~n/t~
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 17,670
- Reaction score
- 68
Good grief they have her place of disappearance wrong. She didn't disappear from Quebec! She disappeared from Nova Scotia.
WA WA - Marcia Joyce, 28, Bellingham, 30 Aug 1978
- Thread starter Kat
- Start date
Good grief they have her place of disappearance wrong. She didn't disappear from Quebec! She disappeared from Nova Scotia.
iulia
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 7,634
- Reaction score
- 19,524
https://identifyus.org/en/cases/8886
Skull and bones of an adult female found in October 1981 in Olympia, WA, aprox. 150 miles from Bellingham.
Skull and bones of an adult female found in October 1981 in Olympia, WA, aprox. 150 miles from Bellingham.
The brow looks quite different to me.
Although the smile is not quite as natural and relaxed as the black and white photo. I can't tell if that is a "face" being made in the bottom picture, raising the brows on purpose.
Mouse
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 84
On the "Missing" FB page that you linked above, there are three photos under the "photos" tab. One of them is a photo of Marci with her family, including an older woman that I assume is her mother, and another woman about her age that is probably her sister (to my view, they look too much alike not to be sisters). Not close-ups since it's a group shot, but maybe it's enough to work with for an age progression?
alllads
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 360
I know! Though it may be that while the say "Missing From", they really just "Last Seen". Because the last sighting of Sarah was when she came back onboard in Quebec City, and went missing at some point later. So while she did not go missing in Quebec, and there's no way that she could have gone missing while in Quebec, she was in fact 'last seen' in Quebec, but already onboard the ship. The Interpol listings are always really bad, really vague I think.
Mouse
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 84
Also, re: annulments--there is a difference between a civil (government) annulment and a canonical (Catholic church) annulment. A marriage is essentially a government-sanctioned contract, but the issue gets muddled because the US is one of the few countries where a religious ceremony is allowed to substitute for a government ceremony (in many countries, you have to have the government ceremony, and then you can have a religious ceremony in addition if you wish). So you don't have to be Catholic to have a marriage annulled (and getting a civil annulment doesn't mean you automatically get a Catholic annulment, or vice-versa--they're two separate things, and two separate "courts"). Even for a Catholic, you don't have to have a marriage annulled--you just have to have to have the marriage annulled if you want to marry again in a Catholic church (or if you're a previously married non-Catholic and want to marry a Catholic in a Catholic wedding). If a divorced Catholic wants to marry a second or third time in front of a Justice of the Peace, that's fine as far as the government is concerned. It's just not fine in the eyes of the Church.
Also, "non-consummation" isn't the only grounds for an annulment (although it's the one we think of most); you can also get an annulment (both civil and Catholic) for a variety of reasons, such as incompetency or fraud, or finding out you're closely related. Whenever you read about celebrities who get wasted and then have a quickie Vegas ceremony, and then get an even quicker annulment (Carmen Electra & Dennis Rodman, one of Brittany Spears' marriages pop to mind), it's on the grounds that they weren't in their right mind enough to understand the gravity of what they were doing, and they're getting a civil annulment (since you can't get have a quickie Vegas wedding in a Catholic church, since you generally have to slog through months of pre-Cana first).
The Catholic Church has seriously eased up on granting annulments quite a bit in the last 10 or 20 years or so, but at the time Marci disappeared, a Catholic annulment would have been much more difficult to get. And even a civil annulment is generally more difficult to get than to just get a divorce. So I'm a little surprised that Marci's husband went as far as getting an annulment. I can only think of a few reasons that might be: 1. they were staunch Catholics; 2. he wanted to marry again quickly, and didn't want to wait however long you have to wait to prove "abandonment"; 3. he re-married (quickly or not) to a staunchly Catholic woman; or 4. there was some financial benefit to filing for annulment vs. divorce. (Of course, that would depend on the Washington state divorce laws at the time.) Children born from an annulled marriage are still considered "legitimate" both civilly and in the Church, so that probably didn't have any bearing on choosing annulment over divorce. (Arguing that "this will make the kids illegitimate" might be an emotional tactic used to fight a partner about an annulment, but it doesn't have any legal or Church grounds. At least, it doesn't matter unless you're in line for the throne.)
It would be interesting to know if the annulment was just a civil annulment, or if it was a civil and Catholic annulment. The fact that Tom Joyce plays in a "gospel" band makes me think that he, at least, was/is not Catholic, since "gospel" isn't really a word that usually gets used as a descriptor for anything Catholic (other than "a reading from the Gospel of Whoever" during Mass). So it seems like it was probably a civil annulment only, probably filed for on grounds of "fraud" or "deceit" (by a partner who didn't intend to remain living with the family, not fraud or deceit because of the missing money issue).
ETA: If he did, in fact, seek an annulment. There's no proof of that, only a line on a discussion board by someone claiming inside knowledge. But all of that's hearsay.
*Note: Catholic, but not a lawyer
Also, "non-consummation" isn't the only grounds for an annulment (although it's the one we think of most); you can also get an annulment (both civil and Catholic) for a variety of reasons, such as incompetency or fraud, or finding out you're closely related. Whenever you read about celebrities who get wasted and then have a quickie Vegas ceremony, and then get an even quicker annulment (Carmen Electra & Dennis Rodman, one of Brittany Spears' marriages pop to mind), it's on the grounds that they weren't in their right mind enough to understand the gravity of what they were doing, and they're getting a civil annulment (since you can't get have a quickie Vegas wedding in a Catholic church, since you generally have to slog through months of pre-Cana first).
The Catholic Church has seriously eased up on granting annulments quite a bit in the last 10 or 20 years or so, but at the time Marci disappeared, a Catholic annulment would have been much more difficult to get. And even a civil annulment is generally more difficult to get than to just get a divorce. So I'm a little surprised that Marci's husband went as far as getting an annulment. I can only think of a few reasons that might be: 1. they were staunch Catholics; 2. he wanted to marry again quickly, and didn't want to wait however long you have to wait to prove "abandonment"; 3. he re-married (quickly or not) to a staunchly Catholic woman; or 4. there was some financial benefit to filing for annulment vs. divorce. (Of course, that would depend on the Washington state divorce laws at the time.) Children born from an annulled marriage are still considered "legitimate" both civilly and in the Church, so that probably didn't have any bearing on choosing annulment over divorce. (Arguing that "this will make the kids illegitimate" might be an emotional tactic used to fight a partner about an annulment, but it doesn't have any legal or Church grounds. At least, it doesn't matter unless you're in line for the throne.)
It would be interesting to know if the annulment was just a civil annulment, or if it was a civil and Catholic annulment. The fact that Tom Joyce plays in a "gospel" band makes me think that he, at least, was/is not Catholic, since "gospel" isn't really a word that usually gets used as a descriptor for anything Catholic (other than "a reading from the Gospel of Whoever" during Mass). So it seems like it was probably a civil annulment only, probably filed for on grounds of "fraud" or "deceit" (by a partner who didn't intend to remain living with the family, not fraud or deceit because of the missing money issue).
ETA: If he did, in fact, seek an annulment. There's no proof of that, only a line on a discussion board by someone claiming inside knowledge. But all of that's hearsay.
*Note: Catholic, but not a lawyer
Was there any investigation at all at the beginning? The doe network says the money was likely taken two days before she disappeared, likely but not definite? The money seems a major issue who took it and when, and exactly when did the husband find out?
I have a lot of questions.
What happened to the laundry I.e gone too, hung up, strewn about?
What was the garden like, was it fully enclosed or open, small or big, communal or private?
Does the husband have an alibi?
Who saw her actually go into the garden, could she have come in to the house without anyone seeing?
If the husband was involved why? And why in the middle of the day with the children about, why did no one hear an argument if it was day time if it was a domestic? And if she really was hanging out laundry then how did he manage to disappear her so quickly if the son went out into the garden to look for her?
Alternatively, was it possible for someone to lure her out of the garden, or grab her from it - if someone threatened her with a gun would she have gone with them to protect her children who were at home? Could something have caught her attention and made her leave. The money could have been a coincidence, taken by a stalker, given to a friend or blackmailer which could be a motive too, or used to pay someone to hurt her, or the bank and press made a mistake and it was taken afterwards by the kidnapper.
Finally, if she went voluntarily, is it possible she took the money out and left via the garden. Maybe she hid her belongings in the laundry basket so no one in the house noticed. Maybe she was just desperate to escape life at home or planned to get the children afterwards but something happened to stop that.
I really wish we knew what happened to the laundry.
I have a lot of questions.
What happened to the laundry I.e gone too, hung up, strewn about?
What was the garden like, was it fully enclosed or open, small or big, communal or private?
Does the husband have an alibi?
Who saw her actually go into the garden, could she have come in to the house without anyone seeing?
If the husband was involved why? And why in the middle of the day with the children about, why did no one hear an argument if it was day time if it was a domestic? And if she really was hanging out laundry then how did he manage to disappear her so quickly if the son went out into the garden to look for her?
Alternatively, was it possible for someone to lure her out of the garden, or grab her from it - if someone threatened her with a gun would she have gone with them to protect her children who were at home? Could something have caught her attention and made her leave. The money could have been a coincidence, taken by a stalker, given to a friend or blackmailer which could be a motive too, or used to pay someone to hurt her, or the bank and press made a mistake and it was taken afterwards by the kidnapper.
Finally, if she went voluntarily, is it possible she took the money out and left via the garden. Maybe she hid her belongings in the laundry basket so no one in the house noticed. Maybe she was just desperate to escape life at home or planned to get the children afterwards but something happened to stop that.
I really wish we knew what happened to the laundry.
SeaEclipse
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 252
While I realize that the withdrawn money could be a red herring or even a misleading clue intentionally planted by the husband, I can't help but think that the most likely scenario is that:
- Marci withdrew the money in order to flee... possibly even with her children.
- Husband surprised Marci by heading to the bank at a time he normally wouldn't (maybe he subconciously suspected something or maybe she just got really unlucky).
- Marci knew she had to flee then or never... And, if her rationale for leaving was that he was physically abusive, maybe she knew not leaving wasn't really a possibility once he discovered the money was gone.
- She either never planned to take her kids (thought she couldn't support them, thought he'd come after her if she took them, was running away with a BF who didn't want them, thought she could come back for them later... lots of possibilities) or she simply couldn't/wasn't prepared to once the time line was moved up.
I think this scenario also plays with the husband's description of what happened, how he subsequently acted and explains the police reaction at the time:
- On discovering the bank account is empty, he immediately calls home. Why? Because he suspects his wife... or, even more likely, is told by the bank she withdrew the money.
- He reports her disappearance to the police not because he's scared for his wife, but because he thinks she stole his money. Remember, the articles suggest he called the police immediately... I think if he'd killed her, he'd be unlikely to do that, because he could have easily gotten away with staying in town for awhile/establishing more of an alibi. The son, after all, was not concerned at the point dad called home. Remember also that the son, who is definitely not his ally, doesn't suggest that he saw his dad come home while he was supposed to be at the bank or that his mom was missing when his dad left for the bank; he also confirms dad called home from the bank.
- He files a missing person's report 24 hours later as directed. The police barely investigate because he shows them the slip showing that his wife withdrew the money (or they find that out from the bank), the timing of the discovery of withdrawn money+disappearance is simply too suspicious to be unrelated and the son confirms the basics of the timeline. It seems unlikely to me that the police never looked into who withdrew the money at the time even if they only did the most cursory investigation. The most likely reason that the answer to the question wasn't recorded/no one really remembers now is that they got the answer they expected: wife withdrew the money. If they'd found out something else, I think it's much more likely that even a small town police force would have made a note of it and/or investigated further.
- I can see son blaming dad given that (1) mom might have been justified in fleeing if he was abusive and (2) it sounds like dad was horrible to him after the fact.
- Speaking badly of Marci and losing touch with her family would be natural reactions if her husband really thought she ran off/stole his money.
I hate to blame the victim and it's clearly possible that Marci's husband either set her up or found out she took the money and killed her, but I genuinely think the most obvious explanation (including for how the investigation unfolded) is that she took the money and ran.
- Marci withdrew the money in order to flee... possibly even with her children.
- Husband surprised Marci by heading to the bank at a time he normally wouldn't (maybe he subconciously suspected something or maybe she just got really unlucky).
- Marci knew she had to flee then or never... And, if her rationale for leaving was that he was physically abusive, maybe she knew not leaving wasn't really a possibility once he discovered the money was gone.
- She either never planned to take her kids (thought she couldn't support them, thought he'd come after her if she took them, was running away with a BF who didn't want them, thought she could come back for them later... lots of possibilities) or she simply couldn't/wasn't prepared to once the time line was moved up.
I think this scenario also plays with the husband's description of what happened, how he subsequently acted and explains the police reaction at the time:
- On discovering the bank account is empty, he immediately calls home. Why? Because he suspects his wife... or, even more likely, is told by the bank she withdrew the money.
- He reports her disappearance to the police not because he's scared for his wife, but because he thinks she stole his money. Remember, the articles suggest he called the police immediately... I think if he'd killed her, he'd be unlikely to do that, because he could have easily gotten away with staying in town for awhile/establishing more of an alibi. The son, after all, was not concerned at the point dad called home. Remember also that the son, who is definitely not his ally, doesn't suggest that he saw his dad come home while he was supposed to be at the bank or that his mom was missing when his dad left for the bank; he also confirms dad called home from the bank.
- He files a missing person's report 24 hours later as directed. The police barely investigate because he shows them the slip showing that his wife withdrew the money (or they find that out from the bank), the timing of the discovery of withdrawn money+disappearance is simply too suspicious to be unrelated and the son confirms the basics of the timeline. It seems unlikely to me that the police never looked into who withdrew the money at the time even if they only did the most cursory investigation. The most likely reason that the answer to the question wasn't recorded/no one really remembers now is that they got the answer they expected: wife withdrew the money. If they'd found out something else, I think it's much more likely that even a small town police force would have made a note of it and/or investigated further.
- I can see son blaming dad given that (1) mom might have been justified in fleeing if he was abusive and (2) it sounds like dad was horrible to him after the fact.
- Speaking badly of Marci and losing touch with her family would be natural reactions if her husband really thought she ran off/stole his money.
I hate to blame the victim and it's clearly possible that Marci's husband either set her up or found out she took the money and killed her, but I genuinely think the most obvious explanation (including for how the investigation unfolded) is that she took the money and ran.
~n/t~
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 17,670
- Reaction score
- 68
I sent it to Carl. I wasn't sure about the older woman. The woman sitting beside her does look like she could be her sister.
We'll see if Carl can help us. He's really busy with other cases. :seeya:
CatFancier
Former Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 7,931
- Reaction score
- 152
Remember Judith Bello who was missing for 18 years from Stanwood, WA. She was also a devoted mother who family swore wouldn't abandon her children. She was found with a new family a few years ago. She left because her husband was abusive to her but not so much with the kids. She apparently knew he'd come after her if she took the kids.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011...-years-ago-in-northwest-found-alive-in-socal/
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011...-years-ago-in-northwest-found-alive-in-socal/
ETA: Make sure you read the discussion thread in the second link I've posted. A claim is made that Marci Joyce's husband had the marriage annulled and then remarried after her disappearance (although it doesn't say how soon after). Also, sadly, it seems like things were pretty bad for Marci's son, and that the disappearance tore the family apart in more ways than one. 
[/QUOTE]
As a newbie I'm not sure of the rules for quoting so in my own words.. On page 4 of the discussion thread she states that she feels the timing of the annulment and marriage are important. If it would have been 5 years later it would be less suspicious then if it would have happened within, say, 18 months of her disappearance.
oops this was supposed to be a reply.
[/QUOTE]As a newbie I'm not sure of the rules for quoting so in my own words.. On page 4 of the discussion thread she states that she feels the timing of the annulment and marriage are important. If it would have been 5 years later it would be less suspicious then if it would have happened within, say, 18 months of her disappearance.
oops this was supposed to be a reply.
LotsaLatte
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2009
- Messages
- 2,089
- Reaction score
- 4,324
Here is a searchable database for Washington State. The information/dates of both marriages can be found there. I didn't want to post the specific information in case it was not okay to do so.
http://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/
http://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/
Welcome to Ws ReneeF!
Could this blonde uid with protruding teeth, be a possibility?
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120092&highlight=Bowmanville
Could this blonde uid with protruding teeth, be a possibility?
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120092&highlight=Bowmanville
True Crime Gal
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
- Messages
- 135
- Reaction score
- 1
Seconding ReneeF; if you read the link to the babycenter post, read all of the comments. Four pages may seem daunting, but there aren't a lot of comments on each.
One that stood out to me, on page 3, is that the poster, Marci's relative, said that Marci's husband said he didn't discover the money was missing until after Marci disappeared. That changes the story a bit, I think. The annulment within 18 months of the disappearance is a bit sketchy to me, though not as sketchy as it would have been after 3 or 6.
The link again (hope that this is okay): http://community.babycenter.com/post/a8977295/had_to_share_my_amazing_story
tcg
One that stood out to me, on page 3, is that the poster, Marci's relative, said that Marci's husband said he didn't discover the money was missing until after Marci disappeared. That changes the story a bit, I think. The annulment within 18 months of the disappearance is a bit sketchy to me, though not as sketchy as it would have been after 3 or 6.
The link again (hope that this is okay): http://community.babycenter.com/post/a8977295/had_to_share_my_amazing_story
tcg
SeaEclipse
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 252
I didn't totally understand what Marci's niece was saying about the money being discovered gone after the fact. The phrasing of her comment makes it sound like that was the husband's story now, but it's obviously not what's in the MSM articles or what those articles indicate the son now remembers about what happened. She also didn't say it as though it contradicted the MSM articles, which it obviously does (including the one she started the thread with). I think it may just be that the husband means that she took off before he got to the bank, so technically he found out the money was gone right after she took off (but right before he found out that she took off).
SeaEclipse
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 252
I may just be giving the husband way too much of the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think an annulment/remarriage w/in 18 months is that surprising... especially (1) if he thought his wife ran off with his money and (2) he had young kids to care for (especially back then, it may have been the norm for people to think he needed to get them a "new mom" ASAP).
Tssiemer
Well-Known Member
If she did take the money why wait days to run?
DNASolves
Staff online
-
WS AdminAdministrator -
CarlK90245UID Moderator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 223
- Guests online
- 4,115
- Total visitors
- 4,338