CA CA - Barbara Thomas, 69, from Bullhead City AZ, disappeared in Mojave desert, 12 July 2019 #9

[MsBetsy]

CA - CA - Barbara Thomas, 69, from Bullhead City AZ, disappeared in Mojave desert, 12 July 2019 #9
“apologies for the confusion, I was trying to explain what I thought a previous poster meant. Lunch, is purely speculation.”

Yes, I would imagine they must have eaten at some point. It's never a good idea to drink beer on an empty stomach. Imo

 

[GordianKnot]

Ha! So I think we can reasonably conclude that he does in fact know how to operate a phone.

Yes, and apparently not only does he know how to operate a phone, he also had access to one, if he was able to get that flight cancelled successfully.

 

[MsBetsy]

I don’t think this came from the VI, I think it came from a different platform.

This is the only platform I've ever read. I'm pretty sure we discussed RT giving LE the wrong number at first.
I'll have to do a search of the posts, because people keep saying the information was on a different platform and I'm not sure I even know what platform is. I thought it was like an operating system. It sounds like it is being referred to as a website.

What do I know?

I've never been a technical person. I never even had the internet until last year!

 

[K9Enzo]

RT might be a tool but that doesn’t make him a murderer.

 

[CSIDreamer]

Yes, and apparently not only does he know how to operate a phone, he also had access to one, if he was able to get that flight cancelled successfully.

And make a call to Hong Kong.

 

[MsBetsy]

And make a call to Hong Kong.

Yes, I think the last time they spoke RT said he was having a hard time getting through and it was better that he call him. Then every time the VI tried to call he was unavailable or something. Or maybe didn't return the calls, I forget which.
At any rate I got the impression he felt RT was avoiding him. Imo

 

[CSIDreamer]

One thing that occurs to me reading replies both for and against RT notifying Barbara's family she had gone missing.

He managed to cancel her flight, he finally managed to place a phone call to her brother that's on another continent. But the person in the same country was never personally notified. Well, until the police called him 6 days later. In my opinion, there's such a thing as human decency. In my opinion, the bar was set real low, like ground level.

JMO

 

[Kapua]

Yes, I would imagine they must have eaten at some point. It's never a good idea to drink beer on an empty stomach. Imo

We don't know for a fact that she was drinking beer.

 

[NervousNellie]

I understand what you're saying about messed up family systems.

I think it's a distinction without a difference, though.

Dictionary definitions of dysfunctional include: "behaving or acting outside social norms" and
"not behaving or acting normally," i.e., dysfunctional is synonymous with abnormal.

Dysfunctional behavior is abnormal behavior.

That's what puts the "dys" in "dysfunction.

JMO.

Sure, fair enough. But my point is that if dysfunction is already present in a relationship, the behavior is not abnormal for that relationship.

So Robert’s behavior would be abnormal to you, but not abnormal for his usual behavior with Matthew. JMO

Edited to correct Barbara’s son’s name.

 

[Stripehaven]

If what I recall is accurate, 6 days later, LE was the one to notify her son. Who in the family circle knew but the son still didn’t? Was there a collective decision that said it’s a good idea for LE to tell him vs. family? I don’t know...

Personally, I would make all those calls pronto just In case my kidnapped wife had been in touch with anyone. I suppose his thinking might have been that if she had done so, he would have been notified but still - I would leave no stone unturned on my end. Just in case.

 

[MsBetsy]

Respectfully (genuinely!!), his behavior could merely be dysfunctional, rather than “not normative,” “atypical,” or “abnormal.” Some families are just plain dysfunctional. Our VI has said Barbara’s son gave her a lot of trouble, or problems, or something (don’t remember the exact wording). The fact is, Barbara may have forgiven her son for his past transgressions (whatever they were), but Robert might not have. Robert might not have felt MS deserved to hear from him.

If Robert didn’t have a relationship with Barbara’s son (or had an estranged relationship with him - Michael has made it clear he doesn’t like or approve of Robert), Robert genuinely may not have cared one iota if MS ever found out. There are a lot of f’d up families and extended families out there. Heck, even Barbara’s brothers are estranged from one another. Has her missing status resolved that estrangement? Why should we expect it to resolve this other estrangement between Robert and Michael - that admittedly is assumed on my part..

I have a sister that only speaks to our 85 y/o father; none of my siblings has her phone number or has spoken to her in more than ten years (the rest of us communicate regularly). When the time comes, I know I will not be the one to try to find her to let her know when our dad passes. Harsh? Atypical? Not normative? Or just plain dysfunctional? Maybe if you haven’t lived it, you can’t understand it. I say my husband’s family is so normal they are abnormal, but that is based on my familial experiences. I know we are not supposed to share much personal information but this seems relevant experience so I hope it is not outside TOS.

Yes, in fact when the VI said Barbara's son had given her a lot of trouble I thought he also said he wasn't sure if they were in touch with one another. I thought he did not find out they had been communicating until he himself spoke to the son. (I thought his name was Mathew, though.)

But I don't think it's uncommon for family members to become estranged for several years and then re-connect.
But I did get the impression that RT doesn't think too highly of him. Maybe it's because of all the trouble he gave her in the past. Or maybe her son never liked RT from the start. That's not uncommon either.

I can definitely see someone in RT's position being stubborn and not wanting to call.

After all, the whole concept of what is "normal" is over-rated, in my opinion. Almost every family has some dysfunction, so isn't that normal?
Maybe dysfunctional is the new "norm." It certainly seems that way from reading all these cases.

Well, I guess there is dysfunctional, and then there's just plain crazy.

IMO

 

[MsBetsy]

We don't know for a fact that she was drinking beer.

True, but it was said that she was, so I imagine whenever she or he had any alcohol, they probably did not drink on an empty stomach. She commonly drank beer while hiking and camping, so I have no reason to think she wasn't.
So I will change that to, if Barbara was indeed drinking a beer, she may have eaten something first. Some people get an upset stomach when they don't eat first.

 

[MassGuy]

One thing that occurs to me reading replies both for and against RT notifying Barbara's family she had gone missing.

He managed to cancel her flight, he finally managed to place a phone call to her brother that's on another continent. But the person in the same country was never personally notified. Well, until the police called him 6 days later. In my opinion, there's such a thing as human decency. In my opinion, the bar was set real low, like ground level.

JMO

Yeah. In order to make this sound reasonable, one has to either make excuses for this guy, or minimize this behavior.

If you have to stretch in order to make a justification, you’re doing it wrong IMO.

Barb was “kidnapped” by some opportunistic and spectacularly lucky abductor in the middle of nowhere, during the brief period of time she was separated from her husband.

Of course she was a perfect target, because she was dressed in a bikini and carrying a beer.

Like a moth to a flame.

This is a big deal, and the standard play is to help law enforcement get the word out, and let her family know that she is in the clutches of a madman.

God knows where this guy could have taken her, or what his intentions were...

 

[PommyMommy]

Sure, fair enough. But my point is that if dysfunction is already present in a relationship, the behavior is not abnormal for that relationship.

So Robert’s behavior would be abnormal to you, but not abnormal for his usual behavior with Michael. JMO

You mean Matt, right? MOO

 

[MsBetsy]

Yeah. In order to make this sound reasonable, one has to either make excuses for this guy, or minimize this behavior.

If you have to stretch in order to make a justification, you’re doing it wrong IMO.

Barb was “kidnapped” by some opportunistic and spectacularly lucky abductor in the middle of nowhere, during the brief period of time she was separated from her husband.

Of course she was a perfect target, because she was dressed in a bikini and carrying a beer.

Like a moth to a flame.

This is a big deal, and the standard play is to help law enforcement get the word out, and let her family know that she is in the clutches of a madman.

God knows where this guy could have taken her, or what his intentions were...

Well, it does sound unbelievable, but I'm not sure Barbara's son's theory of what happened to her is any more credible than his.

They may both be on the wrong track. Imo

 

[GordianKnot]

Sure, fair enough. But my point is that if dysfunction is already present in a relationship, the behavior is not abnormal for that relationship.

So Robert’s behavior would be abnormal to you, but not abnormal for his usual behavior with Michael. JMO

These were and are extreme circumstances surrounding BT's disappearance.
Most people will adapt their behavior in the face of an immediate crisis.
Again, this is what makes it "normative" behavior.
Most people can flex from their usual patterns when the situation calls for it.

Example: I don't normally call my sibling during working hours, period.
If one of my parents went missing in the desert, I would call my sibling immediately.
In other words, I would break with my usual behavior when confronted with unusual circumstances.
That would be a "normal" response to an "abnormal" situation.

That RT apparently lacked the willingness to contact BT's son regardless of such critical circumstances is extremely concerning to me, for a host of reasons.

And I can't stress the extremely part of concerning enough here.

JMO.

 

[NervousNellie]

Yes, in fact when the VI said Barbara's son had given her a lot of trouble I thought he also said he wasn't sure if they were in touch with one another. I thought he did not find out they had been communicating until he himself spoke to the son. (I thought his name was Mathew, though.)

But I don't think it's uncommon for family members to become estranged for several years and then re-connect.
But I did get the impression that RT doesn't think too highly of him. Maybe it's because of all the trouble he gave her in the past. Or maybe her son never liked RT from the start. That's not uncommon either.

I can definitely see someone in RT's position being stubborn and not wanting to call.

After all, the whole concept of what is "normal" is over-rated, in my opinion. Almost every family has some dysfunction, so isn't that normal?
Maybe dysfunctional is the new "norm." It certainly seems that way from reading all these cases.

Well, I guess there is dysfunctional, and then there's just plain crazy.

IMO

You are right - Barbara’s son is Matthew, not Michael. Hopefully I can edit my post. I should have stuck with initials but I have never liked that - seems dehumanizing, and I like to think of these people as names rather than initials. But that’s just my dysfunction. JMO.

There is no “normal,” IMO. Polite, “decent,” what have you. Still all opinions. Shrug.

In full disclosure, I’m on the fence here, but beating up on Robert about not calling Matthew is just that, IMO - beating up on Robert. It’s just family dynamics, IMO. Sure, I think Robert’s a d-bag for not calling Barbara’s son, if they (B and M) had been in regular communication. Robert was avoiding something he didn’t want to do. Understandably, IMO, if they had a difficult relationship (if they had a relationship at all!). Matthew is on record as saying Robert staged this. So, yeah, there is def some bad blood there.

 

[NervousNellie]

You mean Matt, right? MOO

Yes, Matthew, not Michael. Someone else pointed that out but I could only edit one post.

 

[NervousNellie]

These were and are extreme circumstances surrounding BT's disappearance.
Most people will adapt their behavior in the face of an immediate crisis.
Again, this is what makes it "normative" behavior.
Most people can flex from their usual patterns when the situation calls for it.

Example: I don't normally call my sibling during working hours, period.
If one of my parents went missing in the desert, I would call my sibling immediately.
In other words, I would break with my usual behavior when confronted with unusual circumstances.
That would be a "normal" response to an "abnormal" situation.

That RT apparently lacked the willingness to contact BT's son regardless of such critical circumstances is extremely concerning to me, for a host of reasons.

And I can't stress the extremely part of concerning enough here.

JMO.

But not calling someone during work hours out of respect is a very different scenario from never calling someone because you have an estranged relationship. Apples and oranges, IMO. Should I ask for your number so you can call my sister when our dad dies? Because I am not going to do it. Extreme circumstances or not. Estranged is estranged. JMO

Edited to add - re the bolded-by-me bit of your post - “can” is not the same as “want to.” I’m not denying it was a douchy thing to do. But that will be me one day, so I understand it. Not excusing it, just saying I understand it.

 

[rosesfromangels]

These were and are extreme circumstances surrounding BT's disappearance.
Most people will adapt their behavior in the face of an immediate crisis.
Again, this is what makes it "normative" behavior.
Most people can flex from their usual patterns when the situation calls for it.

Example: I don't normally call my sibling during working hours, period.
If one of my parents went missing in the desert, I would call my sibling immediately.
In other words, I would break with my usual behavior when confronted with unusual circumstances.
That would be a "normal" response to an "abnormal" situation.

That RT apparently lacked the willingness to contact BT's son regardless of such critical circumstances is extremely concerning to me, for a host of reasons.

And I can't stress the extremely part of concerning enough here.

JMO.

People do weird things during times of extreme stress, or don’t do things they should. Some people freeze or shut down. It’s hard to judge someone’s actions we don’t know. He could have been in shock, and just not thinking or acting right.
We don’t know.

Amateur opinion and speculation