January 11 at the Business

NamUs MP137374 describes Rouhana last seen on the afternoon of January 11, 2025 at a business he owned and operated on Upper Front Street. Its location field says Binghamton, New York.¹ Traci Taylor’s January 15 WNBF report, attributing the information to the sheriff’s office, says around noon in the 1100 block of Upper Front Street in the Town of Chenango.²

The sheriff’s January 29 release names Cars-R-US at 1170 Upper Front Street in the Town of Chenango.³ The city label and business account retain their attribution. They do not establish separate sightings or a route between locations. Around noon and afternoon are differently precise descriptions; no original timed observation was inspected.

Phone Activity Is a Different Kind of Evidence

The January 29 release says records showed his phone was used later on January 11.³ It does not provide the time, location, content, or identity of the person using it. The published device reference alone cannot establish Rouhana’s movements after the business account.

NamUs lists January 14, 2025 as Date Reported and says the family had not seen or heard from him since January 11. It prints Broome County Sheriff’s case 24-01355.¹ The identifier is retained as printed; its prefix is not substituted for the explicitly stated reporting year.

The Family’s Perspective, Kept Dated

In the January 29 release, son Zane Rouhana describes a father of five whose absence affects a family and community: “we know him as Dad.” He asks people with information to contact the sheriff’s office.³

A November 26, 2025 sheriff’s release renews the appeal and includes the family’s belief that he had not left voluntarily.⁴ That is a dated family assessment, not a finding that establishes the circumstances or implicates another person. The November release describes the situation at that time; it is not evidence of a new sighting.

Matching a Later Source to This Record

NamUs lists missing age 69, gray or partly gray hair, brown eyes, 5 feet 10 inches, and 175 pounds. It records glasses and a left-upper-arm tattoo reading D5Z. Its description of a faint left-leg scar leaves the calf or thigh uncertain.¹ That uncertainty should not be silently resolved.

NamUs case creation is January 27, 2025, while the webpage date is May 7, 2026. The agency main phone is 607-778-1911.¹ WNBF and the November sheriff’s appeal direct tips, sightings, and video footage to 607-778-1196.^2,4 These contacts have different published roles.

Sourced Accounts and Questions

Here’s where you come in: keep the last-seen account, phone reference, and family appeals in separate entries in a Research File in Almost Solved. A family’s perspective matters, while the evidence supporting each event still needs its own source.

Can you find a dated agency clarification of the last observation at the business? An attributable witness account or timestamped recording could clarify the time and what was actually observed. Different wording across summaries is not, by itself, proof that witnesses disagree.^1,2

As you examine the phone reference, can you distinguish device activity from a verified observation of Rouhana? A source explaining the record’s time and evidentiary limits could clarify what it supports; the published sentence does not identify who used the phone.³

When you find a later appeal, can you establish whether it adds new evidence or repeats the request for information? Keep its publication date separate from January 11 and from the family’s assessment of the disappearance.^1,4