Thursday, February 6, 2014

Josh Bearden on Jane Velez Mitchell

The following is Statement Analysis of Josh Bearden, husband of missing young woman, Leanne Bearden, from the transcripts of the show, "Issues w..."
Please keep in mind that the purpose of an interview like this is not to discover information, but to highlight the show's host.  Analytical Interviewing seeks answers, while a show like this will avoid confrontation by asking leading questions.
Regardless, it helps by promoting knowledge of Leanne's plight.  

update:  Recent statement:  

Maybe she went to go clear her head, but I still have to think she would’ve gotten a hold of her family, her best friend…anybody,” 

Statement Analysis is in bold type, with quotes, unchanged, yet emphasis added.  I have also deleted 3rd party statements unless they contribute to the context of the response by the subject (Josh Bearden).  
As to the exclusive interview, very little interviewing was done, with most information coming from the Interviewer herself.  She did not know Leanne, and had no information on the case to report.  The one who knows Leanne is her husband.  He has information for the audience, not Jane Velez Mitchell, yet she does the majority of the talking. 
I have deleted out the side commenting and questions not directed to the subject. For the entire program, what follows is the only exchanges between Josh Bearden and Mitchell. 

For the entire program, he is only permitted to give four (4) answers.   
Yet, Leanne's plight was published, which is what is hoped for.  

Aired January 27, 2014 - 19:00:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Tonight, a bone-chilling mystery. A beautiful young woman vanishes into thin air in a small Texas town while taking a walk near her in-laws` house, just hours before a terrifying attack on a young woman jogging in the same general area. Is a man in a ski mask preying on beautiful young women in Texas?

Good evening, I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell coming to you live.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Cops say 33-year-old Leanne Bearden left her in-laws` house in Garden Ridge, Texas, which is near San Antonio, in jeans and a T- shirt to go for a walk. She didn`t have her cell phone with her. It was just a casual little stroll. But after a few hours, her husband realized something was terribly wrong.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Search parties have now scoured the entire area, looking, hunting for any trace of Leanne, but so far they have not found any clues. Zero. It is a total mystery.

But just hours after Leanne disappeared, a female jogger was attacked 30 miles away by a masked man who happened to have a spider tattoo. The jogger successfully fought off the masked attacker. The suspect has not been identified or located. Are these two cases connected? We`re asking tonight.

Call me, 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297. Together, we`re going to try to solve this case.

Joining me now in a primetime exclusive, Leanne`s husband, Josh Bearden. Josh, first of all, I want to say that my heart goes out to you. I`m so sorry over what you`re going through. I understand that this is a complete nightmare. But I probably don`t even have an inkling of what you`re feeling emotionally.

I want to say, cops have cleared you of any involvement. That is a published report.

Let`s -- let`s start with what you`re going through. What has this been like since the 17th? 

She said, "I want to say, cops have cleared you of any involvement" with the additional words "I want to say", which weakens the assertion, and may indicate some doubt on the part of the Interviewer (Mitchell).  Why not ask if he is involved?  In a missing person's case, often a family member who is innocent is eager to say so, quickly and easily, so that the case can move forward.  This is the same as how John Walsh advises family members:  Take a polygraph.  Insist on it.  Clear yourself immediately so that the investigation can proceed unimpeded.  
Innocent family members are often glad to address any suspicions and sometimes do not even need any verbal prompts to say "I didn't do it" to an audience.  
She made a lengthy statement followed by a short question, "What has this been like since the 17th?" which is a typical pattern for television interviews where the Interviewer seeks most of the camera time.  It is not an effective way to gather information. 
Ask yourself what you would want to ask him.  Would you like him to address any suspicions? Would you like him to tell us as much as he can about Leanne so that if any interests come up, someone might be more likely to be on the look out for her?  This would give the husband the opportunity to quickly and easily deny any guilty knowledge, and let him now broadcast his wife's description and personality to the nation. If Leanne is, for example, being held against her will, her captors would hear this.  

J. BEARDEN: It`s been just the worst experience that you could possibly imagine, to go from traveling around the world for two years with your best friend, and seeing her every single day, and then all of a sudden she`s just gone, and nobody has any idea where she is. It`s the worst feeling that anybody could ever have. 

2nd person language noted.  He does not say:  "it's been just the worst experience that I could possibly imagine...traveling with my best friend..."
As the spouse of the missing person, the use of the 2nd person is unexpected. 
And I want to thank you for helping us today, and being interested in our story. 
If the subject is standing (or seated) before the camera with someone else (like a spouse in many cases) and is speaking for others, it is the expected that he would say "us" and "our."  
Yet, if he is speaking for himself, it is not at all expected to hear this.  Why not, "thank you for helping me today"?  
Since the 2nd person above is distancing language, the use of "us" and "our" may also be considered distancing language.  
"our story"?  What about "my nightmare", or "Leanne's plight"??  Why is it "our story"?  
Some will wonder why the word "story" is used here. 

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We are very interested. And we want to see if somehow we can either jog somebody`s memory who is watching. 
This is a good point.  Will she follow it?
Now, here`s the thing that I want to clarify. What time exactly did she go out, and why would she go out without a cell phone? And yet I understand she had her wallet with her. 
Note the compound question which followed her statement.  Compound questions should be avoided as it allows the subject to pick and choose which to answer.  
1.  What time exactly did she go out?
2.  Why would she go without a cell phone?
These are two questions.  Then, the Interviewer follows it with a statement about the wallet. 
This should be avoided. 

J. BEARDEN: You know, we always go out for a walk with a cell phone. So normally, you know, she wouldn`t have her cell phone with her. Plus we only had one cell phone. Because we`d been sharing a cell phone, until we moved back to Denver. So her not having a cell phone isn`t that unusual, because I was doing job interviews. 
The question, "what time exactly..." is avoided, which would indicate sensitivity, but in this case, we do not flag it as sensitive since the Interviewer made the error of asking a compound question. 
"You know" is a habit of speech.  Like all habits, we note when it arises, and when it does not.  The expression, "you know" often arises when the subject is acutely aware of the Interviewer's (or audience's) presence.  
"We always go out for a walk" is present tense.
The use of the word "normal" is often a signal that what happened is anything but "normal" to the subject.  
The explanation about the phone is not expected:  When "we" go out for a walk, we "always" have "a" cell phone (not "our" or "my")  
"Normally" (noted above) she "wouldn't" have her cell phone:  this is stated in the negative.  Why is it "normal" for her "not" to have her cell phone?
"Plus" indicates the more information is coming:  "we only have one cell phone."  Who's cell phone is it?  Here he feels the need to explain why:  they have been sharing, which would make sense since they were together on the trip.  This is a need to explain that it is "not that unusual", yet he added further that he was in need of the phone due to job interviews.
This is a lengthy, compound reason for why she did not have a cell phone with her, with two "you know" habits in it. 
That she did not have a cell phone with her when she went for this walk is something that is sensitive to the subject. 

"Because" is not flagged as sensitive since the subject was asked, "Why?" as it is the appropriate response. 

And as far as the wallet goes, we always hike with our wallet or go walk around with our wallet. I really don`t understand why that`s unusual. But I guess it is. We always go for a walk with our wallets. 
This is most unusual language, as "wallet" becomes "wallets"

1.  "We" always hike with "our wallet" , with wallet being singular.  One wallet. 
2.  Walk around with our wallet. 
3.  Then, he said, "we always go for a walk with out wallets", which is plural. 

Note also that he "really " doesn't understand why that is unusual, indicating he recognizes that it is.  "I guess" is a weak assertion, like an admission.  

Note also the present tense language.  This is not a total commitment to the topic.  A total commitment would have been:  "We always walked with our wallets."  

That she did not have her cell phone on her is an important topic: 

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, let me ask you to stand by. We`re going to mention some clues that we have so far. And they`re few and far between. And then we`re going to get your reaction and the experts that we have on our panel to try to solve this. Or at least get a break of some sort. 

Leanne`s husband, you just heard him. He`s speaking to us exclusively tonight. Says she only took her wallet when she left the house, not her cell phone. 

(What came next was a lengthy statement by Interviewer followed by questions to guests and callers; no questions to the subject on her "exclusive" interview with him)


VELEZ-MITCHELL: That is the woman who is missing tonight. We`re trying to find her. With her husband in Athens, Greece. 

Leanne and her husband just got back from fulfilling a lifelong dream traveling the world. They visited 56 countries in 22 months. And then, in a tragic irony, back visiting the in-laws, Josh`s parents, this beautiful young woman, petite, goes out for a walk on the 17th, Friday the 17th, two Fridays ago, never returns. 

And we found out there was an arrest in the New Year`s Eve case. So we`re talking about her disappearance on the same day as a woman is attacked by a man in a ski mask. 

Josh, I want to go back to you. I ask this not to embarrass you. But have you been able to look at her cell phone and see, did she have communications with anyone? Is it possible that she met somebody during her travels, and wanted to hook up with that person? Was she upset about anything? Were there money troubles? You know, anything? 

Please note that the Interviewer spoke at length.  Information is not with her, but her guest, yet she did the majority of the talking.  This is a way to avoid gathering information and promote herself. 
Here she asks a compound question made up of five questions.  She began it with a negative; that she did not ask this to embarrass him. 
His wife is missing.  Information is needed.  Yet, a compound question of 5 parts is asked: 

J. BEARDEN: No, there`s nothing that I can figure out. And as far as if she hooked up with somebody, or something like that, we were together 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 22 months. I`m pretty sure that I would have known if anything like that was going on. So I don`t mean to chuckle at it, but it`s just -- it`s not possible. 
He addressed the foolishly worded question. He does not sound embarrassed.  The Interviewer was seeking to learn if she was involved with someone else, and the subject did a good job of answering it.  "That I can figure out" is likely an honest answer, leaving open the possibility.  It is interesting to note here that he actually uses the expected pronoun, "I" and not "there's nothing that we can figure out" that he uses elsewhere.

The Interviewer should have just asked the question directly. 
The subject recognizes the foolishness of the question even while we note "sorry" in his answer: 

Can you ask the other part of the question? I forgot, sorry

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I said, did you have a chance to look at her cell phone and see if there were any communications? I mean, it may not be something that is -- there might be something that she texted like, "Hey, I`ll stop by the bank," or "I`ll meet you at the coffee shop," or whatever, to a friend that would give an indication of where she was going. 

J. BEARDEN: Yes, we turned over my cell phone, or our cell phone over to the police. And they had it for about a day. And then we hired a private investigator today, and he went over the phone records with us. So we`ve gone over every single phone number that`s been called and received. And have checked all of those. So there was nothing unusual that`s on there. 
Note "we" turned over and not "I turned over" with the continuation of the plural employed. 
Note "my" cell phone became "our cell phone" further confirming the sensitivity of the issue of the cell phone.  The text does not suggest why the cell phone is sensitive to the subject. 
Thus ended the "exclusive" interview.  The Interviewer avoided gathering information.

45 comments:

john said...

Hi Peter, ive moved this over to here from another thread.

Update Leanne Bearden.

Search for missing woman shifts to Austin.

“Maybe she went to go clear her head, but I still have to think she would’ve gotten a hold of her family,or just take me out the equation... her best friend her family…anybody,” Josh said.

This quote reminds me of Mark Redwine when he was saying not to focus on him..

I can't recall anytime Josh Bearden has been asked in the open, and not behind closed doors, whether he was involved. Even so, i find the above quote unexpected unless LE was looking at him possibly being involved.

If the above quote is in the free editing stage, and i think it is, i find it very strange he would say this. Not only that, he is also thinking of himself while his wife is "Missing"

Who has said he was in the equation?

If he was not in anyway involved, why would he say this?

Bad journalism really annoys me, especially them god dam compound questions..

He says more in the Vt.

http://kxan.com/2014/02/05/search-for-missing-woman-shifts-to-austin/

Carnival Barker said...



The cell phone is sensitive because it is another piece of Josh Bearden's overall puzzle that just doesn't fit.

He was worried enough about his 33-year-old wife to report her missing ONLY four hours after she goes for her run/walk in the middle of the day, but not worried enough to let her bring their cell phone with her, even though, by his own account, she was unfamiliar with the area and she was also expecting a call from a potential employer within the hour.

Cell phone pings would not be a friend to Mr. Bearden, and I feel strongly that they would not be pinging down in Mexico right now.

Anonymous said...

I can't sign in I'm(Me).I strongly suspect they are both staging the whole thing ,to "sell"their story once she "turns up".

john said...

ME said.

I can't sign in I'm(Me).I strongly suspect they are both staging the whole thing ,to "sell"their story once she "turns up".

Hi, ME,

Lol, Seems weird saying that, its like i'm talking to myself.

I'm intrigued, what makes you think that?


Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
I can't sign in I'm(Me).I strongly suspect they are both staging the whole thing ,to "sell"their story once she "turns up".
February 6, 2014 at 8:16 AM


This seems to be gaining some steam in comments around the internet.

If true, they would face serious charges, especially given the expense of the searches already done.

Peter

john said...

Hi peter,

Could this explain his dads quote?

"We are NOT ANGRY at her," Will said. "SHE IS NOT IN ANY LEGAL TROUBLE, and if THAT is what she is worried about, please." WE'RE ASKING HER NOT TO BE CONCERNED WITH THAT."

http://www.woai.com/articles/woai-local-news-119078/did-leanne-bearden-make-a-run-12031893/#ixzz2sSDssZk7

Peter Hyatt said...

Interesting, John.

In today's insane reality TV show world, anything is possible.

It might even explain why Josh uses "we" over and over and over...

If they had a plot to do this, they will be in hot water, regardless.

If I were police, I'd ask him to polygraph, interview him for a few hours to learn his language, and then ask 6 or 7 questions.

That's all it would take.

Peter

C5H11ONO said...

“Maybe she went to go clear her head, but I still have to think she would’ve gotten a hold of her family, her best friend…anybody,”

--If she went to clear her head, why didn’t he explain why she needed to clear her head. Was there an argument that would require her to clear her head. Maybe he took care of clearing her head for her, and when they find her bones, the coroner will discover that she died from blunt force trauma to her “head”. If order is important, he states in future tense that she would have gotten a hold of 1. Her family, 2 her best friend, 3 anybody.

If earlier he had described to Jane Velez about losing his best friend (“to go from traveling around the world for two years with your best friend,) then he indeed is not her best friend after all. He didn’t even include himself in the list. Is it because he doesn’t expect her to get a hold of him? He is her husband, the one she traveled with for 22 months, but she wouldn’t have gotten a hold of him to let him know she was clearing her head?

J. BEARDEN: You know, we always go out for a walk with a cell phone. So normally, you know, she wouldn`t have her cell phone with her.
If they always go out for a walk with a cell phone, how could she not have her cell phone with her normally. This is contradictory.

Plus we only had one cell phone. Because we`d been sharing a cell phone, until we moved back to Denver. So her not having a cell phone isn`t that unusual, because I was doing job interviews.
Apparently she too was waiting for a call for a job interview too. – If I were police, I would investigate where are the places he had applied for a job and confirm he actually submitted an application. I think she was the one applying for a job and waiting on a call for an interview, not him.

J. BEARDEN: You know, we always go out for a walk with a cell phone.
--Did the police ask him if he went to a walk with her too? He describes “we” all the time, and if I were to assume he is being truthful, then who is “we”? If it is he and his wife, then he is being truthful when he say they (together) always go out for a walk, which means, she left with him.



CG said...

I know many people consider their spouse their best friend but I still found the use of that phrase odd in describing their travels. She is not "just" a friend but his wife. Also, I thought I read somewhere that they were going to move back to Denver and start a family. If this is a correct recollection, it would seem that he would especially be tuned into the marital relationship and not minimize it by calling her his best friend.

Big Russian said...

Has anyone seen an interview of the "tree trimmer"? Does this tree trimmer person have a name?We are told that the tree trimmer saw a teenager walking down the street, but that he was mistaken. Are they putting words in his mouth to fit a scenario? We are told the tree trimmer mentioned a backpack. If this is true, why did it take days after the tree trimmer was interviewed for JB to announce that he had a backpack missing? Why did it take more days to post a picture of the backpack? Why hasn't anything been posted on their Explore360 blog site about LB's disappearance?

john said...

Hi Big Russian,

All the alleged sightings, have been confirmed it was NOT Leanne..

john said...

Hi Peter,

You did note early on that he tended to use the plurals "We-our and us".

This is not the expected..

If i was starting to learn SA.(Still a rookey by the way) Pronouns, articles and the unexpected would be first on my list to look for.

Apart from articles, he ticks the pronoun box and the unexpected box.

ima.grandma said...

Another baby missing

http://www.ktiv.com/story/24652588/2014/02/06/town-of-beloit-wis-police-mobilize-all-resources-to-find-missing-newborn

BELOIT, Wis. (WKOW) -- The Town of Beloit Police Department is mobilizing all its resources to find a newborn reported missing early Thursday morning.

Town of Beloit Police Chief Steve Kopp tells 27 News the newborn's name is Kayden J. Powell. The baby's parents told police they woke up to find their son missing from his basinet, which was in the same room. A friend of the family and a relative who were at the home the night before are being questioned at the police station, but Chief Kopp says they are not in custody. Investigators don't have any suspects.

The Department of Justice's Division of Criminal Investigation, the FBI, the City of Beloit Police Department and the Rock County Sheriff's Office are all assisting in the investigation. Kopp says 20 officers and agents are conducting interviews and processing the house as a crime scene.

********

TOWN OF BELOIT (WKOW) -- Police from three agencies are trying to find a baby that was reported missing early Thursday morning.

The Janesville Gazette reports Town of Beloit police are working with the Beloit Police Department and the Rock County Sheriff's Office. According to the newspaper, two people who were at the baby's home last night are being questioned, but no arrests have been made.

********

TOWN OF BELOIT (WKOW) -- Police are searching for a missing newborn.

Town of Beloit Police Chief Steve Kopp says the 4-day-old boy's mother reported him missing around 4:30 a.m. from their home in the 800 block of Homeland Court. The boy's father is also at the scene, and the chief says this does not appear to be a custody battle.

Police are still on the scene investigating. The chief says they have not issued an Amber Alert as it does not apply in this case.

Sus said...

I am glad you analyzed this interview. Josh Bearden is definitely sensitive about the topic of the cell phone.

I find it odd that he explains WE always take A cellphone so she doesn't take HER cellphone. According to his further explanation she doesn't have a cellphone to take.

He confuses it further by finally declaring he had interviews. (Are we to assume he needed the phone?)

Sus said...

Josh Bearden talking on the Our friend Leanne Bearden Facebook page:

"We hiked enchanted rock the week before and the power bars were in it with a couple of small items. Other than that it was empty. That might have been why she took it. I've gone through all of her clothes and I don't she could have taken much with her. Also, I WAS UPSTAIRS working on the computer and she went out the garage WHICH IS DOWNSTAIRS SO I don't know exactly WHAT SHE GRABBED. The problem I'm having is although we were together all the time on our trip we left a lot of clothes at my parents house before we left. I'm having trouble identifying what we left two years ago but I know she couldn't have taken much."

"I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, WE need people like her to KEEP THE STORY GOING."

"It doesn't matter if you believe me, OR NOT. THREE confirmed witnesses saw her HEADING TOWARDS I-35. Plus, the bloodhound followed her scent in the same direction before losing it. You can NOT BELIEVE all you want."

I capped a few things that stood out to me. How many of you have an upstairs garage? He certainly wants to distance himself from when Leanne left.

CG said...

Sus, I suspect you hit the nail on the head.

john said...

Hi Sus,

Excellent points. I have also noticed that he keeps saying "STORY". For me, that is a red flag in itself?

sidewalk super said...

exactly why I stopped watching the program.. It is infuriating to see her waste opportunities to get any information while she loudly interjects, interrupts, otherwise, as you say, advertising herself.
And Nancy Grace is right there with her. Grrhhh.

Anonymous said...

i love jane valdez mitchel she's like nancy graces scrappy spunky little sister.

Jen Ow said...

Hi John,

I am also concerned that JB keeps referencing Leanne's disappearance as 'a story'.

The word 'story' is a very strange way to characterize something as personal as your wife's disappearance. It shows distancing, and most strangely, it is a word often associated with lying.

Anonymous said...

I read the family has held and has planned 7 fund raisers since Leanne went missing.

Anonymous said...

Question: Is this statement said in the negative? sensitive? And if so, what does that mean? Unreliable? Deceptive? Etc.?

"When she died, I had no regrets." (implying she had tried to mend the relationship)

Big Russian said...

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Several-sightings-of-missing-woman-in-Austin-5211152.php

Josh didn't mention to LE or his own PI that he & Leanne were members of a "couch surfing" group. Withholding information is the same as lying. Here we go.

ME said...

John/Peter I think I "scan"the "whole story"and then certain bits stick out,the way he says"we,us"and as John said"story"just seems precisely that,a"story"thanks for mentioning my opinion :)

Big Russian said...

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Global-couch-surfing-network-now-part-of-5211152.php

Josh didn't mention to LE or his own PI that he & Leanne were members of a "couch surfing" group. Withholding information is the same as lying. Here we go.

Jinjer said...

Check out the video on Foxnewsinsider.com 'Anguished husband delivers message to missing wife'...
That was the only video I needed to see of him. He kept repeating Story. I want people to stay interested in the Story and ask questions and get updates and keep running the Story. NOT help me find my wife! If you watch the video, you'll see. It made me angry because he's not even upset or anything! What really caught my attention was he said 'if you have a huge set of....' then he pauses and goes on about having land or property to search. He's got a guilty conscience.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

"Maybe she went to go clear her head [Note: he introduces a need to clear her head; generally indicates a marital/relational argument or fight], but I still have to think [Note: Josh "has to think", not Josh thinks-why is he being forced to think this?] she would've gotten a hold of her family [Note: order-her family, not her husband; further supports language indicating argument/fight], or just take me out of the equation [Note: Josh wants to deflect attention from himself-what devoted husband accepts that perspective?]...her best friend [Note: Hasn't Josh said he and Leanne are best friends?] her family [Note: her family is repeated twice within this statement]...anybody [Note: he allows for and acknowledges that Leanne would call anyone except him- "just take me out of the equation"]."

In this interview he states that "we were together 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 22 months..."- but he can only guess that "maybe she went to clear her head"? If they were as close and loving as he has portrayed them to be, shouldn't he know her well enough to know who she'd call if she needed to talk or if she was upset [and not just "I still have to think she would've..."]? How exactly would "he think" she'd get a hold of anyone without there shared cell phone, unless there is a convenience store close by? Who is "anybody" that he still has to think she'd call? Do women normally call just any old person, without a cell phone, when they go out to take a walk to maybe clear their head? Uhm, let me think a minute...no.

Anonymous said...

I posted above about the 7 Fund Raisers the family put on. I think this is a scam/hoax....that Josh and Leanne both planned and pulled off. I don't think Leanne is dead I don't think Josh harmed her. I think Josh knows right where she is. I know you are not supposed to judge people just by their looks but Josh and Leanne look like major league weirdos to me.

Anonymous said...

imo, i get the feeling that his wife ran the show, so we our blah blah even though he paid for it..... and then without her there, the family is holding his hand now, so there is more of the we, our, even though he is in the spotlight alone.
as for "story" while dealing with getting on jane, it was probably referred to as his story by the show producers.

Sus said...

Oh, Josh Bearden and his family have a 'story.' It seems to be that Leanne hurried out the garage, headed toward I-35 and away from that house.

I can't recall ever hearing a husband who talks so little about his missing wife. Or doesn't use his interviews to beg for her return. I have never seen a family so quickly agree that their loved one probably "ran off."

Anonymous said...

Like to hear who the last person was to speak to Leanne by phone or see her in person beyond Josh at 1pm (I have to assume text or email messages could have been likely faked by Josh in the days or hours leading up to the disappearance of 1pm on 17th). A timeline with details of Josh's activities from Dec. 23rd... up to 6pm on the 17th would go a long ways to establishing patterns and helpful ideas.

If staying at Josh's parents house, then they likely had landline phone and so Josh could have easily used that other phone and given Leanne the cell for safety reasons (I don't think she actually left on her own... thinking that story is a smokescreen). If the cell was left there... were there any missed calls?

Is there ANY history of Leanne taking Hikes on her own over last 23 months? We know that she was a runner, but with Jeans on and hiking type shoes that jogging was out. I have yet to hear a good reason that Leanne would go on a walk/hike by herself as this does not seem to fit any pattern in the last 22 months (clear her head is code for a fight happened and she wanted to get away). I think this is more proof that her going on solo hike was just made up story. Josh does say they were together 24/7 x 22 months... I just don't see her packing 2 power bars and heading out to eat this as lunch by herself with pending job call (in an area he likely knew well, but she was new to this area).

The backpack that is missing is Josh's day pack... if you check out the blog pics, there is never a pic of leanne taking or using that pack, ever. She is shown a few times with a small gray pack that looks more like something you would take for a 1 hour hike. It seems odd that Leanne would take such a huge backpack for a 1 hour hike. No mention of water bottle, or camera or sunglasses or hat or scarf or any other item she might have with her in middle of the day...(what the heck do you need to take with you?) was she wearing her watch (remember she had no cell phone to check the time for 1 hour, important time to be back for that job/interview call, so that seems odd and again points to false story of leaving on hike). Her blog pics show her wearing a watch only about half the time...so it was not like some people who Always wear a watch or not.

Pics of Leanne in the blog, always show her well dressed... matching, or fashionably conscious. and so she is seen with that small gray daypack of her own... almost like it is a matching purse type bag... would she buck this trend and suddenly take this large (for her) pack on a 1 hour solo walk... with her wallet. Remember he was upstairs and she said she was going... Yet no discussion of where she would go.. so he did not see exactly what she took, or what she was wearing (maybe not sure if she had sunglasses, or hat, or jacket or...). so knowing she had no cell and maybe did not know area (again, hearing she did a walk already 3 times solo would show pattern), would suggest you might be more likely as safety issue to find out where/when/why she was going at all. (more I think about her on solo hike it seems bogus as a cover story)

Anonymous said...

I sure wish there was some way to know for sure if the tree trimmer guy actually saw her leave that day/time... and love to hear exactly what Josh did the moment he realized she was late or not back in 1 hour.... did he drive around to look for her.....did he play on the computer and mostly lose track of time? What exactly was he doing in those 4 hours that he now says he knew something was really wrong? The lack of details shoes a basic failure to problem solve out loud or ask for real help.

It bothers me that he often says... We have no idea... no clues... but then shares no details of the time when parents were gone, to time they came back at 6pm. It will be interesting to see when a lie detector test is offered to be taken. or when their own PI wants to get one (just to help remove suspicion as they should want the attention back on the search). Love to hear that 911 call also... .. just to hear amount of distancing that may be used.

I think these false sightings will keep rolling in.. (all from good natured efforts, but will prove to just run the PI around and waste time/money) Maybe PI will wise up and start detailing a timeline and ask some hard questions or get a respected lie detector test going soon, just to know for himself.

Anonymous said...

Is there a majority vote here that people think this is now a scam, or still think she is deceased? I can't understand the scam story, as they would have to know the hideous repercussions they would be faced with. How would LB be able to elude LE or the public for so long.

Anonymous said...

... I never thought the idea of them both being in on a scam was a real possibility. Yes they have a blog and put a lot of energy into it (so maybe a book, or movie, or travel guide could someday come from that if they were suddenly famous) and yes, they may have both been struggling to find a job and integrate back into feeling normal in the USA after traveling for 22 months and visiting 56 countries... But in no story can I see a positive result to faking your own death or kidnapping, or disappearance as this was laid out.

Anonymous said...

... I sure hope I am so very wrong and would love to apologize to Josh that any suspicion was cast his way from my multiple posts, but in this day and age when so many husbands who claim to be innocent and later are proved to be involved in the wife's disappearance and death, it would seem obvious and actually helpful for him to go out of their way to clear themselves fully, so that the investigation could move forward. The passing of a well conducted lie detector test would do that for me personally (I would suggest Josh visit the Dr. Phil TV show and use that forum to get the word out and also clear his name at the same time using Jack Demarco for Lie Detector Test).

Note that I don't think Josh planned to kill her, but could have involved a domestic argument gone bad, or could have involved alcohol or a few other excuses that yielded her death and then obvious cover-up of any foul play on his part. I don't think she went solo hiking that day and that story is the best idea to why she is no there. I think she was likely not killed in the house. I think it was possible she was killed before the 17th... maybe 15th or 16th.

I believe that although there is a chance of random kidnapping story that it is so statistically unlikely it is more proof of s smoke screen.

I believe that although it may be true Leanne was under great stress or having problems finding a job or fitting back in that Josh was having a harder time looking for or truly finding a job (he posted if there are any jobs laying around out there as an obvious attempt to look like he was trying, but not serious about it). She would never leave on her own like this and even unlikely to want to hike near his house. Remember they went 2 hours away to hike in Texas, and did so together, so I don't see any pattern of her doing solo hikes by herself as this is reported how she suddenly disappeared.

ima.grandma said...

Using statement analysis principles, deceptive statements were immediately indicated from the father-in-law, Will Bearden. He has led and diverted the media's message and the public's attention through his statements and actions.

A simple google search of:

leanne "will bearden"

will produce enough statements to analyze. The pros here will quickly identify so.

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...

This is taken from an FB acount set up for Leanne.

Our Friend Leanne Hecht Bearden
15 hours ago
A statement from Megan Spicer (Leanne's dear friend):

Since many of you don't know Leanne, I thought I'd tell you a little bit about her. She dances and sings at the drop of a hat without the fear most of us have- probably doesn't hurt that she's amazing at it:). She laughs a lot and really hard. She has seen a lot of the world and isn't scared of it and sees the beauty in it. She is so smart and resilient- nothing is beyond her realm of possibility. But above all- she loves and takes care of others. Everyone is a friend to her- everyone. There is nothing she wouldn't do for her friends. She'll call you days in advance of your birthday just to be sure she doesn't miss it. If her friends are going through hard times- she will do everything in her power to make it better. We need to do the same for her now. We just need to know she's ok- that's all. Thank you so much for your help.

Q: Does this sound like someone who would just up and leave, without never looking back?.

https://www.facebook.com/ourfriendleannehechtbearden?ref=stream&hc_location=timeline

F said...

Megan's statement strikes me as the kind of statement that a missing person's husband should be making.

Sus said...

F,
Yes, it does. It's a wonderful statement. Did you see his comment under it? He never even addressed it. He chose instead to defend himself to another commenter. Wow!

john said...

Hi, Sus, and F.

Ive posted josh beardens reply to the newest thread, Peter may see it there, and analyze his answer.

Sandy Johnstone said...

These comments make me really sad, vicious accusations and slandering of Josh and now his dad. What are you all going to say to Josh, when they find Leanne or her body, and Josh is proven innocent of any crime?

Can you imagine the pain he is feeling at the moment, the sense of helplessness? No, you are all playing amateur detectives and increasing the pain and hurt of someone who more than likely, is completely innocent.

Just had to say this, as I cant imagine being in Josh's shoes at the moment.

john said...

Sandy Johnstone said...

No, you are all playing amateur detectives and increasing the pain and hurt of someone who *more than likely*, is completely innocent.


Hi Sandy, i understand what you our saying. I can't, however, notice that you are not completely convinced of his possible involvement in Leannes disappearance and his innocence?

Jen Ow said...

I can't imagine being in his shoes either...here's why.

I can't imagine sending my wife out on a walk without a cell phone, and keeping 'our' shared cell phone at home with me, even though SHE was the one venturing out alone, just an hour before SHE had a scheduled interview.

I can't imagine waiting for my mommy and daddy to come home and and make the call for help, when MY wife didn't return home for HOURS.

I can't imagine publically stating that I believe my wife is a 'run away', while simultaneously holding multiple fundraisers to raise money to find her. (It's futile to raise money to find someone who the Bearden's contend doesn't want to be found.)

I can't imagine wasting precious time I could be spending searching for my 'missing' wife, repeatedly returning to a blog that is highlighting her disappearance to insult the blogs writer and followers, while also demanding that they donate money, and hire their own Private Investigator to search for MY wife.

The list goes on, but you get the idea. I can't imagine being in Josh Bearden's shoes, because everything he has done is SO unexpected.

Pitmaston said...

Don’t judge a book by the cover. Don’t judge a book by the movie. A tale never loses in the telling.

What is “our story’? What is the “million dollar idea”?

A scheme maybe, a clever and dishonest plan to do or get something where, their blog set the stage leading up to further development of the plot. When the conflict is worked out, how will it end?

“Don’t be scared”.

“We had known that we would meet up with Josh’s parents In New Zealand since the beginning of our trip so we had that thought in our minds. Now that they were gone we had the reality of being truly on our own for the next 13 months with no plans to meet up with anyone else along the way. It’s a scary feeling but this certainly won’t be the last time that we step out of our comfort zone on this journey.”

http://www.goexplore365.com/2012_06_10_archive.html

“Leanne’s nose is a worldly phenomenon. In Indonesia she was told her nose was too big for her to be from America. In Thailand a gentleman told her she had a “good luck nose”. What does that even mean? One thing’s for sure, her nose is a sight to be seen around the world. We should seriously start charging money for people to make comments about her nose. Who knows, maybe our million-dollar idea is literally under her big nose?”

http://www.goexplore365.com/2012_07_08_archive.html

Leosh Films Around the World.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv4tNw1fs50