TX TX - Julie Moseley, 9, Mary Trlica, 17, Lisa Wilson, 14, Fort Worth, 23 Dec 1974 - #2

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m somewhat new to the thread/story & very interested in learning more. Can anyone provide me with (more)resources & perhaps a timeline of the events that took place on and around that horrible day? I would love to chat with those of you that have followed this case over the years, via dm here or private email. Thank you!
 
I have multiple conflicting "stories" of what took place that day. The source is a family member that witnessed nothing. Basically, stories handed down through that one family. Members or the other two families, actual witnesses, neighbors and friends remember things differently, yet more or less the same as one another. The police have possession of the reports and interviews that would strengthen a time-line, or blow it up. I have every newspaper article. Those have filled in some blanks - chronologically. There are some people I would like to talk to; show documents to; short list of questions. Some of them are dead. Some I'm unwilling to contact - though I know how to. There are few facts. There is no crime scene. There are no bodies - no physical evidence a crime was even committed. What remains makes sense to me. It hasn't been investigated - yet.
 
FW_cat,
I'm trying to follow along and connect the pieces of the comments from several of your posts.


"He went there to catch her doing something he forbid her to do Sunday night." ...
"I believe Debra spilled a secret Sunday night and he was done."...
"She and Rachel were in way over their heads."



Can you please elaborate on what "he" forbid her to do, the secret Debra "spilled", and how they were in "over their heads"?



"I told LE everything I know over 8 years ago."...

"The vehicles were located, and there were divers involved. (July 15, 2014)" ...

"Equusearch did the sonar. I found the perfect diver, locally, through the fire department. They did an amazing job. July 1, 2015."



So, the cars were found in the water in 2014, and / or 2015? What has happened since then? If locating the cars underwater is such a promising discovery I can't believe no progress has been made in two years. This is baffling...
 
According to Rachel's brother, there was a big cat fight Sunday night in a parking lot across from the Wedgwood Bowl. The police have the details - if that happened. According to Debbie, she was working in Dallas that night - wasn't even there. Something happened Sunday night!!! I believe TT forbid Rachel to go shopping. It was a planned trip. He called it off. Can't use the car, can't spend "his" money - treating her like a child. She went anyway, probably to get out of that house. But, she thought she'd get back home and he'd never know. He was very controlling. I believe he called home at lunch time, asked to speak to her (check up on her.) Debbie tells him Rachel's not here. She went to the mall. He locked the shop and drove there (15 minutes) to confront her. He staked out the car, sitting up the hill with a bird's-eye view, and fumed. He intercepted the girls in the aisle. Told her to get in, he'd drive her to the car a football field away.) Control. They are yelling in the car. She's embarrassed in front of the girls that see her as a "grown-up." He drives straight past her car and turns west on Seminary Drive. He should have turned north on McCart to take the girls home. (5 minutes from their homes) Rachel tells him to turn right. Big intersection with lights and turn lanes (he doesn't know Julie, has only seen Renee once, maybe twice.) He goes straight. She's not going to tell him what to do. Typical red-neck, domestic violent behavior. She's going HOME. It's the next to the last time he thought about Renee or Julie - they can call their parents from his house for all he cares. He's not through humiliating Rachel. Seminary Drive dead-ends into Old Grandbury Road. Turning south he passes the bowling alley, the Wedgewood Theatre, Pizza Inn. It's his stomping grounds - not hers. We didn't grow up in Wedgewood. Literally, the other side of the tracks. He doesn't take the first turn-off to his house, or the last one. Debbie is probably there. So he continues to the next place he knows well - to take back his power. I believe after McCart Rachel got louder, defending herself, and he wanted her to shut up. The sooner she starts crying the sooner he has his power back. I can see him backhanding her face with his closed right fist. (That happened to me during a car-jacking, and blood was all over the dashboard and windshield.) I don't think there was a sound from the back seat through all of it. There was no domestic violence in either family. He puts the car in park 25 minutes after he leaves the mall parking lot in a picnic area on a bluff. He gets out of the car, she gets out. He probably goes to the trunk and opens it. Visual privacy from the back windshield audience of two. They continue fighting - it gets more physical. I think her face was a mess. Two days before he has to go to her parents house for Christmas. Her father is his only employee, but he's home dying of cancer. I don't know what the tipping point was - but I don't believe he went to the mall with a plan to murder her. I cannot imagine a worse plan. He was in a murderous rage - because of what happened Sunday night.

Not going to speculate on secrets. It's obvious in light of everything else I don't want to discuss. Telling a secret should never get someone killed, especially a family member. Those sisters didn't know what he was capable of. Never play a sociopath/narcissist for a fool. In. Over. Their. Heads....

What will compell LE to provide resources for the next dive is research that proves there is a car "missing" that is or should have been part of the original investigation. There are only 3 ways to legally dispose of a vehicle on paper. Connect it to a suspect - he won't be able to explain it away. Even if it's stolen, you call the police, right?
 
On motive or what caused TT to snap that day (I am a firm believer that TT is responsible for the disappearance and murder of the three girls), I had the following question while reading the threads.

It was noted early on in thread #1 that TT inherited the house he and Rachel lived in and that an inheritance is not marital property. He moved out soon after Rachel and the other two girls disappeared and he could not sell it until a certain age - 25?

What if 17 year-old Rachel and 22 year-old TT did not know at the time that an inheritance is not marital property? Without legal advice I would not expect either one to know that if some sort of fight or threat occurred - on that Sunday.

What if TT had in fact already planned to move on - as he was/is prone to - and Rachel spoke of taking her half and moving on herself?

Money - one of the usual motives? To 'take out' two girls TT did not know (or not know well) along with his wife is so .... cannot find the words to adequately describe. Jmo.
 
This tragedy had very little to do with money, other than he controlled all of it, was the source of it, owned everything out-right, had no living relatives or anyone else he had to share it with. Rachel was disposable. She deceived him into a marriage he would not have gone through with if he'd known. Adding Debbie as the "house-guest" with no plans to leave made him feel even more used, and manipulated. Out-manipulated and played for a fool. He wasn't wealthy, except in contrast to the sister's background.
There is a belief among Rachel's immediate family that Rachel was pregnant when she disappeared. No evidence of it. Do you think he'd fall for that again? This was about whether or not he was willing to continue to take care of these sisters who contributed nothing - on vacation, basically, while he went to work. He wasn't. He did not go there to kill her or anyone else. He went to confront her and regain control. Only he lost it.
 
FW_Cat said:
This tragedy had very little to do with money, other than he controlled all of it, was the source of it, owned everything out-right, had no living relatives or anyone else he had to share it with. Rachel was disposable. She deceived him into a marriage he would not have gone through with if he'd known. Adding Debbie as the "house-guest" with no plans to leave made him feel even more used, and manipulated. Out-manipulated and played for a fool. He wasn't wealthy, except in contrast to the sister's background.
There is a belief among Rachel's immediate family that Rachel was pregnant when she disappeared. No evidence of it. Do you think he'd fall for that again? This was about whether or not he was willing to continue to take care of these sisters who contributed nothing - on vacation, basically, while he went to work. He wasn't. He did not go there to kill her or anyone else. He went to confront her and regain control. Only he lost it.
Click to expand...

BBM - that's a lot of money issues - considering he felt deceived into the marriage in the first place.

I don't know the players or how they think/thought - not intending to come across that I do. Just looking from afar and using what has proven to be motive time and time again for a disappearance - money and now possibly a baby on the way.

For someone that lost it, that letter was clear thinking imo - especially if he had Rachel write it. The envelope was an error not thought through of course. Having Rachel write it (which I very much agree could have happened) with the other two girls present, seems like he knew he was going to kill them all. Jmo.
 
In 1974 there were no at-home pregnancy tests. You went to a doctor who collected a urine sample. That urine was injected into a laboratory rabbit. If the rabbit died (from the presence of a certain hormone), you were pregnant. It took 3 days. If she were actually pregnant, he would not have killed her.

The financial situation was not a factor in his decision to "undo" his commitment to Rachel. This was about power and control. Rachel turned 17 November 15th, a child bride from a troubled home, gone 36 days later. Whether she lied or not (about either "baby") he had reason to believe she did.
She up-graded her surroundings, escaped an abusive father, and got to run around without parental supervision by getting married at 16.
 
OMG! The envelope. I just figured something out. One detail can change everything and nothing. If TT did not mail that envelope to himself - then he dug it out of the trash.
I just found proof he can ONLY have dug it out of the trash.
Forget the handwriting analysis. Put that envelope into a gas spectrometer and you will find the pencil used to address the envelope is not the same one used to scrawl "Rachel" as the return address. Finally; I don't have a xerox of the back of the envelope - so I didn't mention it; several people who saw and handled the envelope noted that the back flap was crudely torn in half. That was a common location to rubber-stamp a return address. Thomas A.Trlica got a Christmas card on Christmas Eve. We can test the envelope and have a new fact for the pile of circumstantial evidence. It all helps. Thanks for your questions.
 
FW_Cat said:
In 1974 there were no at-home pregnancy tests. You went to a doctor who collected a urine sample. That urine was injected into a laboratory rabbit. If the rabbit died (from the presence of a certain hormone), you were pregnant. It took 3 days. If she were actually pregnant, he would not have killed her.

The financial situation was not a factor in his decision to "undo" his commitment to Rachel. This was about power and control. Rachel turned 17 November 15th, a child bride from a troubled home, gone 36 days later. Whether she lied or not (about either "baby") he had reason to believe she did.
She up-graded her surroundings, escaped an abusive father, and got to run around without parental supervision by getting married at 16.
Click to expand...

Pregnancy tests were not done that way in 70s. https://www.early-pregnancy-tests.com/history
 
Gas chromatography would be adequate to prove that the address and return address [Rachel] were written with different pencils. He dug it out of the trash after all. Who checks the mailbox on Christmas Eve morning? If your wife and two other young girls have been missing overnight; who does that? The person that knows what happened to them.
 
FW_Cat said:
This tragedy had very little to do with money, other than he controlled all of it, was the source of it, owned everything out-right, had no living relatives or anyone else he had to share it with. Rachel was disposable. She deceived him into a marriage he would not have gone through with if he'd known. Adding Debbie as the "house-guest" with no plans to leave made him feel even more used, and manipulated. Out-manipulated and played for a fool. He wasn't wealthy, except in contrast to the sister's background.
There is a belief among Rachel's immediate family that Rachel was pregnant when she disappeared. No evidence of it. Do you think he'd fall for that again? This was about whether or not he was willing to continue to take care of these sisters who contributed nothing - on vacation, basically, while he went to work. He wasn't. He did not go there to kill her or anyone else. He went to confront her and regain control. Only he lost it.
Click to expand...

Hi, I’m not exactly new to this site but I’m mostly a lurker rather than sleuther.
However, I came across this case from another source and thought I’d check on any new developments since it’s hard to find anything more online on it then had already been mentioned.

(sorry for the long introduction)

Ok so here’s my reason for posting...

I believed from the beginning of reading this case that the Husband, and only the Husband, is responsible for their disappearance.
still I have some questions about his motive and would appreciate if you could clarify.
I understand there’s certain things you can’t talk about and i apologize in advance if I’m overstepping here.

1) You mentioned in a post that he wouldn’t have married her if he had known the truth. I’m wondering what exactly the truth is or why he seemed coaxed into marriage?
2) She had a secret that he discovered and there was a lot of talk about pregnancy and him not falling for that AGAIN. I’m curious to know what that secret was. I know you mentioned you can’t divulge, but could you possibly give a hint? Why so much talk about pregnancy and secrets? Him being tricked into marriage?
3) The brother stopped updating his website on instructions of LE to stop posting any updates.
Could that mean that LE has gathered more information over the years and is trying to build a case against someone?
Are they anywhere close to solving this case or have that zeroed in on a suspect and need more evidence to prosecute?

Im glad to see this case getting more attention as of recent.
Also, I’m intrigued by the information you have already provided.
Thank you for keeping this case alive!
 
Evaluna said:
Hi, I’m not exactly new to this site but I’m mostly a lurker rather than sleuther.
However, I came across this case from another source and thought I’d check on any new developments since it’s hard to find anything more online on it then had already been mentioned.

(sorry for the long introduction)

Ok so here’s my reason for posting...

I believed from the beginning of reading this case that the Husband, and only the Husband, is responsible for their disappearance.
still I have some questions about his motive and would appreciate if you could clarify.
I understand there’s certain things you can’t talk about and i apologize in advance if I’m overstepping here.

1) You mentioned in a post that he wouldn’t have married her if he had known the truth. I’m wondering what exactly the truth is or why he seemed coaxed into marriage?
2) She had a secret that he discovered and there was a lot of talk about pregnancy and him not falling for that AGAIN. I’m curious to know what that secret was. I know you mentioned you can’t divulge, but could you possibly give a hint? Why so much talk about pregnancy and secrets? Him being tricked into marriage?
3) The brother stopped updating his website on instructions of LE to stop posting any updates.
Could that mean that LE has gathered more information over the years and is trying to build a case against someone?
Are they anywhere close to solving this case or have that zeroed in on a suspect and need more evidence to prosecute?

Im glad to see this case getting more attention as of recent.
Also, I’m intrigued by the information you have already provided.
Thank you for keeping this case alive!
Click to expand...
All your questions have been asked and answered. Drill down into the threads of the past 2 years. I'll summarize, but again; read.
1) TT would not have married a girl he didn't at least believe was pregnant.
2) There is no evidence she was EVER pregnant - not at the time they were married, nor before, nor later. It's all family gossip. Her mother maintains that Rachel had an abortion (TT's baby) that Spring of '74 before they were married in June. That cannot possibly true, as she stated it to me.
3) LE cannot suppress anyone's freedom of speech. Not with threats, by suggestion, or intimidation. PERIOD. That website remains virtually unchanged since the day it was created. It's not a blog - it is static by design. Rusty wants a seat at the table with LE he will never have. LE has threatened to arrest him but his website has nothing to do with it. I love him, but he gets in his own way.
 
FW_Cat said:
All your questions have been asked and answered. Drill down into the threads of the past 2 years. I'll summarize, but again; read.
1) TT would not have married a girl he didn't at least believe was pregnant.
2) There is no evidence she was EVER pregnant - not at the time they were married, nor before, nor later. It's all family gossip. Her mother maintains that Rachel had an abortion (TT's baby) that Spring of '74 before they were married in June. That cannot possibly true, as she stated it to me.
3) LE cannot suppress anyone's freedom of speech. Not with threats, by suggestion, or intimidation. PERIOD. That website remains virtually unchanged since the day it was created. It's not a blog - it is static by design. Rusty wants a seat at the table with LE he will never have. LE has threatened to arrest him but his website has nothing to do with it. I love him, but he gets in his own way.
Click to expand...

Wow! Thank you so much for clarifying.
I have read others posts about what might have happened but I wanted to ask you personally because you are close to the families involved.

It proves what I believed from the very beginning that was so obvious and all here in black and white!

I really hope LE or someone can break this case wide up so the families can have some closure.
 
FW_Cat said:
OMG! The envelope. I just figured something out. One detail can change everything and nothing. If TT did not mail that envelope to himself - then he dug it out of the trash.
I just found proof he can ONLY have dug it out of the trash.
Forget the handwriting analysis. Put that envelope into a gas spectrometer and you will find the pencil used to address the envelope is not the same one used to scrawl "Rachel" as the return address. Finally; I don't have a xerox of the back of the envelope - so I didn't mention it; several people who saw and handled the envelope noted that the back flap was crudely torn in half. That was a common location to rubber-stamp a return address. Thomas A.Trlica got a Christmas card on Christmas Eve. We can test the envelope and have a new fact for the pile of circumstantial evidence. It all helps. Thanks for your questions.
Click to expand...
That’s what I was asking earlier...if the envelope could have been from mail sent to him from someone else that conveniently had the correct postmark and date he needed.
 
It was always the "other" possibility. I didn't see how anyone could be so lucky. Now it can be proven. Unless the envelope was destroyed by other testing.
 
Thank you all for keeping this thread going, especially FW Cat...we are all learning more about what more than likely really happened. This is such a tragic case and these girls deserve some justice.
 
Anyone know how to create #3 thread and link to #1 & #2? This needs to be archived. And it's getting hard to navigate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 202 more.
Total: 4,377 (members: 203, guests: 4,174)

Online statistics

Members online
203
Guests online
4,174
Total visitors
4,377
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,816
Messages
17,959,540
Members
228,620
Latest member
ohbeehaave
Back
Top