Tommy filed for divorce in spring of 1976 under the grounds he hadn't been able to locate Rachel. I'm not sure if that divorce was granted or if a death certificate was issued later on. It isn't relevant to the disappearance in my opinion.
TX TX - Julie Moseley, 9, Mary Trlica, 17, Lisa Wilson, 14, Fort Worth, 23 Dec 1974 - #3
- Thread starter Cubby
- Start date
- Status
It is however relevant to me.
That's great but the admins here on WS are very different than the FB page. Its against the rules here to sleuth or discuss "suspects" who have not been named by LE or the mainstream media. And with good reason. These are real people with lives and families.
Mysteries1974
Martha Jean Lambert - Missing since 1985
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,355
- Reaction score
- 4,930
TGwebs is correct. If you discuss possible suspects that have not been named by LE in any way could result in this thread being pulled. I would delete the post.
<modsnip - quoted post removed>
That post was regarding if TT was able to divorce... if Rachel had been declared dead.
I HONESTLY NEED CLARIFICATION... are you saying TT can not be discussed?
That post was regarding if TT was able to divorce... if Rachel had been declared dead.
I HONESTLY NEED CLARIFICATION... are you saying TT can not be discussed?
Last edited by a moderator:
Via Marple
Date, date, date!
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2018
- Messages
- 1,298
- Reaction score
- 7,970
Thanks for spelling out what his 'hunch' is! I am just quoting from MSM.
At least that's what Rusty believes now, otherwise he wouldn't have gone into this much trouble with Bring'em Up.
Leaving stones unturned etc.
I am referring to Debra's ex boyfriend. <modsnip - referenced post removed>
Last edited by a moderator:
Via Marple, I agree it appears that Rusty is all in on this theory. I am glad they'll have an answer to it soon.
<modsnip - quoted post removed>
raven9860, I don't mean to offend you. Ozoner was the one who made the original remark. Then you, in attempting to answer them, referenced comments made about a different person altogether, probably not realizing that Debra had broken up with the person Ozoner was referring to a couple of months before the disappearance and had started dating someone new in the meantime.
This is one of the reasons its against the rules to sleuth or discuss people who haven't been publicly named as suspects. It's too easy to be misinformed or confused and drag someone's reputation through the mud for no reason.
raven9860, I don't mean to offend you. Ozoner was the one who made the original remark. Then you, in attempting to answer them, referenced comments made about a different person altogether, probably not realizing that Debra had broken up with the person Ozoner was referring to a couple of months before the disappearance and had started dating someone new in the meantime.
This is one of the reasons its against the rules to sleuth or discuss people who haven't been publicly named as suspects. It's too easy to be misinformed or confused and drag someone's reputation through the mud for no reason.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
*Please let me know if this is not appropriate*
Persons that state they are family of the girls have stated that the envelope was provided at a different time, by a different person than the letter. Is there any verified info on that?
Persons that state they are family of the girls have stated that the envelope was provided at a different time, by a different person than the letter. Is there any verified info on that?
No! And I wish there was. The only person I've heard say this is FW_Cat who has declined to reveal her source for the information or what year she heard or read this (I personally place higher value on contemporaneous memories, materials, and accounts). FW_Cat I know I've asked before but is there anything else you can share on this? If you can't tell us the name of your source, perhaps just the year you heard this account, and if the person you heard it from was actually there when the letter was presented? Or, if you read it somewhere later, like in a police report?
D
Deleted member 165916
Guest
You nailed it.
Who are the suspects named by LE?
I'm new to this case and truly want to follow the rules so that I can continue. I don't want to mention any party that should not be mentioned. But I've searched far and wide and cannot find the LE named suspects.
I'm new to this case and truly want to follow the rules so that I can continue. I don't want to mention any party that should not be mentioned. But I've searched far and wide and cannot find the LE named suspects.
Owutatangledweb
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,039
- Reaction score
- 7,856
Then why do people keep naming TT?
Aye, there's the rub. LE has never publicly released suspect names.
I'm not a mod or admin, but IMO its perfectly acceptable to discuss suspects such as Lloyd Lee Welch or his ilk that have been convicted in other cases since those people are in the public eye and waived their right to privacy when they committed their crimes.
I think this rule basically is just to look out and make sure no one is being reckless with accusation or insinuation. For instance, publicly speculating a neighbor might be involved simply because they live next door. Or anyone else who just happened to be in close proximity to a case.
To that end, I'm a little surprised all the TT talk has been allowed to go on. The only thing I can think of is that maybe this thread has been up since prior to that rule and everyone gets to run with it now.
D
Deleted member 165916
Guest
Tommy
That is news to me. I suppose I should revisit the rules and WS policies. The reason I posted here under a pseudonym was so I could call a spade a damn shovel without drawing a target on my back or those of my loved ones. There are civil laws that deal with libel and slander. It takes guts to name someone as a killer. If you name a person, there's recourse for the falsely accused. No one here has ever stepped up to defend the numerous serial killers discussed, by name. Don't they have families? Aren't their lives real? What I'm saying is; I can't agree with you on this.
Hi, FW_Cat, I'll fully admit I haven't read the WS policies recently myself. I know this due to mod/admin posts I've read and also because I interviewed Tricia for Ozy.com a couple of months ago. She was very specific that sleuthing an individual unnamed by the mss or LE was not allowed for the reasons I shared (this wasn't part of the article, just a conversation we had).
And as far as the serial killers, yes, I'm sure they have families, but I think its fair to argue that convicted killers are already named by LE and the mss, and are therefore fair game.
D
Deleted member 165916
Guest
Ok, my smart friend; I see the distinction. For the reasons I stated; calling out an individual as a suspect, by name, may not be smart - but it isn't against the law - anywhere. I have some reading to do...
Not against the law - just against the rules on this forum. They've been letting things slide with TT but I see no reason to push it by sleuthing people for no reason other than the fact they dated Debra.
Also, now that I think of it, TT has been named by the media, maybe not as a suspect, but his name is already out there which could be a big distinction. I'll bet it is.
Debra's old beaus, however, have never been named by mss so would fall in an entirely different category.
- Status