- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 5,241
- Reaction score
- 33,190
I think it depends on who you talk to.Snipped by me:
I did not think it was stated that Barbara was “not allowed” to have a cell phone, just that she didn’t have one. Am I mistaken?
I think it depends on who you talk to.Snipped by me:
I did not think it was stated that Barbara was “not allowed” to have a cell phone, just that she didn’t have one. Am I mistaken?
or perhaps that's the legal advice he received? Either way, IMO it explains why RT has not done further interviews.BBM
Looks like it.
Trying to "out think" or "outwit" LE ...
They said this when they stopped the searches back at the end of July Daily searches suspended for bikini-clad woman who vanished in Mojave Desert.Family suspects foul play in disappearance of Bullhead City woman
Bachman said more searches would be held as new information develops.
___________________
I don't know how I missed that last sentence during the first read-through of the article.
I note that LE is saying more searches will occur as "new information develops" vs. when temperatures cool/conditions are more conducive to searches.
That is a very instructive statement.
JMO.
apologies for the delay @al66pine , I'm in the UK<modsnip>
Please, will someone provide exact verbatim quote from LE saying they do "not suspect foul play" and a link? Or vid w those words from LE's mouth. Thanks in adv.
Here's an LE stmt, w exact quote & link, which is not the same as ^.
"...'We don't think she was abducted.... There's no evidence to suggest she was abducted,' spokeswoman Jodi Miller....' *
Maybe some ppl reading this ^ conclude that LE does not suspect foul play?
------------------------------------------------------------------
* From @RANCH, post 241. Thank you, Ranch.
"Here is the quote from the Daily Mail article.
'We don't think she was abducted. It's a very remote area. There's no evidence to suggest she was abducted,' spokeswoman Jodi Miller told DailyMail.com.
California police say missing hiker who vanished 'in her bikini' was NOT abducted | Daily Mail Online " bbm
I'm wondering whether she really was abducted, that is one reason that everything would be quiet. HOWEVER, I am sure that LE would share that fact with family (including our VI and Barbara's son), and they would be quiet too?Why the LE secrecy? I agree that it could be that the pictures don’t show what RT describes. Same with the 911 call. LE wouldn’t make those things public if they are investigating someone. Releasing it to the public wouldn’t help find Barb and could jeopardize their investigation.
JMO
Yeah, I don't think LE ever said anything at all about the pictures. All they said in regard to her being there was that the search was conducted based on the last location where Robert saw her. They spent a lot of time and resources looking for her there so they must have believed him.And I agree that they were talking about searching. I'm not disputing that.
But if they had photos that they were confident placed her where RT said they were, why not publicly acknowledge that? It is very pertinent to the scope of the search - and valuable for searchers to see an image of what she actually looked like that day.
The fact that they haven't said a single public word (if I am not mistaken) about having a photo of BT taken that day in that area really makes me really wonder what they found on them or from them.
Well, I don't know how to link it, but in a video posted in the media thread from July 19th, the reporter says,<modsnip>
Please, will someone provide exact verbatim quote from LE saying they do "not suspect foul play" and a link? Or vid w those words from LE's mouth. Thanks in adv.
Here's an LE stmt, w exact quote & link, which is not the same as ^.
"...'We don't think she was abducted.... There's no evidence to suggest she was abducted,' spokeswoman Jodi Miller....' *
Maybe some ppl reading this ^ conclude that LE does not suspect foul play?
------------------------------------------------------------------
* From @RANCH, post 241. Thank you, Ranch.
"Here is the quote from the Daily Mail article.
'We don't think she was abducted. It's a very remote area. There's no evidence to suggest she was abducted,' spokeswoman Jodi Miller told DailyMail.com.
California police say missing hiker who vanished 'in her bikini' was NOT abducted | Daily Mail Online " bbm
No, that's correct.Snipped by me:
I did not think it was stated that Barbara was “not allowed” to have a cell phone, just that she didn’t have one. Am I mistaken?
Our VI did not say that Barbara was not allowed to have a cell phone. He said that she didn't much like technology, but that she used RT's phone to call them, with the phone on speaker phone. The family thought nothing of this, apparently and neither did many Websleuthers, who also make family calls on speaker phone.
So the idea that "she was not allowed to have a cell phone" comes entirely, I believe, from forum participants, not the VI, not RT, not MSM. If Matt said this in his interview, I missed it. Matt specifically says they talked on the phone often. I also missed the part where the VI said Barbara had always wanted one.
IOW, she didn't have one, she shared RT's, no one ever said anything about "allowing" Barbara to have a cell phone.
The Az Central article is great. I'll certainly let Chelsea Curtis know I'm grateful for the coverage.
Yes, I would think they looked closely at the photographs even before the case was passed along to the SID.Family suspects foul play in disappearance of Bullhead City woman
"The agency's Specialized Investigations Division has assumed the investigation into Thomas' disappearance, according to Bachman. The department's website states that the Specialized Investigations Division is composed of homicide detail, crimes against children and technology crimes."
homicide and technology crimes...
perhaps forensic analysis of the photographs taken?
Yeah, I don't think LE ever said anything at all about the pictures. All they said in regard to her being there was that the search was conducted based on the last location where Robert saw her. They spent a lot of time and resources looking for her there so they must have believed him.
Maybe if a reporter had specifically asked about the pictures they would have made a comment about the pictures, but the media never showed much of an interest in the case.
We still don't know if the picture on the missing persons poster is from that day or not, but maybe they did show the searchers another picture of her and we just don't know. But I think they knew what to look for, and even without a picture if they found anything at all it would have helped. Even if they found a piece of clothing that did not match the description of what she was wearing they would have looked into it, I would think.
At first the VI just assumed they had pictures of her there, and later on confirmed that they said they did have pictures of her at around 2:00 pm. That would make sense if he called 911 at around 3:00.
Imo
Oh, ok, I thought I remembered 2:00 pm for some reason. I remember thinking that did not match with the time Robert told his family that he decided to call after looking for her. (around noon)I think you're right that LE has never said anything publicly about the pictures. I don't know whether any reporters have asked about them.
I agree that it's likely that SAR would've followed up on any scraps of clothing or other clues they might've found in the search area, whether or not they fit RT's description of what BT was wearing.
I could be wrong, but I don't think the VI said that LE said that the photos were taken around 2pm. I think he said that LE told him that the photos confirmed that RT/BT were where and when RT said they were. But we don't know exactly where & when that was. 2pm may be an estimate arrived at by working backwards from the 3:26 911 call and RT's statement that he searched for about an hour before calling 911.
JMO
@MsBetsyWell, I don't know how to link it, but in a video posted in the media thread from July 19th, the reporter says,
"Investigators say the questions they asked Robert are standard for missing persons investigations, stressing they do not suspect foul play in this case."
It's on the first page, post number 6.
It was RT who was helping Barbara sell her house when they met.
Barbara's family are the ones who said she wasn't allowed to have a phone while at home after marrying RT.
Her son and nephew (?) let her use a burner phone while she was in HongKong visiting her brother and family.
She apparently wasn't able to use a phone when with RT.
No one knows why.
Although one could guess.
This was discussed in previous threads and seemed to 'stand out' to some.
A sort of red flag ?
Imo.