The Telephone Contact

NamUs MP160900 identifies Roblez as 38 at disappearance. Its narrative says the last contact was by phone on August 17, 2024 and that he was last known in the Lawton, Oklahoma, area.¹ The account does not identify an exact physical location for the call.

A telephone contact and a last-known area are different kinds of information. Their presence in the same record does not establish that the call originated at a particular address or that its recipient saw the caller. This paper therefore does not turn the contact into a mapped observation.

The Oklahoma Index Entry

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation’s public index lists Roblez and Lawton Police Department, displaying August 17, 2024 under Date Last Seen. Its search row displayed Missing when reviewed.² The date agrees with NamUs’s contact field, while the labels differ.

The appropriate comparison retains both labels and uses the NamUs narrative to describe the documented form of contact. Agreement between two systems is not independent proof of a physical sighting. Neither public entry supplies the original call record or a firsthand statement for examination.

The Later Administrative Dates

NamUs gives June 27, 2025 in the agency Date Reported field and July 22, 2026 as NamUs Case Created.¹ These later dates do not establish later contact with Roblez. They also do not, by themselves, explain the interval or reveal every earlier communication with authorities.

A chronology should keep those fields separate rather than describing all three dates as versions of when he disappeared. That approach preserves what each source actually labels and leaves the reporting history open to clarification.

The Agency and Reporting Contact

NamUs lists Lawton Police Department and agency case 2025-00043798. Both the NamUs agency entry and the OSBI person-detail page provide (580) 581-3270 as the agency phone number.^1,2 These references help identify the matter accurately when providing information.

The state index’s agency-location field concerns the police department. It should not be substituted for a documented last location of the missing person. This study includes no inferred private address or route.

Sourced Accounts and Questions

NamUs describes an August 17, 2024 telephone contact and a general Lawton-area reference. The state index uses Date Last Seen for the same date.¹² Those labels differ, but the reviewed records do not establish a separate face-to-face observation or an exact location for the call.

Can you find a publicly released agency clarification explaining whether the state index’s date refers to the telephone contact or another documented observation? A statement explicitly describing the event could clarify the labels. Agreement on a date alone cannot turn a call into a physical sighting.

When you compare later material, can you identify whether it documents subsequent contact rather than the June 2025 report or July 2026 database creation?¹ Match MP160900 and Lawton case 2025-00043798, keeping each event date distinct from the date the source was published.

Here’s where you come in: explore these open questions in your own Research File in Almost Solved. Keep the NamUs narrative and Oklahoma index together with their labels. Use public, attributable clarification to extend the chronology without assigning a private call location or an unsupported route.

Conclusion

The public record supports a reported telephone contact, a general last-known area, and separately labelled administrative dates. It does not establish an exact call location or a subsequent journey. Preserving those distinctions makes the two official records usable together without claiming that they resolve the case.