CA CA - Bob Harrod, 81, Orange County, 27 July 2009 - #17

[zwiebel]

There seems to be a particular difficulty (even when you're not dopey enough to mix up years) in keeping track of unidentified people who are awaiting a coroner's report. I am guessing that, until the coroner's report, they can't even be entered into Namus or any other databases.

This must be very hard for loved ones with a family member missing, who believe a body that has been located might be their missing loved one - months of waiting, and lots of calls to the coroner's office? And maybe a fear that records will not be cross-checked?

I think members of the public who try and identify these poor unidentifed souls provide a great service with what they do. Generally, they don't get recognised, but they are wonderful just the same.

Life is ironic, isn't it? A tiny number of people going round, disappearing and murdering people. And another tiny number of dedicated individuals, working to identify them, bring them home and repair just a little of that damage. I'd be proud to be a member of that last 'club' if there was one, but that first 'club' - the 'disappearers' - no decent human being would want to be a member of that one.

 

[Cubby]

I think I recall reading the state of California has a newer law requiring all coroners to enter their UID's into NamUs. Not all are viewable to the public however. For investigation reasons, some are only viewable to the authorities. I hope Det. Rad checks the databases fairly frequently, because I am certain there is information in NamUs he can see, but the general public can't.

On another note, some days I find myself wondering what the great grandchildren may have overheard the adults talking about with regards to Bob's disappearance. And wonder if maybe someday it will be one of the great grandchildren that provide the information that breaks this case wide open.

I guess time will tell.

 

[zwiebel]

I think it is quite rare for someone to be brought to trial for a serious offence like murder or abduction without any other person giving evidence. There nearly always turns out to be someone who has heard something, or been told something, or has even been asked to support a fake alibi.

They don't always seem to be bad people either; sometimes they have been gullible or too trusting, or simply couldn't allow themselves to think someone they cared for could be capable of such a crime. I suppose the real importance is what they do when they realise they do have some information that could be important. A relative of the murderer of Mickey Shunick knew he'd set fire to his car, but thought it was for insurance fraud. She was totally truthful with police when it became clear it was much more serious than that.

This was brave, because she could have faced charges and definitely had to face the court of public opinion. But she did the right thing. The murderer's (forget his name, thankfully) coldly egotistical letter to her after, saying how he 'forgave' her for everything she had told police, showed just how right she was, imo. However close they had been superficially and however well she thought she knew him, this was a man with the cold inner core of a psychopath. Not only would it have been wrong to continue protecting him once she suspected the truth, it would also have been very dangerous I think. For all women, but especially for herself, as a person able to link him to a murder.

I hope anyone with any information that could help Bob's case be resolved, comes forward. I hate to think of the burden of a missing family member being passed down the generations because it's a terrible legacy and so unfair. But unavoidable unless Bob is found and brought home.

 

[Opie]

Truly wish I had something constructive or helpful to add to this thread, but I do not.
Just bumping it back to first page. Still praying Mr. Harrod will be found soon and justice served.

 

[zwiebel]

Yet another out of date thing (but I realise it this time, at least);

I hadn't noticed this July 31st article properly before. It's interesting to me because it states that Bob's daughter and some family members say Bob had dementia. Then below that, Sgt Millsap says bluntly, directly contradicting them, that he doesn't believe dementia is the cause of Bob's disappearance, there's a 'dispute in the family' about that, and others say he was as sharp as a tack.

It was so odd the way first TV and media reports named JuM or a daughter as the source of the dementia theory, then later on media reported police would not reveal the source of that information. Didn't police realise it had already been revealed? I can't work out why it was felt necessary to be so secretive about the source of that theory really - if JuM said her father had dementia, then that's what she said. I just can't understand why LE tried to conceal her identity later.

I also wonder who the other family members were who suggested that. I've forgotten the exact date when Det Loomis didn't know where the third daughter lived, but I think it's possible that was PB and she hadn't been spoken to by the 31st, so maybe she could be excluded as a source? I don't think it was Mrs Harrod, so maybe the other family members were either RB, son in law, or Grandson?

I also can't understand why JuM seemed to be suggesting on one hand that dementia somehow was a factor in his disappearance, and on the other, at the same time, that she suspected foul play. It doesn't make a lot of sense. But then, neither did the dementia theory. Maybe that's why it was so quickly followed up by a different one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/0...sappears-after-marrying-childhood-sweetheart/

 

[zwiebel]

JuM may have been the first to come up with a foul play theory, but I think she has almost everyone's opinion on her side now, including LE.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

Yet another out of date thing (but I realise it this time, at least);

I hadn't noticed this July 31st article properly before. It's interesting to me because it states that Bob's daughter and some family members say Bob had dementia. Then below that, Sgt Millsap says bluntly, directly contradicting them, that he doesn't believe dementia is the cause of Bob's disappearance, there's a 'dispute in the family' about that, and others say he was as sharp as a tack.

It was so odd the way first TV and media reports named JuM or a daughter as the source of the dementia theory, then later on media reported police would not reveal the source of that information. Didn't police realise it had already been revealed? I can't work out why it was felt necessary to be so secretive about the source of that theory really - if JuM said her father had dementia, then that's what she said. I just can't understand why LE tried to conceal her identity later.

I also wonder who the other family members were who suggested that. I've forgotten the exact date when Det Loomis didn't know where the third daughter lived, but I think it's possible that was PB and she hadn't been spoken to by the 31st, so maybe she could be excluded as a source? I don't think it was Mrs Harrod, so maybe the other family members were either RB, son in law, or Grandson?

I also can't understand why JuM seemed to be suggesting on one hand that dementia somehow was a factor in his disappearance, and on the other, at the same time, that she suspected foul play. It doesn't make a lot of sense. But then, neither did the dementia theory. Maybe that's why it was so quickly followed up by a different one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/0...sappears-after-marrying-childhood-sweetheart/

Could have been a reporting error.

Oriah had an observation. If the PPD was told early on that Bob had dementia, that would have moved the case up to an emergency that called for SAR to be deployed immediately (endangered or vulnerable adult). If there were family members who did not want an immediate search launched, for whatever reason, it would be in their own interests to shoot down the dementia theory, which would leave in play the "he decided to leave of his own accord" theory.

My own theory is that when people are lying about something big, they don't usually know what is typical behaviour for the innocent in such a situation. So some or all of what they say is obviously or subtly off.

 

[zwiebel]

It looks like the very first mention of JuM saying Bob had dementia came from the reporter who interviewed her on the sofa in Bob's house, the day after Bob disappeared. I tend to believe that wasn't an error, because I think that JuM may well have been recorded saying that during the interview, but it was just cut to fit the news, later, and the reporter mentioned it later in the clip.

It's hard to know if that was what JuM also told police though. I don't think they came to the house until Wednesday when Fontelle arrived, and that's when they finally began to get a clearer picture, I think. Or rather, noticed some discrepancies and contradictions emerging.

 

[zwiebel]

News I have to share; I keep an eye out for CA cases now, especially Placentia, because I worry. It probably seems unnecessary but I do fret about someone capable of disappearing an eighty one year old still being on the loose somewhere. I wonder what else they could be capable of. Someone capable of targeting the very old, or the very young........

Anyway, I spotted a new thread here, for a missing young man. LA, not OC. 19 years old but with the mental age of a five year old. I participated in his thread for exactly three minutes, before news broke he had been found safe. I went from huge despondancy about his case getting much media attention, to such a burst of happiness, in such a short amount of time. Welcome home Alberto Ramirez.

cbslocal seemed to be the only news source paying any attention to his case. I really respect those journalists there; they seem prepared to go just a little extra distance compared to others. It can make all the difference, in my opinion. Thank you guys.

 

[zwiebel]

I have often thought that the most effective way to close down publicity about Bob's case, would be for someone to reveal where Bob can be found. After an initial flurry, I really don't think there would be that much publicity, once he was safely home.

The fact that no-one has tipped police off about Bob's location yet, makes me almost certain there is some incriminating evidence that will be found with him. After this amount of time, any evidence on Bob himself will be long gone - it may even be impossible to establish how he died. It makes me think there is something solid and long lasting with Bob that is not subject to decay, and it is this that Bob's abductor fears could be the strongest evidence against them.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

I have often thought that the most effective way to close down publicity about Bob's case, would be for someone to reveal where Bob can be found. After an initial flurry, I really don't think there would be that much publicity, once he was safely home.

The fact that no-one has tipped police off about Bob's location yet, makes me almost certain there is some incriminating evidence that will be found with him. After this amount of time, any evidence on Bob himself will be long gone - it may even be impossible to establish how he died. It makes me think there is something solid and long lasting with Bob that is not subject to decay, and it is this that Bob's abductor fears could be the strongest evidence against them.

I would be very surprised if someone tipped LE anonymously. I would be totally shocked if that happened, actually.

I think that the only way that someone who knows where Bob's remains are located will reveal that knowledge is in return for some tangible benefit. The most obvious potential benefit would be immunity of some type or a plea deal.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that whoever talks to the DA first will save their own sorry rear and the rest will be hung out to dry.

 

[zwiebel]

I don't think I have got to grips with a murderer's mindset, because I just know I couldn't bear to see people searching, and not tell them where the person was, and get it over with.

Thinking about it, I haven't really come across any cases where a murderer has tipped off police anonymously. There seem to be plenty where a murderer has cracked during a police interrogation. Most of them seem to occur when the suspect doesn't have an attorney sitting beside them though, and I think that's unlikely to happen in this case.

 

[zwiebel]

There are a few cases where a criminal instigated themselves with police, to try and discover how the investigation was going. I wonder if there was anyone around asking too many questions in Bob's case?

 

[deca]

Not sure of all the legalities of it- but once Bob is declared officially dead and the money starts to get divided up- I can see that being really the only time someone might talk.
Lets say one of the daughters knows what happened, but she was not directly involved in Bob's murder. That daughter can turn in her sister for the crime. When all is said in done, if guilty sister is convicted, innocent sister could sue for that portion of the money. I think law states that you can't inherit money if you are guilty for that murder??

 

[zwiebel]

I think there is legislation preventing a criminal from profiting from any crime in CA. Bob's daughters apparently support it wholeheartedly too. That's if their disclaimer on their reward poster is anything to go by.

The way that exclusion's worded makes it sound as though someone thinks a family member was involved in any crime surrounding Bob's disappearance. I know blood family have put out a lot of opinion about how Mrs Harrod isn't really family at all, etc, so it can't be aimed at her.......but that kind of leaves only a small circle of people to choose from, doesn't it?

I hope they have volunteered that information to OC Cold Case Unit if they do suspect a family member anyhow. It's really one of the oddest disclaimers I have ever seen, and I'd love to know who wrote it. The style rings a vague bell for me, somehow.


ETA: Exclusion states;

Person(s) who aid and abet the commission of a crime have no right to a reward. Family members or their relatives are excluded from claiming this reward.

 

[Oriah]

I have often thought that the most effective way to close down publicity about Bob's case, would be for someone to reveal where Bob can be found. After an initial flurry, I really don't think there would be that much publicity, once he was safely home.

The fact that no-one has tipped police off about Bob's location yet, makes me almost certain there is some incriminating evidence that will be found with him. After this amount of time, any evidence on Bob himself will be long gone - it may even be impossible to establish how he died. It makes me think there is something solid and long lasting with Bob that is not subject to decay, and it is this that Bob's abductor fears could be the strongest evidence against them.

BBM:
An extremely astute observation, Z- one I happen to agree with entirely.

It might also explain away a bit of the lack of information pertaining to Mr. Harrod's last seen- and the confusion over any belongings that may have been on his person at that time.

They don't call a 'hasty' search in SAR for nothing, you know? I sure wish that had happened for Mr. Harrod.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

I don't think I have got to grips with a murderer's mindset, because I just know I couldn't bear to see people searching, and not tell them where the person was, and get it over with.

Thinking about it, I haven't really come across any cases where a murderer has tipped off police anonymously. There seem to be plenty where a murderer has cracked during a police interrogation. Most of them seem to occur when the suspect doesn't have an attorney sitting beside them though, and I think that's unlikely to happen in this case.

BBM

I can think of just a couple cases where the murderer tipped LE anonymously. The most famous one was the Zodiac serial killer in the San Francisco area in the late 60s and early 70s.

It isn't unheard of for a murderer to tip off the police by dint of being the person to "discover" the body; this is most common in intimate partner murders. It is one reason why, in many cases, LE routinely includes the person who finds the remains in the first circle of potential suspects. It sometimes happens in cases where there are large volunteer searches, when the perp was a stranger to the victim but wanted to end the suspense on the part of the loved ones.

There have been plenty of murderers who had lawyers sitting right next to them when they gave LE information to lead to the remains. It is usually as part of a plea deal. The defence attorney makes a proffer to the prosecutor along the lines of "it could be that my client would be willing to plead guilty to murder in the second degree in return for a sentence of 30 years and revealing the location of the remains."

The reason I say this bunch will only reveal Bob's location in return for some tangible benefit is right there in your first paragraph. You have empathy for the victim's surviving loved ones. Since when, overall, have any of Bob's descendants demonstrated any empathy for him? Rather than, say, mocking him, character assassination, scorn and demands for more money.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

There are a few cases where a criminal instigated themselves with police, to try and discover how the investigation was going. I wonder if there was anyone around asking too many questions in Bob's case?

According to Bob's descendants... US! <LOL>

 

[Grainne Dhu]

Not sure of all the legalities of it- but once Bob is declared officially dead and the money starts to get divided up- I can see that being really the only time someone might talk.
Lets say one of the daughters knows what happened, but she was not directly involved in Bob's murder. That daughter can turn in her sister for the crime. When all is said in done, if guilty sister is convicted, innocent sister could sue for that portion of the money. I think law states that you can't inherit money if you are guilty for that murder??

In California (and every other state, so far as I know), a criminal is not supposed to benefit from their crimes.

It would be tricky, tricky, tricky legally for one of Bob's daughters to turn in one of her sisters at this point because there is such a crime as "accessory after the fact." That means having knowledge of a crime after it has been committed and concealing that knowledge from LE.

Prosecutors do have leeway in the bringing of charges and there are many cases where the prosecution's chief witness testifies with immunity. In such cases, usually the only tangible benefit to the witness is in not being charged.

In this case, I'm pretty certain that the prosecutor would not be willing to allow one sister to benefit so materially to the detriment of another sister when both sisters are guilty of crimes in connection with Bob's disappearance. It would definitely take some hard negotiations.

And, of course, the one who goes to the DA first will inevitably have the advantage over the others.

 

[mikkismom]

Public&#8217;s Help Sought In Identifying Man After Remains Found Along River

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013...ntifying-man-after-remains-found-along-river/

Not Bob.