CA CA - Bob Harrod, 81, Orange County, 27 July 2009 - #11

[zwiebel]

The only problem is see with these data bases is that sometimes input mistakes are made. I recall a case where the wrong missing date was put into the computer off a missing persons report. A mother tried to 3 or 4 years to get her daughter identified after she went missing. Turned out they had a Jane Doe all this time that turned out to be her daughter, only the information never got kicked out of the computer system because of the wrong date of when she was reported missing.

It's mikkismom's GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) thing again, isn't it? I think human error is probably the hardest thing to eliminate and something that can cause even the best system to go wrong. Thankfully, what does seem to have a good success rate against human errors are lots of human eyes.

An entire new world of publicity and public access has opened up for the missing, thanks to the www. Mistakes and discrepancies can be spotted very quickly, and discussed. Distraught families can go online and appeal for help and hundreds or thousands respond.

It's not so good for those trying to cover up a crime of course, but I don't care about them.

For some families of the missing I guess the attention some cases get can be overwhelming and they struggle to cope; they always seem to carry on regardless though, because the alternative - of maybe never finding their loved one - is simply not an option for them.

 

[zwiebel]

I agree. It is a cheek swab. *shrug*

Surely someone has come forward to do this for Bob, at least? It is such a small thing. Wouldn't it be something you would do, even for a stranger?

 

[believe09]

The only problem is see with these data bases is that sometimes input mistakes are made. I recall a case where the wrong missing date was put into the computer off a missing persons report. A mother tried to 3 or 4 years to get her daughter identified after she went missing. Turned out they had a Jane Doe all this time that turned out to be her daughter, only the information never got kicked out of the computer system because of the wrong date of when she was reported missing.

Thats where we can help too, Seajay, right? We dont necessarily exclude matches based on last seen, height or weight etc. I have seen wrong eye color, for sure, and wrong last seen date. In Bob's case, for example, we probably wouldnt use his clothing as an indicator. And when it comes to a John/Jane Doe, estimated height, weight and sometimes age can't really be used to rule out. Sometimes it has to be logic that includes or excludes a suggested comparison. Like the San Bernadino jawbone that has interested us.

 

[believe09]

Someone recently reminded me of this post-I dont know if the thread on the WWW exists anymore, but it was recorded with a screen grab I am sure:

page 19
by Sally Sue » Sun Sep 26, 2010 1:08 pm
He did see an eye doctor in May, probably for the first time in many years. He did get new rimless glasses, but did not have bi-focals put in them. So if he went anywhere where he needed to read he would take another pair with his bi-focals in them.

Sally Sue had self identified as one of Bob's daughters.

If we accept this post to be true, two pair of Bob's glasses should be missing...one a pair of bifocals. So is the belief of the family that Bob had 6 pair of glasses? Because, IIRC, 4 were found in the home...so if two were missing, than he must have had 6.

That seems like an extensive collection for a man who was so careful with his money. JMVHO.

 

[zwiebel]

Someone recently reminded me of this post-I dont know if the thread on the WWW exists anymore, but it was recorded with a screen grab I am sure:



Sally Sue had self identified as one of Bob's daughters.

If we accept this post to be true, two pair of Bob's glasses should be missing...one a pair of bifocals. So is the belief of the family that Bob had 6 pair of glasses? Because, IIRC, 4 were found in the home...so if two were missing, than he must have had 6.

That seems like an extensive collection for a man who was so careful with his money. JMVHO.

Yes, it does. I know eyes can change as we get older, but If Bob hadn't even been visiting his optician on a regular basis, there wouldn't have been any need for him to amass such a collection of glasses. I can't imagine he would have been buying so many pairs for fashion or any similar purposes.

So much about items in Bob's house has been remembered in this case, but none of it seems to apply to the important details that might help locate or identify him.

 

[believe09]

Yes, it does. I know eyes can change as we get older, but If Bob hadn't even been visiting his optician on a regular basis, there wouldn't have been any need for him to amass such a collection of glasses. I can't imagine he would have been buying so many pairs for fashion or any similar purposes.

So much about items in Bob's house has been remembered in this case, but none of it seems to apply to the important details that might help locate or identify him.

:waitasec: I guess I see the value in ruling in or out the identifiers that have been provided.

Ideally, based upon all of the culled information from the posts of those who have indicated they know him best, he may be wearing a hat, he may be wearing a certain outfit, but for sure he should have two pair of glasses with him. His rimless ones and his bifocals. At least that is a piece of information that can be stated definitively.

Or not.

 

[believe09]

So anyone on the hunt for Bob should be looking for his wallet, his keys and two pairs of glasses. He never left the house without them, so they should be with him, right?

The thing is, LE already knows if Bob's new glasses from May 2009 were in the house. That is easy to verify, especially if the prescription changed when he had his new ones made. It is also very likely that they know whether the bifocals he always had with him were in the house as well. If they know that Bob always carried his bifocals too, that is.

 

[believe09]

This is from the clothing/accessories portion of Bob's NAMUS profile, which was created IIRC by one of his daughters:

Clothing:
White shorts, white knee socks, outer shirt unknown, always wore a v-neck undershirt, white belt, white hat
Footwear:
Reebok tennis shoes (white)
Jewelry:
Gold wedding band on left hand and possibly (not sure) was wearing his masonic ring on his right hand.
Possible Masonic ring with a red stone behind the Masonic symbol
Eyewear:
Yes - had to wear glasses to get around, might be without glasses, but we are not sure how many pair he had.
Accessories:
None that I am aware of

I mean someone knew that he had on white knee socks and white shorts, but no one knew what Bob's shirt looked like. He had a white belt on (an accessory) and a white hat (also an accessory.)

I dont know why he would be wearing his hat in the house, but there you have it. Then again, I dont know why someone would be able to recall in detail about the shorts, knee socks, sneakers and belt but have no idea about the shirt. I am unclear as to why Bob would have been without his glasses unless at the time of the creation of the NAMUS profile, all the glasses had been found in the house.

I believe the same daughter who created the NAMUS profile also posted about the new glasses and the bifocals. Perhaps it is time for an update of the NAMUS profile.

The keys, wallet and anything else like a checkbook should be listed as well. JMO.

 

[believe09]

One additional suggestion for the NAMUS profile-it might be prudent to add a picture of Bob in his new glasses. He was married after he purchased his glasses. There was media. Surely there are some pictures of him to add since it would perhaps be more accurate than the one posted from March 2008 and the ones that look like holiday ones from perhaps later that year? They arent captioned, but I might have missed it. The March photo is captioned.


ETA: Although the profile was created in August of 2009, there is no mention of a Black SUV. Ideally that information would appear in the Transportation Method, but setting up a profile is stressful and confusing if you are family. But I am curious as to why the black SUV doesnt appear anywhere in the profile. Does anyone know if the profile has been updated to remove it?

I suppose it is possible by then that the family was aware that the BL and her family had been ruled out.

 

[zwiebel]

These are all good, well thought-out questions, believe09. I just wish that those in the best position to answer them, would think about doing so. I suppose, until they do, it's best for people here to just keep on asking questions and keep Bob's profile out there. He doesn't deserve to vanish as though he had never existed.

Not that I'm suggesting that idea had ever crossed your mind; in fact, something seems to be inspiring you more and more, as time goes by.

 

[zwiebel]

BBM

One additional suggestion for the NAMUS profile-it might be prudent to add a picture of Bob in his new glasses. He was married after he purchased his glasses. There was media. Surely there are some pictures of him to add since it would perhaps be more accurate than the one posted from March 2008 and the ones that look like holiday ones from perhaps later that year? They arent captioned, but I might have missed it. The March photo is captioned.


ETA: Although the profile was created in August of 2009, there is no mention of a Black SUV.Ideally that information would appear in the Transportation Method, but setting up a profile is stressful and confusing if you are family. But I am curious as to why the black SUV doesnt appear anywhere in the profile. Does anyone know if the profile has been updated to remove it?

I suppose it is possible by then that the family was aware that the BL and her family had been ruled out.

I'm still interested in how, when and under what circumstances this vehicle was seen. It seemed really important once - either as a suspicious vehicle, or maybe a witness to something suspicious? But you're right, all mention of it seems to have vanished. Like Bob.

 

[zwiebel]

Actually, never mind. 'Disappeared' might cover all these areas. Or something might come up in any resulting media coverage.

 

[Cubby]

Yes, I'm very curious to see what Disappeared mentions, and what or whom isn't mentioned.

....once a NamUs profile is entered can the person who entered the information update the profile, or do updates have to come from LE? Anyone know?

 

[zwiebel]

Yes, I'm very curious to see what Disappeared mentions, and what or whom isn't mentioned.

....once a NamUs profile is entered can the person who entered the information update the profile, or do updates have to come from LE? Anyone know?

I can't cut and paste just bits of text on my computer - it's the whole page or nothing. But Namus does say anyone can search and, once registered, both LE and the general public can add missing persons (which they verify) and also add more details. So I think that's my long-winded way of saying, yes they can. If they care to.

 

[Seajay]

From what I gather, the NAMUS description of what Bob was wearing is very generic. It lists the obvious, his underwear and socks, and his accessories, plus his shoes. What they don't have any idea of is what he wore that day he disappeared which is why they can't give an accurate description of it. Either that or they have claimed they didn't see him that day so it would be a trip up to be able to say what he was wearing, IYKWIM.

 

[Oriah]

Regarding Mr. Harrod's glasses, keys, and wallet... I don't for a minute believe these didn't disappear during the same time frame Mr. Harrod did, which is really quite an interesting thing when you think about it. Either they were on his person, or they were not. If they were on his person at the time he disappeared, they increase odds of an ID. If they were not on his person, then it begs to reason- where are/were they now?

If any of these items were actually found by LE after the fact, I sure hope they at least printed them. Because there's not a better surface to work with.

 

[zwiebel]

In most other cases of missing loved ones, these nagging details would have been put to rest long ago. The fact that they have not been makes it really difficult to resist drawing certain conclusions, IMO.

 

[zwiebel]

From what I gather, the NAMUS description of what Bob was wearing is very generic. It lists the obvious, his underwear and socks, and his accessories, plus his shoes. What they don't have any idea of is what he wore that day he disappeared which is why they can't give an accurate description of it. Either that or they have claimed they didn't see him that day so it would be a trip up to be able to say what he was wearing, IYKWIM.

But his SIL was supposedly in the house with him, for at least some part of the day, so I'm guessing any clothing description came via him, originally. And what I don't get is how a person could be observant enough to notice shoes and colour of shorts, but not know for certain what colour the shirt was. Unless SIL didn't notice anything at all, and the description is just guessing by someone else.

ETA If it was just a guess, they should have said so. Details like that are important when you're searching for a loved one.

 

[GrainneDhu]

So, let's springboard off of this using Bob's case...

1.) What if he was removed from his house and then killed? Then kidnapping would be added to what ever body crime charge the perp/s eventually face...I would think anyway.

2.) If identifying items were removed from Bob after whatever crime was committed against him and they were removed for the purpose of preventing his identification when he is found, it is not a special circumstance eligible robbery. And I am talking about items like keys, wallet, glasses etc.

3.) If the crime against Bob was for the purpose of gaining access to money, well then I think it is clearly a special circumstance murder because according to the penal code even if you didnt intend to kill the person, if he/she dies while your intention is to gain assets of this victim, it is murder for financial gain.

After reading through all of this stuff, I have a much better understanding of why people in Bob's case might be reluctant to come forward. This is a true can of worms, horn of dilemma...whatever you want to call it.

I wonder-if it is clear to the DA that you didnt know about this event ahead of time, is that enough to earn you some favor if you choose to dump what you know now?

I bet it can be worked out. I truly believe that whoever you think did this, I mean whoever is your most likely perp, the person who whistleblows first is the one who will be in the best position on every level.

Poor Bob. No wonder PPD and Mrs Harrod seem to have such an insurmountable task ahead.

Almost invariably in cases of murder that involve multiple perps (or a perp with multiple accomplices), DAs are willing to cut a deal to the first person to come forward. That doesn't mean that the first person to step forward gets off scot free but it usually means that they are allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge than they might otherwise have faced and the DA will make a recommendation to the court for less than the maximum sentence for whatever the defendant pled guilty to.

I can even remember a couple cases of murder for hire where the gunman came forward first and was allowed to plead to first degree murder in return for a sentence of less than life without possibility of parole.

In both of those cases, if the gunmen hadn't come forward, the cases would never have been solved. In one of the cases, the Mafia was involved and the gunman's evidence led to quite a few other arrests and convictions.

In Bob's case, say someone who only knew afterwards (or strongly suspected due to information they had not previously shared with LE)... I think that person might be allowed to plea bargain down to some sort of misdemeanour or even be allowed to go into some sort of diversion in exchange for their testimony against the perpetrator.

For those not in the US, diversion usually means that the person does not enter a plea and there is no official judgment. The judge sets down conditions that the defendant must meet (for substance abuse rehab, community service or any number of such things) for a given length of time. If the defendant successfully meets the conditions of their diversion, the charges are dropped and the defendant is left with a clean record.

Diversion actually works quite well from the point of view of preventing more crime. The recidivism rate after diversion is typically much lower than the recidivism rate after prison.

 

[GrainneDhu]

So, let's springboard off of this using Bob's case...

1.) What if he was removed from his house and then killed? Then kidnapping would be added to what ever body crime charge the perp/s eventually face...I would think anyway.

2.) If identifying items were removed from Bob after whatever crime was committed against him and they were removed for the purpose of preventing his identification when he is found, it is not a special circumstance eligible robbery. And I am talking about items like keys, wallet, glasses etc.

3.) If the crime against Bob was for the purpose of gaining access to money, well then I think it is clearly a special circumstance murder because according to the penal code even if you didnt intend to kill the person, if he/she dies while your intention is to gain assets of this victim, it is murder for financial gain.

After reading through all of this stuff, I have a much better understanding of why people in Bob's case might be reluctant to come forward. This is a true can of worms, horn of dilemma...whatever you want to call it.

I wonder-if it is clear to the DA that you didnt know about this event ahead of time, is that enough to earn you some favor if you choose to dump what you know now?

I bet it can be worked out. I truly believe that whoever you think did this, I mean whoever is your most likely perp, the person who whistleblows first is the one who will be in the best position on every level.

Poor Bob. No wonder PPD and Mrs Harrod seem to have such an insurmountable task ahead.

Argh, I answered once and then thought of a question unrelated to my answer.

If Bob was killed in order to conceal some sort of financial chicanery, would that qualify as a special circumstance? I think it would but I could be wrong.

It would be murder in the process of committing another crime and that crime may already be a felony.