The California DOJ Profile

California DOJ lists Abolghasem Esmaeil Abadi as missing since May 19, 2021 and states that he was last seen that day in Turlock. It gives the nickname Babak and describes a dark blue T-shirt and jeans. Its reporting contact is Turlock Police Department, telephone (209) 668-1200, case TP21003385.¹

The short profile does not identify the observer, time of day, precise site, or subsequent destination. Its date is retained as the state profile’s last-seen account, without extending it into a later journey.

A Separately Numbered NamUs Entry

NamUs MP97184 uses the name Abolghasem Esmaeilabadi and the same nickname Babak, with Turlock as the locality. It gives May 12, 2021 under Date of Last Contact. Its narrative attributes that day to a witness observation of him carrying trash from his apartment.² This paper has not examined the underlying witness statement.

That entry lists Turlock Police Department case TP21003658 and June 1, 2021 as Date Reported. NamUs Case Created is November 8, 2022; the surrounding webpage separately displays May 7, 2026 under Date Created.² The agency case number differs from the California DOJ reference. The sources do not explain whether the references concern separate reports, different event roles, or another record distinction.

The 2024 Crime Stoppers Publication

Stanislaus Area Crime Stoppers’ Annual Report 2024 includes a named entry for Abolghasem Esmaeil Abadi with May 12, 2021 as last seen. The entry appears on printed page 7.³ It adds a dated publication to the comparison, but supplies no witness account or explanation for the state profile’s May 19 date.

The report’s use of May 12 does not independently establish which event each agency field represents. Nor does a later publication date make its last-seen description a new observation.

Sourced Accounts and Questions

The California DOJ profile gives May 19 and case TP21003385; NamUs gives May 12 and case TP21003658. The Crime Stoppers report also uses May 12.^1,2,3 These are documented source differences, not proof of incompatible witness statements or an error by an identified person. The records have not been conclusively reconciled here.

Can you find a public agency clarification connecting the two case references and identifying the event behind each date? A statement cross-referencing the records could establish whether they describe different observations or another distinction. Choosing the more repeated date would not answer that question.

When you compare the apartment observation with another account, can you identify what was directly observed and what was later summarized? Preserve the joined surname used by NamUs and the separately printed name used by California DOJ without assuming that formatting alone resolves the case-number difference.

Here’s where you come in: explore these open questions in your own Research File in Almost Solved. Keep each date, case reference, and source together while seeking an attributable reconciliation. Leave motives, movements, and responsibility open; relevant information belongs with investigators.

Conclusion

The sources provide a traceable comparison rather than a single settled chronology. Their shared locality and nickname make the differing dates and case references important to check. A useful reference preserves both presentations until an attributable account establishes how they fit together.