TX TX - Julie Moseley, 9, Mary Trlica, 17, Lisa Wilson, 14, Fort Worth, 23 Dec 1974 - #3

[NC_AVT]

I am new to this case but really drawn to it since I was a 17 year old bride in the 1970’s and can relate a lot to Rachel. I married to leave home; I was kind to younger friends; and some of the reactions by the law etc. really amaze me. Renee had just gotten a promise ring and was excited about going to a party with her boyfriend; Rachael was a newlywed with a 2-year old stepson; but most of all- who would run away with a 9 year old? Was the FW PD crazy?? How in the world could they make such an assumption?? And that letter was shady. Anyone coming tell it was manufactured to be a red herring. I do have several questions because I have noticed many discrepancies in the information I’ve found online.
1. Were there any Christmas presents in the car besides the ones there before they reached the Mall?
2. Where was Tommy? Why was Rachel,s mom and brother searching the mall for her?
3. Rachel was a very beautiful girl - if she WAS up to no good as was stated in one online place- why would she organize a group shopping trip?? Ask several people to go??
4. Why is Tommy absent from all of the searches?

There are so many discrepancies out there that I can only imagine how hard it can be to get a true understanding of this case. I truly hope that the trio is finally found and laid to rest after the suspected car is raised. They deserve to be found. They deserve to be remembered. They deserve to have their true story told!

 

[Deleted member 165916]

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.

Thanks. I just figured something out.

 

[Via Marple]

Another fav thread of mine has just been closed by Tricia someone was posting content that did not have direct relevance to that case. Most posters were relevant.. But it might just take one post to be reported, and the mods would start to pay attention.

So I would urge everyone not to push too far with this thread, myself included! In case of doubt, I think we can check with a mod first before posting.

Regarding FB, I think posting admin's posts from an official page for the victims is allowed. Though I don't know how official Rusty's page is.

If only we could ask TG to be a mod then we would get supervision regularly and wouldn't have to worry about stepping out of line, and getting 'orphaned' by WS.

 

[Mysteries1974]

Multiple threads have been removed due to accusations without evidence or no release in the media. The threads can be started again but all of the messages are gone.

 

[TGwebs]

If only we could ask TG to be a mod then we would get supervision regularly and wouldn't have to worry about stepping out of line, and getting 'orphaned' by WS.

Oh, my gosh. Don't say that. I don't mean to sound like a monitor. Its just that the insinuations in Ozoner's post were particularly egregious. I would have said something out of pure decency, even if I wasn't aware the WS very reasonable rules had been violated.

 

[3llecia]

Multiple threads have been removed due to accusations without evidence or no release in the media. The threads can be started again but all of the messages are gone.

<modsnip - discussing fb comments>

It's protection that works both ways - a thread won't be taken down if people comply; and an innocent person's name won't be dragged through the mud because a layperson decides to post a suggestion of guilt without knowledge of libel/defamation law (yes, what you write on Websleuths is considered "publishing"' by the law.)

An example from Australia (my country) is a thread about an alleged serial killer that was shut recently, due to (innocent) discussion of two witnesses in the current trial, as their names are under suppression orders. WS received a cease and desist and took the entire thread down.

 

[raven9860]

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.

So the reality is that no person can be discussed as possibly being involved in the probable abduction/murder of these girls. Even other admitted and/or convicted violent criminals have not been connected to the girls and can't be suggested as possibly being related to their disappearance.

That would also exclude any discussion of spouses, exspouses, siblings, security guards, or cars in a lake. And limit discussion to only what is known: 3 young girls arrived at the mall and there is no evidence that they ever left that location or that any crime was committed by any other party.

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.

 

[TGwebs]

So the reality is that no person can be discussed as possibly being involved in the probable abduction/murder of these girls. Even other admitted and/or convicted violent criminals have not been connected to the girls and can't be suggested as possibly being related to their disappearance.

That would also exclude any discussion of spouses, exspouses, siblings, security guards, or cars in a lake. And limit discussion to only what is known: 3 young girls arrived at the mall and there is no evidence that they ever left that location or that any crime was committed by any other party.

That would have to be run by the mods to be sure. As I further discussed with FW_Cat above, I believe folks like Tommy and the named security guard are probably different because they were named by main stream media sources. Tommy because he was husband to Rachel and Bill Hutchins because he sat for a television interview and was quoted in the paper.

 

[Ozoner]

So the reality is that no person can be discussed as possibly being involved in the probable abduction/murder of these girls. Even other admitted and/or convicted violent criminals have not been connected to the girls and can't be suggested as possibly being related to their disappearance.

That would also exclude any discussion of spouses, exspouses, siblings, security guards, or cars in a lake. And limit discussion to only what is known: 3 young girls arrived at the mall and there is no evidence that they ever left that location or that any crime was committed by any other party.

Good point.
-
<modsnip - blog discussion not allowed>
-
<modsnip discussing moderating>
-
I'm trying to explore all angles, but I do think the FW_Cat's theory is the most likely one. I'm not too sure about her motive, though. I can think of many others:
1) Maybe Rachel was pregnant and refused to get an abortion.
2) Maybe Rachel found out something about TT that would have put him in prison and confronted him about it in the presence of the other girls.
3) Maybe Tommy impetuously confessed something major in the presence of the girls, immediately regretted doing so, and decided that he had to get rid of the trio.
4) Maybe Rachel asked for a divorce and TT lost his temper.

<modsnip - sleuthing non POI>

 

[Mysteries1974]

No more suspect naming.

 

[NC_AVT]

Were any actual suspects ever named? I’ve never seen any mentioned but I wondered who the person was that they were allegedly seen with in the mall....How do 3 people just disappear like that? Did they ever even make it outside of the mall to the parking lot or their car? Did a simple stop to use the restroom before they left give someone an opportunity to take them into the basement, tunnels, security section, etc., that were said to exist? How do we really know if they ever were in the parking lot again?

 

[Via Marple]

Were any actual suspects ever named? I’ve never seen any mentioned but I wondered who the person was that they were allegedly seen with in the mall....How do 3 people just disappear like that? Did they ever even make it outside of the mall to the parking lot or their car? Did a simple stop to use the restroom before they left give someone an opportunity to take them into the basement, tunnels, security section, etc., that were said to exist? How do we really know if they ever were in the parking lot again?

Using the restroom... Now that's one angle I hadn't heard of before! (But I am sure has been discussed elsewhere)

 

[Mrs. Badcrumble]

It is a shame that threads are locked or pulled simply because people don't read the WS rules, so I just post the link here:
Rules - Etiquette & Information

 

[3llecia]

It is a shame that threads are locked or pulled simply because people don't read the WS rules, so I just post the link here:
Rules - Etiquette & Information

There’s even a ‘short’ and ‘long version’ with a lot of effort made to inform posters about their consent, rights and responsibilities.

 

[3llecia]

Were any actual suspects ever named? I’ve never seen any mentioned but I wondered who the person was that they were allegedly seen with in the mall....How do 3 people just disappear like that? Did they ever even make it outside of the mall to the parking lot or their car? Did a simple stop to use the restroom before they left give someone an opportunity to take them into the basement, tunnels, security section, etc., that were said to exist? How do we really know if they ever were in the parking lot again?

I know a lot of these have been covered in this thread previously. As for making three girls disappear? Personally, I think it can only be under a false premise (either stranger or acquaintance ‘luring’ them away) or force.

The former seems to be the MO of other convicted murderers who have abducted children or young adults from busy public areas. And as this disappearance happened in broad daylight, and there are no real witnesses to the moment the trio left the scene that day, I think coercion would be more likely than violence, a scenario with the air of a ‘perfectly normal situation.’

 

[raven9860]

To clarify, the rule is not to 'sleuth' people who haven't been named as a suspect (someone may want to clarify here whether that also includes 'persons of interest'). So basically, do not go searching for someone's personal information just because they are related to the case and then subsequently post it on a WS forum.

You also cannot post statements that imply someone is responsible for the crime without MSM or verified statements from authorities.

You cannot use information gleaned from a FB comment and quote it here as fact either.

You can raise awareness to the presence of 'interesting comments' on a FB page, but that's the tolerance threshold for FB speculation on WS.

You can use the best trick in the book: frame your posts as if it is your own personally formulated opinion.

"In my opinion, X should be questioned" would pass but "Why hasn't X been questioned, they're clearly responsible/a suspect" would not.

And if you don't know whether your post is going to infringe on the ToS - ask yourself whether or not the risk of breaking the rules is worth the content in the post.

TT is only a person of interest to some members of the families. And even they aren't calling him out by name publically.

And I can find no public info at all that he was ever a person of interest/suspect that was named by law enforcement.

So with that said, anything posted that would insinuate that he is in any way linked to the disappearance of the girls would be a violation of the TOS.

Actually, anything posted that insinuates ANYONE is linked to their disappearance would be a violation. The fact is LE NEVER named ANY suspects.

 

[raven9860]

Were any actual suspects ever named? I’ve never seen any mentioned but I wondered who the person was that they were allegedly seen with in the mall....How do 3 people just disappear like that? Did they ever even make it outside of the mall to the parking lot or their car? Did a simple stop to use the restroom before they left give someone an opportunity to take them into the basement, tunnels, security section, etc., that were said to exist? How do we really know if they ever were in the parking lot again?

No. There were never any NAMED suspects.

 

[TGwebs]

To clarify, the rule is not to 'sleuth' people who haven't been named as a suspect (someone may want to clarify here whether that also includes 'persons of interest'). So basically, do not go searching for someone's personal information just because they are related to the case and then subsequently post it on a WS forum.

You also cannot post statements that imply someone is responsible for the crime without MSM or verified statements from authorities.

You cannot use information gleaned from a FB comment and quote it here as fact either.

You can raise awareness to the presence of 'interesting comments' on a FB page, but that's the tolerance threshold for FB speculation on WS.

You can use the best trick in the book: frame your posts as if it is your own personally formulated opinion.

"In my opinion, X should be questioned" would pass but "Why hasn't X been questioned, they're clearly responsible/a suspect" would not.

And if you don't know whether your post is going to infringe on the ToS - ask yourself whether or not the risk of breaking the rules is worth the content in the post.

Thanks for posting! I spoke to Tricia for about two hours for an interview a while back and your suggestions definitely resonate with everything she expressed to me.

 

[Via Marple]

TT is only a person of interest to some members of the families. And even they aren't calling him out by name publically.

And I can find no public info at all that he was ever a person of interest/suspect that was named by law enforcement.

So with that said, anything posted that would insinuate that he is in any way linked to the disappearance of the girls would be a violation of the TOS.

Actually, anything posted that insinuates ANYONE is linked to their disappearance would be a violation. The fact is LE NEVER named ANY suspects.

Good summary, except I can see a problem with this rule. (Similar to you I guess?)

If LE has screwed up a case, then there would be nothing left to talk about.

<modsnip - discussing fb posts>

 

[folieadeuxnola]

Unsure if this has been posted yet or not

Divers Search Benbrook Lake in Search of Clues in 1974 Disappearance of 3 Fort Worth Girls | News Talk WBAP-AM

One car — a Chevy Corvair – was taken to an undisclosed location to be analyzed for evidence.

Among onlookers, was Fran Langston; her daugher is among the missing. Langston told the Star-Telegram that she “hopes there is some evidence in the cars.” After difficulty raising a second car, divers gave up for the day, but plan to return this weekend to continue efforts to raise it.