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

[Mandam]

Something I’ve wondered, why Debra was staying with Rachel and TT. I would think it would be awkward to live with them, why is it she would prefer that situation to living with her parents? I recall it being alluded to that home wasn’t always a happy place, and that is why she went to live with her sister.

 

[wdmcmahan]

Something I’ve wondered, why Debra was staying with Rachel and TT. I would think it would be awkward to live with them, why is it she would prefer that situation to living with her parents? I recall it being alluded to that home wasn’t always a happy place, and that is why she went to live with her sister.

I remember reading, at the beginning of the first thread somewhere, that Tommy and Debra were still friends after their breakup, and that Debra wasn't bothered by her sister's marriage to Tommy.

It would be awkward for a lot of people to be in that situation, but I am one who can relate because years ago I stayed with my ex-husband and his wife for a couple of months.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

I remember reading, at the beginning of the first thread somewhere, that Tommy and Debra were still friends after their breakup, and that Debra wasn't bothered by her sister's marriage to Tommy.

It would be awkward for a lot of people to be in that situation, but I am one who can relate because years ago I stayed with my ex-husband and his wife for a couple of months.

What she said...pretty much. I left home (escaped) at 17. If that hadn't worked out I would have rather lived in a box under a bridge than go "home."

 

[TGwebs]

What about after that day? You mentioned they sat through a lot of interviews together. Did he notice any disbelief from the Wilsons, for example? Or whispers through grapevines? You would think if the Arnolds neighbour had something they noticed, it would filter through to the Moseleys.

Sorry I haven't responded for a couple of days. In my line of work it's feast or famine and I had a few assignments to get out. Via Marple, I appreciate your line of thinking, but in my opinion even if the Arnolds weren't telling the truth about going to Seminary South that day (which I'm still not convinced of), it doesn't really matter because they didn't have anything to do with their daughter's disappearance. So, if that detail was true or not isn't really important to the disappearance itself.

 

[TGwebs]

All this case needs is the right car in the wrong place. He will not be able to explain it. It will be over - for this case. All three of those cars are clandestine graves - according to experts. Only one of them needs to be ours. The problem I am having is this: with stakes as high as they get; why aren't we focused on identifying the make, model, year, and owner of each vehicle as a next step? Our case doesn't require further physical evidence beyond those facts. Finally; until the research is done - there is no way of knowing if they were put in the lake and that car hauled out years ago for any number of reasons by The Army Corps of Engineers.

FW_Cat, I'm not really clear on the logistics of the dive and what exactly it would take to get down to those cars. All I know is apparently it's about 40 feet down, the water is muddy and the dive is thought to be very dangerous. I've wondered too why someone hasn't concentrated on identifying the vehicles. I guess maybe it's not possible due to the depth and the mud? Since the family is raising private funds, though, I think they have the right to go about this however they want.

 

[TGwebs]

All this case needs is the right car in the wrong place.

I want the families to get the answers they deserve. But it is very possible the cars won't yield them up. I think it's a good thing, if that's the case, that this theory is at least eliminated. It puts them one step closer to the truth.

Lloyd Welch has been discussed on this thread before, however briefly, and I believe he's another very likely suspect. According to the FBI timeline, Welch was in Austin, Texas in January 1974. His next known whereabouts were Wheaton, Maryland on March 25th, 1975. That was the day he abducted the two Lyons sisters from the Wheaton Plaza mall. He burned their bodies so they were never found.

It's horrifying to think about, but the similarities in the cases cannot be discounted.
1) Multiple abductions at the same time (there were two Lyons sisters, but interestingly enough they had a third friend with them for part of the day. Her description was the key to identifying Welch four decades later).
2) Abduction from a public shopping mall
3) Bodies never recovered
4) The Lyons sisters were murdered only 4 months after the girls disappeared from Seminary South

Also, Welch could very well have been in the area. The FBI timeline shows he was in Texas at least at the beginning of 1974.

 

[TGwebs]

Something I’ve wondered, why Debra was staying with Rachel and TT. I would think it would be awkward to live with them, why is it she would prefer that situation to living with her parents? I recall it being alluded to that home wasn’t always a happy place, and that is why she went to live with her sister.

Debra has said her father had a very bad temper. In addition, he was very sick, which must have also been a consideration.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

I want the families to get the answers they deserve. But it is very possible the cars won't yield them up. I think it's a good thing, if that's the case, that this theory is at least eliminated. It puts them one step closer to the truth.

This dive does not rule IN or OUT that the vehicle they left the parking lot in, "with someone they trusted", was not in the lake - ever.

Records: 1)Army Corps~List of vehicles recovered from the lake between that day and today. They report them to the state. Death of a VIN by "salvage." 2)TX DMV~List of all vehicles, registered to or available to the suspect. Incl suspect, his father, Rachel's father - trace the history of each fwd from that day, see if any fell off the grid in the following 12 months. Tags not renewed? Title never transferred?
3) FWPD~coord. DMV records to case file notes and interviews. Is there a vehicle LE wasn't aware of? If so, suspect will not be able to explain its "disappearance." 2,000 lbs of circumstantial evidence OR physical evidence if records reveal its absence and the lake records reveal its known whereabouts. If suspect states it was stolen and never recovered. There should be a police report, somewhere. If there isn't, why didn't he report it stolen? This would be in the following 12 months. If he sold it. Rule in or out if the title was transferred. 4) Arlington PD~Did a customer of the transmission shop report a vehicle stolen shortly following the girls disappearance? There should be a report of it.

Lloyd Welch has been discussed on this thread before, however briefly, and I believe he's another very likely suspect. According to the FBI timeline, Welch was in Austin, Texas in January 1974.
Wonder what he was driving...what if it IS or WAS in Benbrook Lake? Add his name to the above list of suspect "vehicles."

His next known whereabouts were Wheaton, Maryland on March 25th, 1975. That was the day he abducted the two Lyons sisters from the Wheaton Plaza mall.
Wish we had even one eye-witness. Blood evidence. A mountain. "Dots" LE were able to squish together to force a confession after only 42 years.

".....if that's the case, this theory is at least eliminated....."
On this point, I totally agree. LE cannot or will not perform the record searches I asked for going on 10 years ago. They will wholeheartedly eliminate the possibility that the girls have been been right under their noses all along. 60 ft under their very nose.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

Debra has said her father had a very bad temper. In addition, he was very sick, which must have also been a consideration.

If I can add something here ~ I want records on Cotton's vehicles NOT because I think either of Rachel's parents are directly involved in ANY way. I add it to the list because of his poor health, and the possibility - however remote - TT had "access" to a vehicle Cotton had a title to and in all the chaos its absence from the shop was overlooked. He died 7 months after the girls disappeared. In 1977 my grandmother went into a nursing home. I needed a car. She offered to let me "borrow" hers until I could get one of my own. About 6 weeks later - New Year's Eve 1977 - friends asked me to join them at an Arlington honky-tonk. I was alone. Just after midnight, driving back to Fort Worth, freak ice-storm cranked up. Spun out on an overpass, sliding across 4 lanes slammed into the guardrail facing the wrong way. I was fine, but the entire passenger side was demolished. How was I going to tell me grandmother I totaled her car? About 2 months later she died unexpectedly (58 years old.) My first thought was "Oh NO!" My second thought was "I don't have to tell her about her car." Sounds awful, I know. I was young. That experience is what made me add any car Cotton didn't know was missing - however remote.

 

[Via Marple]

Nooo, don't think THAT! I do get impatient with some ppl who arrive "late to the party." I don't blame them for it, however, I have 174 messages (counting this one) - only one case that I work on. I don't think that is too much information to skim through if you got here 10 minutes ago. I'm not here to summarize the mountain of information - much I am not free to discuss. I'm here to ask thought provoking questions, challenge ideas, and bring some logic to the chaos of theory. Forgive me when I am glib. Mostly, that happens when I'm tired and under stress. This case is like a bad soap opera in it's 44th season. Ask your questions. My intention is always to keep the main thing the MAIN THING. Figure out where they ended up; it will tell us what happened and who is responsible. Try to remember that I live here and know things, and I'll try to remember that yall don't.

Fw Cat, I think the members here, myself certainly included, cannot thank you enough for your input to this thread.

I was hooked after reading a page or two. Then I went back to the first #1 thread and started reading from there. More than 10 years of posts. There had been Debra herself; some enthusiastic theories about security guards, serial killers... and then you came along. It is a case though stone cold, somehow captivates emotions. I don't even live in the States.

I have to admit I can't remember all the details I had read, but if you remind me, it's easy enough to search for it in the thread. Thanks to Tricia and Websleuths for the hard work.

Re looking for where they ended up: it could be the only way to get hard evidence now. Theories are just that, without a way to prove them. No bodies, no crime scene - not even a murder.

 

[Via Marple]

Sorry I haven't responded for a couple of days. In my line of work it's feast or famine and I had a few assignments to get out. Via Marple, I appreciate your line of thinking, but in my opinion even if the Arnolds weren't telling the truth about going to Seminary South that day (which I'm still not convinced of), it doesn't really matter because they didn't have anything to do with their daughter's disappearance. So, if that detail was true or not isn't really important to the disappearance itself.

Don't worry about responding right away. I was a freelancer myself for many years in IT, had to work any time, or not at all.

No the lying doesn't have to do with the disappearance, but it does mess up with the investigation. I am following right now on a case in Australia (Karen Ristevski, there's a thread), many posters think the daughter is lying to protect her father (accused killer) even though she says she was closed to her mother (victim). In such family situations, it's hard to understand the stress the family members are under, and why they react in certain ways.

 

[TGwebs]

This dive does not rule IN or OUT that the vehicle they left the parking lot in, "with someone they trusted", was not in the lake - ever.

The "someone they trusted," thing has always bothered me. Because what Boetcher actually said is that they "believe" the girls left with some one they trusted. Although it seems straight forward on it's face, its actually a very vague statement. The word believe can mean a number of different things here.

1) They "believe" the girls left with someone they trusted simply because they think it's the most likely scenario and can't otherwise explain how someone could abduct multiple people at once. The word "believe" here could just as well be "speculate"

2) It could also mean that they'd identified the person seen talking to the girls at the mall and knew for a fact the person was someone they trusted, but didn't know if the girls left with this individual because no one saw that happen. Hence the qualifier, "believe."

3) It could mean they have a credible tip, and they "believe" it's true, but no proof.

4) It could also mean they had a suspect in mind and the suspect was someone the girls trusted. Therefore they "believe" the girls left with this person even that there's actually nothing to back it up. Let's hope that's not the case, if it is, there may have been some concrete tips ignored because it wasn't in line with the suspect they have in mind.

The other interesting thing about the "believe the girls left with someone they trusted," statement is that it was made over 25 years after the disappearance and at that time they also said they were focusing on as many as 5 different suspects. This tells me that whatever they had, it wasn't much. Therefore I tend to discount the statement all together. Maybe they left with someone they trusted, maybe they didn't, all we know is the police "believed" they did at one time. This is one of the reasons I'd love to see the police files.

I like solid word choices. As it is, this statement leaves a lot up for interpretation.

 

[k-mac]

the point that the abductor needed to make a connection to rachels husband via the letter and make unnecessary inroads (risking getting seen,dna, hand writing, time, all sorts of free clues) makes me think the letter is buying time, justification as to why girls aren't around.
this points to guilt and defusion.

would a random boogie man really need or want to take such risks???
wouldn't handling 3 young women and undermining them be enough to contend with?

I see the letter as a huge mistake.
it brings unnecessary connection to the abduction and family.

a ransom note sure......but a justification letter not to look for me??

thoughts?

 

[TGwebs]

the point that the abductor needed to make a connection to rachels husband via the letter and make unnecessary inroads (risking getting seen,dna, hand writing, time, all sorts of free clues) makes me think the letter is buying time, justification as to why girls aren't around.
this points to guilt and defusion.

would a random boogie man really need or want to take such risks???
wouldn't handling 3 young women and undermining them be enough to contend with?

I see the letter as a huge mistake.
it brings unnecessary connection to the abduction and family.

a ransom note sure......but a justification letter not to look for me??

thoughts?

The letter writer didn't risk DNA testing. It didn't exist yet. At most they risked fingerprints and hand writing analysis.

And there's also no proof the letter writer and the abductor are the same person. In cases like these there are always crackpots who want to insert themselves into the crimes. They make false tips to police, send fake letters, even sadly, harass families with fake phone calls. It's pathetic and impossible to understand since they have nothing to gain from it. Countless people knew the girls were missing and the car was found at Sears the evening before. The letter could have been written by such an individual and not anyone related to the case.

That being said, it could have also been written by the abductor (or Rachel under duress). If that's the case then I agree with you that the goal was probably to create a distraction and buy a little time. But there's no way to know for sure. Therefore I think it's wise to remain open to either possibility.

 

[Thewop356]

the point that the abductor needed to make a connection to rachels husband via the letter and make unnecessary inroads (risking getting seen,dna, hand writing, time, all sorts of free clues) makes me think the letter is buying time, justification as to why girls aren't around.
this points to guilt and defusion.

would a random boogie man really need or want to take such risks???
wouldn't handling 3 young women and undermining them be enough to contend with?

I see the letter as a huge mistake.
it brings unnecessary connection to the abduction and family.

a ransom note sure......but a justification letter not to look for me??



I totally agree!!!

 

[Via Marple]

Ahhh the subject of the letter has really been "done to death" in this thread! (No pun)

Since I had never discussed it, maybe I will put in my two cents...

I think it was the same handwriting on both the letter and the envelope. Though the addressee line (Mr ... Trlica) had a slightly different look to it, might have been written on a separate occasion. I am NOT a handwriting expert. MOO..

I don't think a random person wrote and posted it, as TG has speculated above. They found Rachel's car at 6pm that day. That gave a very small time window of opportunity, for a crackpot to write a letter with the car's detail on it, and got it posted in time for next day delivery.

As usual please correct my understanding, y'all who know the story a lot more than me!

 

[TGwebs]

Ahhh the subject of the letter has really been "done to death" in this thread! (No pun)

Since I had never discussed it, maybe I will put in my two cents...

I think it was the same handwriting on both the letter and the envelope. Though the addressee line (Mr ... Trlica) had a slightly different look to it, might have been written on a separate occasion. I am NOT a handwriting expert. MOO..

I don't think a random person wrote and posted it, as TG has speculated above. They found Rachel's car at 6pm that day. That gave a very small time window of opportunity, for a crackpot to write a letter with the car's detail on it, and got it posted in time for next day delivery.

As usual please correct my understanding, y'all who know the story a lot more than me!

Via Marple, I definitely don't have anything to correct. I've gone back and forth on the letter many, many times in my own mind. So many times I don't know what I think. Except this - it's important not to eliminate anything till it's been disproven. I feel, logically, there's more than one explanation for letter, so when I'm thinking about this on my own, I like to keep both explanations in mind. Otherwise, it's too easy to miss something.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

FW_Cat, I'm not really clear on the logistics of the dive and what exactly it would take to get down to those cars. All I know is apparently it's about 40 feet down, the water is muddy and the dive is thought to be very dangerous. I've wondered too why someone hasn't concentrated on identifying the vehicles. I guess maybe it's not possible due to the depth and the mud? Since the family is raising private funds, though, I think they have the right to go about this however they want.

A 40' dive is nothing. One car is at 60'. Also no big deal. What is so dangerous? They plan to touch them. If only 2 divers are down there, attaching bladders to the frame, out-fitted with oxygen tanks, hydro-hoist. That will create a cloud of silt, rendering the diver blind. Visibility will go from 8" to ZERO INCHES. It isn't black at that depth. It's dark or darker green. It will take hours to restore it to 8". So you have to get out of the water and wait. There is no glass in any of those cars - gone. Bring Em Up. There will be no physical evidence of anything. If this operation is supported by LE, why wasn't the dive team given the GPS numbers? Why did this new diver have to locate them with infra-red cameras? Everyone in LE (3-5 jurisdictions) has the GPS locations. Equusearch does. The diver that mapped them does. I understand team "Operation Bring Em Up" are doing "practice dives" blindfolded. I don't understand why. Do a night dive. Turn off the sun. Bring under-water lights - a timing-light. Take a photo essay of each car - 100 frames of each car - enough to establish make/model/year. Pray for a VIN#. That is a full day PER CAR. Compare them to the records that will identify the owner...No! wait, they won't have any records. I guess they can put the facts on the news and turn the public loose. OR figure out what, if any, vehicle is of interest to our case before you go down there, and leave the other two alone - for those families to make their own decisions. That's the problem I have with the approach of "Operation Bring Em Up."

 

[Via Marple]

A 40' dive is nothing. One car is at 60'. Also no big deal. What is so dangerous? They plan to touch them. If only 2 divers are down there, attaching bladders to the frame, out-fitted with oxygen tanks, hydro-hoist. That will create a cloud of silt, rendering the diver blind. Visibility will go from 8" to ZERO INCHES. It isn't black at that depth. It's dark or darker green. It will take hours to restore it to 8". So you have to get out of the water and wait. There is no glass in any of those cars - gone. Bring Em Up. There will be no physical evidence of anything. If this operation is supported by LE, why wasn't the dive team given the GPS numbers? Why did this new diver have to locate them with infra-red cameras? Everyone in LE (3-5 jurisdictions) has the GPS locations. Equusearch does. The diver that mapped them does. I understand team "Operation Bring Em Up" are doing "practice dives" blindfolded. I don't understand why. Do a night dive. Turn off the sun. Bring under-water lights - a timing-light. Take a photo essay of each car - 100 frames of each car - enough to establish make/model/year. Pray for a VIN#. That is a full day PER CAR. Compare them to the records that will identify the owner...No! wait, they won't have any records. I guess they can put the facts on the news and turn the public loose. OR figure out what, if any, vehicle is of interest to our case before you go down there, and leave the other two alone - for those families to make their own decisions. That's the problem I have with the approach of "Operation Bring Em Up."

Amazed that you know all these things, FW Cat!

Have you got any useful response from LE at all, after contacting?

 

[Via Marple]

Via Marple, I definitely don't have anything to correct. I've gone back and forth on the letter many, many times in my own mind. So many times I don't know what I think. Except this - it's important not to eliminate anything till it's been disproven. I feel, logically, there's more than one explanation for letter, so when I'm thinking about this on my own, I like to keep both explanations in mind. Otherwise, it's too easy to miss something.

I understand your logic. But the human mind can't handle so many variables in the head!

Say you have 5 variables (who wrote the letter, who is the suspect, where did they end up etc) and each variable has 5 possibilities. Know the answers and you solve the mystery.

If you don't eliminate any possibility, you will have 5x5x5x5x5 possible scenarios. That is 3125 scenarios that you have to consider! That is why it's been called chaos, mind boggling etc..

Investigators often say they can "safely" eliminate some possibilities. They are also often accused of tunnel vision.