TX TX - Julie Moseley, 9, Mary Trlica, 17, Lisa Wilson, 14, Fort Worth, 23 Dec 1974 - #5

Status
Not open for further replies.
How could he have not known about the Fort Worth location? Do you know the dates that the Fort Worth location opened and closed? Tommy's claim seems implausible unless the Fort Worth location had closed before Tommy started working for Cotton.
I could not find the date of the newspaper this ad is from.Honestly his answer to everything I have ever asked him in our group was I don't remember.It should not be to hard for me to find the answer though.
 
Hi there. I’m rather new to this case, but over the past week or so have read every single message from the first post to now. (If only work and family life didn’t get in the way of sleuthing, lol.) It’s been so interesting to see the evolution of thoughts and suspects over the past decade.

I’ve come to the way of thinking that those closest to the family and the tried-and-true researchers in this forum appear to believe. (Not naming names.) My sticking points are why FA would provide an alibi for TT? And also why Rachel’s family would say Rachel didn’t write the letter? Doing the very opposite—*not* providing an alibi for TT and saying Rachel *did* write the letter— would actually cast suspicion away from her immediate family, something you think would be logical in this circumstance.
 
Hi there. I’m rather new to this case, but over the past week or so have read every single message from the first post to now. (If only work and family life didn’t get in the way of sleuthing, lol.) It’s been so interesting to see the evolution of thoughts and suspects over the past decade.

I’ve come to the way of thinking that those closest to the family and the tried-and-true researchers in this forum appear to believe. (Not naming names.) My sticking points are why FA would provide an alibi for TT? And also why Rachel’s family would say Rachel didn’t write the letter? Doing the very opposite—*not* providing an alibi for TT and saying Rachel *did* write the letter— would actually cast suspicion away from her immediate family, something you think would be logical in this circumstance.
In my opinion, Fran provided a false alibi for TT so that TT would provide a false alibi for Cotton. Initially, TT probably didn't suspect that Cotton was involved in the abduction and murder of the girls, but (as Rachel's husband), he was probably worried about being blamed himself. Fran likely told TT that she'd give him an alibi with the ulterior motive of creating an alibi for Cotton, and the alibi that she concocted placed Cotton at the transmission shop with TT.
-
Now TT can't admit that he gave Cotton a bogus alibi because that would mean admitting that his own alibi is phony.
 
In my opinion, Fran provided a false alibi for TT so that TT would provide a false alibi for Cotton. Initially, TT probably didn't suspect that Cotton was involved in the abduction and murder of the girls, but (as Rachel's husband), he was probably worried about being blamed himself. Fran likely told TT that she'd give him an alibi with the ulterior motive of creating an alibi for Cotton, and the alibi that she concocted placed Cotton at the transmission shop with TT.
-
Now TT can't admit that he gave Cotton a bogus alibi because that would mean admitting that his own alibi is phony.
Let's not forget she also had Cotton home in bed at one point all day.IMO both were at the shop in Arlington that day and rode together as usual but how long they stayed and where else they might have went is a good question.
 
Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. My initial thinking was that this couldn’t be premeditated due to the presence of the other girls, but there is so much thought and scheming involved that I’m starting the feel it had to have been planned to some extent (though not involving Julie). Which makes me shudder to think to what end ...
 
Last edited:
Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. My initial thinking was that this couldn’t be premeditated due to the presence of the other girls, but there is so much thought and scheming involved that I’m starting the feel it had to have been planned. Which makes me shudder to think to what end ...
@Ozoner —meant to quote/reply to your response. Thank you.
 
Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. My initial thinking was that this couldn’t be premeditated due to the presence of the other girls, but there is so much thought and scheming involved that I’m starting the feel it had to have been planned to some extent (though not involving Julie). Which makes me shudder to think to what end ...
According to third friend this indeed was a planned trip and Julie was a last minute add on.The girl's aunt and uncle were the ones having the Christmas party that evening and she elected to help with that instead of going with Rachel and Renee.
 
According to third friend this indeed was a planned trip and Julie was a last minute add on.The girl's aunt and uncle were the ones having the Christmas party that evening and she elected to help with that instead of going with Rachel and Renee.
Wow. That is something I have not heard before and really does support that this was planned. From what I have read, it seemed sort of last-minute: ask this friend, ask mom, etc., if they wanted to go shopping.

That lucky/poor girl who elected not to go. This must stay with her. I would assume that friend was around the same age as Rachel and Renee?

I apologize for all my questions And I thank you for answering. I read through everything before I formed an opinion and now I’m trying to nail down specifics of things I don’t believe have been asked before, or at least not in this context.

Possible motives if we assume it was premeditated (which of course we don’t know for sure): jealousy (Rachel getting married and moving out), money (money being lost because can no longer sell “goods”—I read this detail somewhere else; or money being gained via trafficking—we know there were money problems) ... what other possibilities? There was a suspected pregnancy, and not the first among the girls in the family.

I recall a family insider saying TT did not know at the time about Rachel’s home life. I had assumed it was an open secret locally based on earlier posts. It must have been difficult to have the daily continued connection with her father and husband working together.

Seems like I assumed a lot based on what I have read, and you know what they say about assuming ...
 
I’ll repost the insider’s comment about TT not knowing family issues if I can find it.
 
Wow. That is something I have not heard before and really does support that this was planned. From what I have read, it seemed sort of last-minute: ask this friend, ask mom, etc., if they wanted to go shopping.

That lucky/poor girl who elected not to go. This must stay with her. I would assume that friend was around the same age as Rachel and Renee?

I apologize for all my questions And I thank you for answering. I read through everything before I formed an opinion and now I’m trying to nail down specifics of things I don’t believe have been asked before, or at least not in this context.

Possible motives if we assume it was premeditated (which of course we don’t know for sure): jealousy (Rachel getting married and moving out), money (money being lost because can no longer sell “goods”—I read this detail somewhere else; or money being gained via trafficking—we know there were money problems) ... what other possibilities? There was a suspected pregnancy, and not the first among the girls in the family.

I recall a family insider saying TT did not know at the time about Rachel’s home life. I had assumed it was an open secret locally based on earlier posts. It must have been difficult to have the daily continued connection with her father and husband working together.

Seems like I assumed a lot based on what I have read, and you know what they say about assuming ...
Maybe Cotton decided he had hit the jackpot when he found out that Rachel had a nine-year-old girl with her that he could traffic? Maybe he killed Rachel and Renee when they tried to stop him from trafficking Julie (to his brother or whomever). Rachel's market value had probably decreased with age, so he probably figured he wouldn't be able to get much more for her going forward anyway.
-
Or maybe he got Rachel pregnant himself and then killed her because she threatened to tell Tommy; Renee and Julie may just have been collateral damage.
 
Maybe Cotton decided he had hit the jackpot when he found out that Rachel had a nine-year-old girl with her that he could traffic? Maybe he killed Rachel and Renee when they tried to stop him from trafficking Julie (to his brother or whomever). Rachel's market value had probably decreased with age, so he probably figured he wouldn't be able to get much more for her going forward anyway.
-
Or maybe he got Rachel pregnant himself and then killed her because she threatened to tell Tommy; Renee and Julie may just have been collateral damage.
That’s a very interesting theory—that Julie wasn’t collateral damage but in fact the target. I wonder who knew that Julie ended up going with the older girls?

That’s what I was thinking with the pregnancy angle.

I know it’s a big question if the girls ever made it to the mall. If Rachel/TT’s car happened to be spotted at the Arnolds’ house that day, there was the perfect excuse—Fran said that Rachel had come by to ask her to go shopping with them.
 
After listening to Nancy Grace babble on about what the zip code on the letter was and if it could have been in the mail or not while not letting Mr.Wilson or Julie's aunt explain it again I ask what is her appeal.What a disappointing two hours.We know who wrote the letter.We know it was mailed from Fort Worth move on.
The letter is one thing I am unsure of.
  • I understand that it was mailed from Ft. Worth and all the postmark business.
    • But mailed by whom, and who wrote it?
  • Pretty much right away all the family members (Rachel's immediate family and TT) said Rachel didn't write it.
    • Wouldn't it have benefited the family to say Rachel did write it--throw PD off their trail and buy time with PD investigating the girls as runaways?
    • By saying she didn't write it, it instantly throws suspicion on them--since it came from them, they'd be the most likely to have forged this letter. It seems like throwing one of their own under the bus.
Maybe they were insinuating a kidnapper wrote the letter, pretending to be Rachel, so the police would follow that lead? If so, someone is very clever and devious, and definitely planned ahead.
 
Wow. That is something I have not heard before and really does support that this was planned. From what I have read, it seemed sort of last-minute: ask this friend, ask mom, etc., if they wanted to go shopping.

That lucky/poor girl who elected not to go. This must stay with her. I would assume that friend was around the same age as Rachel and Renee?

I apologize for all my questions And I thank you for answering. I read through everything before I formed an opinion and now I’m trying to nail down specifics of things I don’t believe have been asked before, or at least not in this context.

Possible motives if we assume it was premeditated (which of course we don’t know for sure): jealousy (Rachel getting married and moving out), money (money being lost because can no longer sell “goods”—I read this detail somewhere else; or money being gained via trafficking—we know there were money problems) ... what other possibilities? There was a suspected pregnancy, and not the first among the girls in the family.

I recall a family insider saying TT did not know at the time about Rachel’s home life. I had assumed it was an open secret locally based on earlier posts. It must have been difficult to have the daily continued connection with her father and husband working together.

Seems like I assumed a lot based on what I have read, and you know what they say about assuming ...
yes I have talked to classmates of Rachel and the woman I talked to was great friends with Rachel and Renee.Being that her aunt and uncle who she spent a lot of time with were great friends with the Wilsons and they were next door neighbors to the Arnolds.She spent lots of time with them and is how I became acquainted with Mr.Wilson.I can only tell you what TT said in our group he didn't know about it but also he shared nothing,claims to remember no one I asked him about so I don't put much stock into what they say.
 
That’s a very interesting theory—that Julie wasn’t collateral damage but in fact the target. I wonder who knew that Julie ended up going with the older girls?

That’s what I was thinking with the pregnancy angle.

I know it’s a big question if the girls ever made it to the mall. If Rachel/TT’s car happened to be spotted at the Arnolds’ house that day, there was the perfect excuse—Fran said that Rachel had come by to ask her to go shopping with them.
we know there is a sworn statement they came back to the house on MInot after the Army-Navy Store and were there at almost 1PM if you believe it.I don't think they asked anyone from the Arnold house or little brother would have begged to go.
 
The letter is one thing I am unsure of.
  • I understand that it was mailed from Ft. Worth and all the postmark business.
    • But mailed by whom, and who wrote it?
  • Pretty much right away all the family members (Rachel's immediate family and TT) said Rachel didn't write it.
    • Wouldn't it have benefited the family to say Rachel did write it--throw PD off their trail and buy time with PD investigating the girls as runaways?
    • By saying she didn't write it, it instantly throws suspicion on them--since it came from them, they'd be the most likely to have forged this letter. It seems like throwing one of their own under the bus.
Maybe they were insinuating a kidnapper wrote the letter, pretending to be Rachel, so the police would follow that lead? If so, someone is very clever and devious, and definitely planned ahead.
I'm convinced TT wrote it and mailed it to make sure he got his car and wasn't counting on Mr.Wilson finding it so soon.I also think he has admitted writing it therefore passing the lie detector test.I think this maybe his only role in the crime.
 
That’s a very interesting theory—that Julie wasn’t collateral damage but in fact the target. I wonder who knew that Julie ended up going with the older girls?

That’s what I was thinking with the pregnancy angle.

I know it’s a big question if the girls ever made it to the mall. If Rachel/TT’s car happened to be spotted at the Arnolds’ house that day, there was the perfect excuse—Fran said that Rachel had come by to ask her to go shopping with them.
Fran might be the only one out there who knows the truth (although her sister-in-law may also know). Fran may not know where or how the bodies were disposed of.
-
If Cotton had planned to kill Rachel, doing it while she had two other girls with her would have been very reckless; there would have been better opportunities. Odds are a confrontation at her parents' house led to the killing of Rachel at that location.
(Maybe Julie or Renee walked in on Cotton sexually assaulting Rachel; maybe Rachel got in the middle of an argument between Cotton and Fran; who knows.) Whether the other two girls were killed immediately or held for a couple of days is anybody's guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
2,069
Total visitors
2,208

Forum statistics

Threads
590,019
Messages
17,929,078
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top