CA CA - Bob Harrod, 81, Orange County, 27 July 2009 - # 8
- Thread starter SheWhoMustNotBeNamed
- Start date
- Status
He does not.
We've considered garbage dumps, somewhere in the mountains between Bob's home in Placentia and where his SIL - the last person to see him alive - lives in Running Springs, CA. Bobs grandson also flies small planes so I think that might put another spin into possibilities.
Or maybe near where his daughters and the SIL went to HS in Monrovia, CA.
I'd love to hear your idea's Oriah. We'd love to find Bob.
Opie
Well-Known Member
Almost never do I post in this thread, but I read any new posts that show up and concur with the comments therein. Still hoping that Bob will be found and justice will be served.
I'm going to open a SAR thread in the PL so we can look at coordinates and possible of routes of travel of Mr. Harrod, routes of travel of someone who may have hurt him, and/or both.
Please visit, Cubby- everyone- and bring as much info as possible. Thanks!
believe09
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 28,093
- Reaction score
- 757
Here is Bob's SAR thread in the PL:
Bob Harrod
We are blessed to have our verified SAR people drawing grids and search areas. We need some help from locals in terms of landmarks and areas of travel-if you think you can add anything, even if it is simply support, come on down.
Bob Harrod
We are blessed to have our verified SAR people drawing grids and search areas. We need some help from locals in terms of landmarks and areas of travel-if you think you can add anything, even if it is simply support, come on down.
GrainneDhu
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 5,159
- Reaction score
- 58
There was a quick mention of this case in a different WS thread, so I decided to take a peek. Then I realised that my own father was born less than a week after Bob Harrod and suddenly it all seemed more personal to me. I read all 8 threads and all the associated links and court documents.
I think I feel facts dripping out of my ears even as I type.
My first comment is that it seems well established that the fight the day before Bob Harrod disappeared was about money. Mostly likely as it related to his plans to include Fontelle in his estate plans.
There has been conjecture as to what JuM was doing in the house on Tuesday, the day after Bob disappeared.
I checked for California law on wills and found this site:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=prob&group=06001-07000&file=6110-6113
According to that site, California does recognise holographic (handwritten) wills. The most interesting detail is that a holographic will need not be signed by any witnesses.
Yep, you read that right: all that is required for a handwritten will to be a legal testament is that it conform to existing laws as to distribution of assets and that it be signed by that person. No witnesses needed.
I personally doubt that Bob Harrod made out a holographic will. The evidence seems to me to show that he was a financially prudent man who used an attorney's services in making out his previous will and showed an awareness of minimising the tax impact. That is tricky stuff and not the sort of thing most people can just dash off on a moment's whim.
But... it does sound like he was pretty angry and it would surely suck (from a certain point of view) if someone deliberately disappeared him only for a holographic will in his wife's favour turned up in his house.
By all accounts, the house was fairly cluttered. Even if there wasn't much of a chance that he would make out a holographic will, if you're willing to kill for his money, you may well be anxious not to be unexpectedly surprised by a holographic will drawn up in a fit of pique after a family fight.
Why, it might take most of a day to go through that house to be sure that a holographic will not be found in some drawer or cubbyhole.
I think I feel facts dripping out of my ears even as I type.
My first comment is that it seems well established that the fight the day before Bob Harrod disappeared was about money. Mostly likely as it related to his plans to include Fontelle in his estate plans.
There has been conjecture as to what JuM was doing in the house on Tuesday, the day after Bob disappeared.
I checked for California law on wills and found this site:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=prob&group=06001-07000&file=6110-6113
According to that site, California does recognise holographic (handwritten) wills. The most interesting detail is that a holographic will need not be signed by any witnesses.
Yep, you read that right: all that is required for a handwritten will to be a legal testament is that it conform to existing laws as to distribution of assets and that it be signed by that person. No witnesses needed.
I personally doubt that Bob Harrod made out a holographic will. The evidence seems to me to show that he was a financially prudent man who used an attorney's services in making out his previous will and showed an awareness of minimising the tax impact. That is tricky stuff and not the sort of thing most people can just dash off on a moment's whim.
But... it does sound like he was pretty angry and it would surely suck (from a certain point of view) if someone deliberately disappeared him only for a holographic will in his wife's favour turned up in his house.
By all accounts, the house was fairly cluttered. Even if there wasn't much of a chance that he would make out a holographic will, if you're willing to kill for his money, you may well be anxious not to be unexpectedly surprised by a holographic will drawn up in a fit of pique after a family fight.
Why, it might take most of a day to go through that house to be sure that a holographic will not be found in some drawer or cubbyhole.
GrainneDhu
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 5,159
- Reaction score
- 58
My next thought about the case is really just a persnickety detail and not really important.
As I recall, one of Bob's daughters made a post that stated that a certain video shot of his glasses perched on the kitchen table had been set up by the media as a sympathy ploy.
Now, I watched the video but I don't know the station involved. I do know that amongst serious and responsible journalists, manipulating the scene for greater impact is a big no-no.
It's okay to shuffle around to find the most visually effective angle. It's okay to bring in extra lighting, if necessary, to accommodate the requirements of videography. It's okay to suggest to a subject that they position themselves near an object or to hold the object.
But it's not okay to manipulate the scene. Hands off by the journalists, camera crew, etc. They are there to show the scene as it is, not some Hollywood-ized version of reality.
Now, maybe the station that ran that footage is a little on the trashy side (or a lot on the trashy side).
Or perhaps it means that those glasses were found in that position by that camera crew.
If so, it's a rather odd position for someone to leave their glasses in. I've been wearing eye glasses since I was 8 years old, long before the fancy-schmancy scratch resistant coatings. I learned very early to be forever vigilant lest my lenses get scratched.
Those fancy-schmancy scratch resistant coatings and lenses are quite a bit more expensive than plain ones. If you are reasonably careful, they aren't needed at all because you never do anything with your lenses that allows them to risk being scratched.
Who in this case has been given a reputation for thrift and frugality?
Putting eye glasses on a flat surface, most people my age (54) or older fold the ear pieces in and then place the glasses so they rest on the folded ear pieces. Or they leave the ear pieces open but place the glasses upside down, with the ear hooks pointing up.
Glasses with the ear pieces open and ear hooks pointing down are quite unstable and likely to fall over.
In my humble opinion as a glasses wearer of over 45 years, the position of those glasses would only be done by a younger person who found the glasses in some way out of place.
Like on the floor. Some place like that.
As I recall, one of Bob's daughters made a post that stated that a certain video shot of his glasses perched on the kitchen table had been set up by the media as a sympathy ploy.
Now, I watched the video but I don't know the station involved. I do know that amongst serious and responsible journalists, manipulating the scene for greater impact is a big no-no.
It's okay to shuffle around to find the most visually effective angle. It's okay to bring in extra lighting, if necessary, to accommodate the requirements of videography. It's okay to suggest to a subject that they position themselves near an object or to hold the object.
But it's not okay to manipulate the scene. Hands off by the journalists, camera crew, etc. They are there to show the scene as it is, not some Hollywood-ized version of reality.
Now, maybe the station that ran that footage is a little on the trashy side (or a lot on the trashy side).
Or perhaps it means that those glasses were found in that position by that camera crew.
If so, it's a rather odd position for someone to leave their glasses in. I've been wearing eye glasses since I was 8 years old, long before the fancy-schmancy scratch resistant coatings. I learned very early to be forever vigilant lest my lenses get scratched.
Those fancy-schmancy scratch resistant coatings and lenses are quite a bit more expensive than plain ones. If you are reasonably careful, they aren't needed at all because you never do anything with your lenses that allows them to risk being scratched.
Who in this case has been given a reputation for thrift and frugality?
Putting eye glasses on a flat surface, most people my age (54) or older fold the ear pieces in and then place the glasses so they rest on the folded ear pieces. Or they leave the ear pieces open but place the glasses upside down, with the ear hooks pointing up.
Glasses with the ear pieces open and ear hooks pointing down are quite unstable and likely to fall over.
In my humble opinion as a glasses wearer of over 45 years, the position of those glasses would only be done by a younger person who found the glasses in some way out of place.
Like on the floor. Some place like that.
cloudajo
Bob Harrod, Missing from Placentia, CA
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 1,734
- Reaction score
- 103
March Hearings:
March 22, 2012 - Motion - Other
Trust Proceedings
Case #: 30-2009-00297798-PR-TR-LJC
March 26, 2012 - Accounting
Conservatorship of Estate Only
Case #: 30-2009-00291267-PR-CE-LJC
March 26, 2012 - Jury Trial (Rescheduled from March 12)
Civil Case (against hairdresser)
Case #: 30-2011-00443444-CU-CO-CJC
http://www.occourts.org/online-services/
March 22, 2012 - Motion - Other
Trust Proceedings
Case #: 30-2009-00297798-PR-TR-LJC
March 26, 2012 - Accounting
Conservatorship of Estate Only
Case #: 30-2009-00291267-PR-CE-LJC
March 26, 2012 - Jury Trial (Rescheduled from March 12)
Civil Case (against hairdresser)
Case #: 30-2011-00443444-CU-CO-CJC
http://www.occourts.org/online-services/
Welcome to Bob's thread GrainneDhu'.
Thanks for your observations. As far as the glasses go. For myself the girls have proven themselves uncredible, so their perspective on the glasses and whether or not a journalist moved them doesn't hold water for me.
It may be the glasses were there all along, that Bob left without any glasses, and when the girls studied the photo's/video's they needed to come up with an excuse as to why it was said Bob left with glasses, but glasses were found on the table and in the home.
After all, if they were REALLY interested in solving their fathers disappearance they wouldn't be holding the time line and secret handy man jobs hostage. They would lay out the facts honestly. There is a reason they have not.
Nor would they continue to pound out a theory for years that LE ruled out within weeks of their fathers disappearance.
Yep, a reason exists for their actions and their attempts to discredit what LE has stated.
:moo:
Thanks for your observations. As far as the glasses go. For myself the girls have proven themselves uncredible, so their perspective on the glasses and whether or not a journalist moved them doesn't hold water for me.
It may be the glasses were there all along, that Bob left without any glasses, and when the girls studied the photo's/video's they needed to come up with an excuse as to why it was said Bob left with glasses, but glasses were found on the table and in the home.
After all, if they were REALLY interested in solving their fathers disappearance they wouldn't be holding the time line and secret handy man jobs hostage. They would lay out the facts honestly. There is a reason they have not.
Nor would they continue to pound out a theory for years that LE ruled out within weeks of their fathers disappearance.
Yep, a reason exists for their actions and their attempts to discredit what LE has stated.
:moo:
It's always possible they'll provide the accounting early. That is the most logical explanation. Or their attorney or a stand in attorney will represent them for the accounting while they attend the trial.
It's not uncommon for an attorney to be running back and forth between two court rooms with cases at the same time. I've seen it happen in family court numerous times.
GrainneDhu
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 5,159
- Reaction score
- 58
Thank you for the welcome, everyone!
Now, another possibly unimportant point: the matter of the redoubtable Fontelle living in her husband's house.
I am not a lawyer, so I could easily be confused and merely be in need of a little clarification here.
As I understand it, when a judge appoints a conservator or conservators for a missing person's estate the point is to provide for the everyday sort of tasks and maintenance entailed in keeping the assets in good order. The conservator does not have to be a relative; it can be a professional such as a lawyer, accountant or bank officer.
One of Bob's assets is clearly his own home.
It seems to me that a conservator's duties in regards to the missing person's personal residence would be to maintain it in such a way that the rightful owner could be accommodated there if they were to suddenly reappear.
Considering the circumstances, this is clearly unlikely to happen. Still, the law insists that until a missing person has been declared dead by a court of law, their assets are supposed to be treated as though they are still alive.
Now, in great contrast to his reputation for frugality, it seems that Bob had accumulated almost no personal possessions during his lifetime.
Be that as it may, there is still the question of the house. The co-conservators have their own houses as do the JMs and their son AH. And there is that fiction to maintain that Bob will stroll back in any day now.
As the entire nation has seen since 2007 an empty house is a magnet for neglect, vandalism and criminal activity. This is not anything new, it has always been so since humans started making permanent lodging sites.
Property insurance rates reflect this. Policies are issued with many conditions which include the maximum number of consecutive days the property can be uninhabited before a rider must be purchased to maintain coverage. Insurance rates for untenanted houses are very, very high.
Clearly it is preferable for the house to be occupied.
Now, under these circumstances, what with the presumption that the property be maintained as though Bob may come back at any time, the Carnation drive house is not rentable in any practical sense. Imagine showing prospective tenants the house and telling them "and BTW, if Bob comes back you will be expected to move out immediately, with no notice whatsoever. But other than that, it's a standard lease."
Riiiiiight.
In this reality, the co-conservators have someone who has the right as Bob's spouse to live there, who is willing to continue living there and is manifestly suited to maintain the property in a proper way.
Instead of counting their blessings, these co-conservators immediately try to evict her.
This does not make sense.
Would they rather run the risk of some sort of domestic accident such as a water pipe breaking unobserved until some neighbour notices the water running out the front door? Or the risk of some neighbourhood kids taking over the property as a sort of secret clubhouse? Or any one of the other untoward incidents USAns have seen in the last few years?
Then I think back to one of the court documents that specify that the stair lift be left intact (which the rest of the house be stripped).
Could it be that the co-conservators have another tenant in mind? Someone who might need help with navigating stairways?
Now, another possibly unimportant point: the matter of the redoubtable Fontelle living in her husband's house.
I am not a lawyer, so I could easily be confused and merely be in need of a little clarification here.
As I understand it, when a judge appoints a conservator or conservators for a missing person's estate the point is to provide for the everyday sort of tasks and maintenance entailed in keeping the assets in good order. The conservator does not have to be a relative; it can be a professional such as a lawyer, accountant or bank officer.
One of Bob's assets is clearly his own home.
It seems to me that a conservator's duties in regards to the missing person's personal residence would be to maintain it in such a way that the rightful owner could be accommodated there if they were to suddenly reappear.
Considering the circumstances, this is clearly unlikely to happen. Still, the law insists that until a missing person has been declared dead by a court of law, their assets are supposed to be treated as though they are still alive.
Now, in great contrast to his reputation for frugality, it seems that Bob had accumulated almost no personal possessions during his lifetime.
Be that as it may, there is still the question of the house. The co-conservators have their own houses as do the JMs and their son AH. And there is that fiction to maintain that Bob will stroll back in any day now.
As the entire nation has seen since 2007 an empty house is a magnet for neglect, vandalism and criminal activity. This is not anything new, it has always been so since humans started making permanent lodging sites.
Property insurance rates reflect this. Policies are issued with many conditions which include the maximum number of consecutive days the property can be uninhabited before a rider must be purchased to maintain coverage. Insurance rates for untenanted houses are very, very high.
Clearly it is preferable for the house to be occupied.
Now, under these circumstances, what with the presumption that the property be maintained as though Bob may come back at any time, the Carnation drive house is not rentable in any practical sense. Imagine showing prospective tenants the house and telling them "and BTW, if Bob comes back you will be expected to move out immediately, with no notice whatsoever. But other than that, it's a standard lease."
Riiiiiight.
In this reality, the co-conservators have someone who has the right as Bob's spouse to live there, who is willing to continue living there and is manifestly suited to maintain the property in a proper way.
Instead of counting their blessings, these co-conservators immediately try to evict her.
This does not make sense.
Would they rather run the risk of some sort of domestic accident such as a water pipe breaking unobserved until some neighbour notices the water running out the front door? Or the risk of some neighbourhood kids taking over the property as a sort of secret clubhouse? Or any one of the other untoward incidents USAns have seen in the last few years?
Then I think back to one of the court documents that specify that the stair lift be left intact (which the rest of the house be stripped).
Could it be that the co-conservators have another tenant in mind? Someone who might need help with navigating stairways?
Mrs. Harrod has vision problems. My guess is they insisted the stair chair-lift remain hoping for an accident of some sort. It was done as a deliberate inconvenience, imo.
Also, I don't think they really care what might have happened to the property. Because there was a lot of money, the insurance cost wouldn't have been an issue.
I'm sure the eviction attempt was with the hopes Mrs. Harrod would just go away. They didn't count on the fight she has within her to find out what happened to her husband.
I'd bet they tried to get Mrs. Harrod to go away prior to Mr. Harrods disappearance. When that didn't work, dad had to go.
:moo:
Also, I don't think they really care what might have happened to the property. Because there was a lot of money, the insurance cost wouldn't have been an issue.
I'm sure the eviction attempt was with the hopes Mrs. Harrod would just go away. They didn't count on the fight she has within her to find out what happened to her husband.
I'd bet they tried to get Mrs. Harrod to go away prior to Mr. Harrods disappearance. When that didn't work, dad had to go.
:moo:
FWIW, I have to believe LE is interested in multiple arrests, not a single arrest.
I imagine that is why any arrest has not yet occured.
Yes, I'm sure PPD is working on building air tight cases against multiple persons, not a single person.
Too many people involved in this one, imo.
:moo:
I imagine that is why any arrest has not yet occured.
Yes, I'm sure PPD is working on building air tight cases against multiple persons, not a single person.
Too many people involved in this one, imo.
:moo:
GrainneDhu
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 5,159
- Reaction score
- 58
I agree.
I just realised there is another parallel between Bob and my family.
After my grandmother died, my grandfather re-married within 5 months. And I got to be a bridesmaid!
The situation was a lot like Bob's situation: my grandparents had been married since they were very young (she was 16, he was 17; this was not considered unusual pre-WWI). They worked hard, lived through two world wars, raised a family and when my grandmother was stricken with cancer, my grandfather nursed her devotedly until her death.
After my grandmother died, my grandfather was devastated and terribly lonely. So our entire family was both happy and relieved when he fell in love with one of my grandmother's friends from her "hen group" as she called it.
At the time, my grandfather was in his late 70s and his bride to be was somewhat younger. To me at age 14, they both seemed ancient! LOL They simply did not see any point in wasting time; they knew their own minds and they had a lifetime of experience to guide them.
It was a good marriage and they had 14 very happy years before my grandfather died. They travelled a lot, they pursued many interests and had a busy social life.
I will never be able to understand why Bob's family didn't feel the same joy we did when he found someone to give his life purpose again.
GrainneDhu
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 5,159
- Reaction score
- 58
At one point in one of the video interviews with Bob about his romance with Fontelle, he says something along the lines of "she was the one who got away and I didn't want to let her go again."
There was some speculation on WS that perhaps Bob's daughters found this insensitive or even insulting to their mother's memory.
Me, I wonder if Bob was still reacting to comparing notes with Fontelle and figuring out the circumstances around how they had lost touch with one another.
I doubt Bob blamed Georgia in any way (sounds like she had no idea) but it would still be enough to shake a person's view of their own life.
But he didn't voice blame of anyone. All he did was pay a (not unusual) compliment to his wife.
Where did "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" get lost on the next generation?
There was some speculation on WS that perhaps Bob's daughters found this insensitive or even insulting to their mother's memory.
Me, I wonder if Bob was still reacting to comparing notes with Fontelle and figuring out the circumstances around how they had lost touch with one another.
I doubt Bob blamed Georgia in any way (sounds like she had no idea) but it would still be enough to shake a person's view of their own life.
But he didn't voice blame of anyone. All he did was pay a (not unusual) compliment to his wife.
Where did "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" get lost on the next generation?
BBM. I think your post answered your comment. Your grandpa and step grandma had many happy years together. Travelled and pursued many interests, along with having a busy social life.
I'm sure your grandpa, like Bob, made sure his wife would be taken care of after his passing, should he have passed first.
These things take money. Money which was rightfully Bob's to do what he saw fit. Sadly, some believed Bob's money was theirs. A second wife, travelling, social interests, all would have taken money. A risky investment for those who believed Bob's money was rightfully their's.
I have a step mom, my dad is happy, and I am very happy for him. Sadly, for some their parents money is more important than their parents happiness.
:moo:
GrainneDhu
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 5,159
- Reaction score
- 58
At several points in these threads, there have been speculation that LE is lying about one point or another as part of a strategy towards catching the perpetrators.
I find this unlikely. In my experience of following many cases, LE rarely tells out and out lies. They do word things very, very carefully sometimes but they rarely actually lie. If LE routinely lied, I think they are smart enough to realise that they would quickly lose all credibility with the public.
Then I started to wonder: might other people in this case also be playing words games... with far less benign motives than LE?
For instance, it has been established that the meeting on Sunday took place from 12 noon to 2 pm (or so). I seem to recall one of the daughters saying that there was no fight at the meeting that night. Could that be the literal truth? Perhaps there was another meeting, later in the day, at which all parties came to a meeting of minds?
Another example was when JuM said something along the lines of "we know it didn't happen in the house. Who did you go with?" ("you" meaning her father). Might this indicate a knowledge that the actual crime started with Bob going somewhere with someone?
I find this unlikely. In my experience of following many cases, LE rarely tells out and out lies. They do word things very, very carefully sometimes but they rarely actually lie. If LE routinely lied, I think they are smart enough to realise that they would quickly lose all credibility with the public.
Then I started to wonder: might other people in this case also be playing words games... with far less benign motives than LE?
For instance, it has been established that the meeting on Sunday took place from 12 noon to 2 pm (or so). I seem to recall one of the daughters saying that there was no fight at the meeting that night. Could that be the literal truth? Perhaps there was another meeting, later in the day, at which all parties came to a meeting of minds?
Another example was when JuM said something along the lines of "we know it didn't happen in the house. Who did you go with?" ("you" meaning her father). Might this indicate a knowledge that the actual crime started with Bob going somewhere with someone?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 98
- Guests online
- 2,419
- Total visitors
- 2,517