i feel the need to clear this up for everyone...

based on the official missing persons report, the msm interviews from rob, the firsthand account rob relayed, and what police have stated, the only thing we can say for certain is that barbara WAS wearing SOMETHING on July 12th.

Beyond that we have two plus outfit options for the speculators.

I'm so sorry. I can only imagine. That said, it's not necessarily a negative. This is what we do. We often go back to the beginning to see if we missed something. Or, in light of what we have learned, whether there is something we missed or something that takes on new relevance.

Inconsistencies lead us in different directions. And, hopefully, one of those directions will lead us to Barbara.

 

[slowpoke]

Interesting... to narrow it down this is the link to the division that handles missing persons within the DOJ in CA. I'm not sure I've seen them referenced in any missing cases I have followed in CA? Anyone who can shed light on this would be appreciated? MOO
California Missing Persons

I can’t shed light on it, but I did find this booklet:

POST (Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training) Missing Persons Investigations - Guidelines & Curriculum
https://post.ca.gov/portals/0/post_docs/publications/missing.pdf

And a couple of quotes from it:

“By January 1, 2012, law enforcement agencies shall utilize, at a minimum, the department’s missing person reporting form for the initial contact with the parent or family member reporting a missing person.”

And

“Missing person reports must be entered into the Department of Justice’s Missing Persons System (MPS) within two (2) hours.”

So, based on that info, I infer that the DOJ info must have been made based upon that first, initial contact with RT.
Barbara Thomas

(And “that’s all I have to say about that.” (Forrest Gump) )

 

[al66pine]

Photo of MisPer, Same Day or How Recent?
Hesitating to post on ^ topic because I think this horse is already on the way to the glue factory, but.....

Yes, in many cases these days, LE releases same-day photo of MisPer wearing same outfit/clothing as when they went missing. Media releases typically specify w pic 'MisPer was last seen in this outfit on [day]' or describe the clothing. Alternatively 'MisPer at her birthday party in February' or 'MisPer at her 2016 retirement party ' and 'She was last seen wearing [blank].' The point - w pic, LE/PIO usu gives date or year. IIRC, SBCSO released pic of BT, w no date or year, which seems uncommon.

Seems some think it's hinky that RT did not/could not provide LE a pic of BT from earlier that day in same outfit as lost (if that is accurate), but imo, not unusual or suspicious per se. Maybe he does not take 'ppl pix' maybe just landscape pix. Can anyone tell if RT took many or all fam pix that @dbdb11 shared w us? Thx in adv.

 

[LAhiker]

@LAhiker Hi again. ^bbm in red and ^ sbm
1. You asked about (maybe) driving before RT was able to make MisPers call, indicating a cell service prob. I wondered about cell service being dodgy/lame/non-existent there. Didn't a couple posters go to that site, comment about highway, trail, rocks, and cell service? What did they say? What post #s?
Would there be much variation from one cell provider to another? IOW if our sleuthers w XYZ cell service had great reception, could RT w ABC cell service have had lousy or no reception?

Did some others theorize about RT calling 911, then moving truck & 5er, and returning before LE arrived. As if.... he was doing something suspicious or unusual in the meantime???And if RT needed to explain why he moved vehicles (if he did), he could say - crummy cell service - even it his cell got service there.

2. and 3. later?

@PommyMommy notes that @sroad found that cell service was poor in the area.

@sroad said:

Folks in this thread (haven't been able to read all of it) are asking about cell service. My phone did not work west of Kelbaker road, and barely worked a little ways east of the turnout.

CA - CA - Barbara Thomas, 69, from Bullhead City AZ, disappeared in Mojave desert, 12 July 2019 #6

@10ofRods said "there's cell service at Kelbaker."
CA - CA - Barbara Thomas, 69, from Bullhead City AZ, disappeared in Mojave desert, 12 July 2019 #6

The site Campendium has reviews for campgrounds in the area, including cell phone service. This one seems to be the closest:
Hidden Hill Road Reviews - Campendium

Bottom line, there seems to be some cell service there, but it's not very good. So RT might or might not have had cell service there, and might've had to drive to call 911. I think some may have expressed suspicions if he did move the truck/RV. But as far as I know, LE has not said they thought the vehicles were moved. Confirming the time-frame -- when RT/BT did their hike and when he called 911 -- might help clarify this.

My guess at this point is that RT stayed at Kelbaker/Hidden Hill and that the initial LE report "20 miles north of the I-40, east of Kelbaker" came from poor localization of his cell phone by the 911 system. But that's just a guess, and I don't know whether cell localization can be that incorrect.

JMO

 

[Kapua]

I live in the Monterey Bay Area ..All my life .. A bathing suit top and shorts are the normal attire in town and the rest is for the actual beach.. I am positive BT had class and that is evident in Every photo we have seen..
jmho

Me too! Neighbor!

 

[Micheline]

-Snipped for very important bolded content-

Here again is @dbdb11's post which contains the message with his sister's recollection of the call:
CA - CA - Barbara Thomas, 69, Bullhead City, hiking wearing bikini in Mojave desert, 12 July 2019

Here is what she said, BBM:

idk not sure but he continued searching for her on his own. by around noon time it was getting terribly hot so he started getting worried and called 911. police arrived like 2 hours later and searched for her.

I think this ends all the speculation of Barbara going missing at noon, and Robert not calling 911 until 3.36.

The sister of our VI clearly says here Robert calling at noon, police arriving, two hours later: at 2.00.
Two hours between his call and the police arriving.

If we just take over the part of Robert getting worried at noon, and add to that that he called 911 at 3.36 it is mixing up two versions.

It would be the same as taking over the part Robert calling police at noon, and then add to that Barbara went missing at 2.30, claiming how could he report her missing hours before she was actually missing etc.

In Robert's version to his niece, or in the recollection of his niece, he called 911 at noon, and police arrived at 2.00.
So he did not let 2 or 3 hours go by before calling 911. IMO

 

[HongKongPhooey]

-Snipped for very important bolded content-



I think this ends all the speculation of Barbara going missing at noon, and Robert not calling 911 until 3.36.

The sister of our VI clearly says here Robert calling at noon, police arriving, two hours later: at 2.00.
Two hours between his call and the police arriving.

If we just take over the part of Robert getting worried at noon, and add to that that he called 911 at 3.36 it is mixing up two versions.

It would be the same as taking over the part Robert calling police at noon, and then add to that Barbara went missing at 2.30, claiming how could he report her missing hours before she was actually missing etc.

In Robert's version to his niece, or in the recollection of his niece, he called 911 at noon, and police arrived at 2.00.
So he did not let 2 or 3 hours go by before calling 911. IMO

Apologies for asking as no doubt this was clarified days ago. But what facts do we have verified from LE re timings of the calls?

Those are the only details I'm interested in.

Because any other info told to our VI by RT or another relative is just that - info told, second hand and not proven.

I think it's important to be crystal clear to avoid creating perceived fact out of hearsay?

JMO