TX TX - Julie Moseley, 9, Mary Trlica, 17, Lisa Wilson, 14, Fort Worth, 23 Dec 1974 #6

[beubeubeu]

Yes, it is truly bizarre that no one can state what Rachel was wearing on the day that she disappeared. Not one item of clothing.

I also find the 'famous' picture of Rachel that was used on the Missing Posters a bad choice. Someone posted a picture of Rachel as she looked in late 1974 on an earlier thread. She looks nothing like on the Missing Poster, which was clearly taken a few years earlier. The hairstyle is a real giveaway.

You would almost think people close to Rachel had something to hide !!

I guess that reason behind it may be really mondain.
Like (according to the official timeline) Renee and Julie were obviously seen by Renee's bf and his sister. Julie's mom could be absolutely sure what her daughter was wearing and bf highely likely remember what Renee was wearing as he gave her promise ring (and possibly Grandma). So they could be sure of their clothing description right away, while with Rachel not so much - some uncertaintity while filling the very first missing person's report and not engaged officer could just leave it like that.
Same with the picture. It happens. Sometimes family has just this one old picture at easy grab, or they're providing LE with, what they think is the best picture of missing person. Could happen... theoretically.

Cause practically, where is smoke, there is a fire. One or two things like that I wouldn't count as "smoke". Cause things happen. But the amount of things that are weird around Rachel's close ones is, IMO beyond a limit of random.

Once again:
DA claimed to spend whole day at T's house.
But TT claimed that DA drove him to and back from the bowling alley in the evening.
TT claimed to be at work till evening and have multiple calls with FA.
FA claimed to be at the workshop with TT.
But TT said she wasn't.
TT claimed that CA drove him to work and picked him up there to drop him at T's house.
I'm not actually that confident in what CA actually ever said about that day, but DA claimed that he hasn't left the house cause of the cancer treatment (but - according to her own statements, she couldn't actually be 100% sure of that, as she "hasn't left T's house for the whole day).

One big confusion it causes. But it looks like this:

Neighbour feels confident in CA&FA not leaving their driveway on that afternoon, but she wasn't just chilling in her front yard whole day, she was setting up a party, that was supposed to be attended by multiple people, relatively big Christmas party.

Not accusing anyone, cause lying =/= guilt, but a person can't be in two locations in the same time or leave and not leave the house in the same time, buuuut:

Assumming that DA was telling truth: TT wasn't (but her statement about CA&FA whereabouts may be false in facts, but true according to her knowledge).
Assumming that TT was telling truth: DA and FA were not.
Assumming that FA was telling truth: TT wasn't... but her claims were giving him alibi - why would he reject that?

Approaching this once again with clearer mind I want to ask: and what if claiming that she was with him at the workshop wasn't actually a lie in his favor?
But I don't know what purpose could she have in claiming aimed either at stating that she was at the workshop on that day, or that she wasn't home.

Neighbour feels confident in CA&FA not leaving their driveway on that afternoon, but she wasn't just chilling in her front yard whole day, she was setting up a party, that was supposed to be attended by multiple people, relatively big Christmas party. So I guess that she could be fooled or missed the fact that car wasn't there all the time. But unlikely that she could be mistaken about FA approaching her and chatting. So surely FA was home for at least some time. Possibly whole day.

Yet another thing that I haven't questioned before are two versions of events involving FA. One places her at the mall, going through stores and asking clerks about the girls, other at home, with phone book, calling clerks in SS's stores and asking for girls. One doesn't exclude the other, she could call first, go there second, but it's another oddity.

Maybe caused by misreporting. May be not.

 

[beubeubeu]

I'm not familiar with NamUs procedure, so forgive me--who's their source for a missing person's description? And could any part of a description be inaccurate? TIA

Of course it could be inaccurate, mistakes can happen anywhere but they're very strict and it likely wouldn't be a mistake on their part. As much as they can, they're confirming their data with actual MP reports.

 

[beubeubeu]

I did not realize pants were found in a trunk--of a vehicle, I assume? re: a changing room, you really do not *need* one to change pants. You could buy a new pair of pants and change in a public restroom. You could also change in a car, if you really wanted to. I know that sounds a bit out there, but again, teenagers.

Not saying either of those transpired, but easy enough to imagine as possible.

Fair, but if they were at the ANS, but haven't actually made it to the mall, then I doubt they had many public restrooms on the way there. Mostly housing estates on the way and around.

Hmm....One thing with teenage girls though is the frequency they change and also share/swap clothing.

Again, with Julie's age, I would be most inclined to assume the description of her clothing is accurate. At 9, she probably dressed herself, but her parents would probably still have been buying her clothing, and would know what was missing, what she left the house wearing. It doesn't seem from what I've read that hanging around with much older girls was typical for her. Older teens going to the mall though? They could have changed outfits who knows how many times. I would say it would be a best guess as to what missing teens were wearing when they disappeared unless there are very reliable witnesses who saw them just prior to a known timeline for missing. i.e. a teen who goes missing right from a job in a uniform, that sort of thing. Opinion.observation only.

It was mentioned couple times (and is on their NamUs profiles) that Rachel and Julie never met before.
Renee had pretty limited access to her clothes, cause she was staying at her grandma on the previous night.
And Rachel was married for over six months, to a jealous guy. Women married to jealous guys tend to be too tired to be excited about clothes anymore - also how big her wardrobe could be? How many pairs of shoes could she own? I'd imagine that not that many. Shirt could be easily changed, pants could be jeans without anything specific about them.
But shoes? Purse? Some kind of jacket or coat that she was usually wearing on colder days. They weren't super rich and in 70's I'd expect teenage wife to own maybe 2-3 pieces of each of those items.

I agree-- most current/recent photo possible for missing person is preferred. As for no mention of what Rachel was wearing, it's possible she didn't stand out in what she had on that day. Or, maybe the other girls' families were more observant. I believe it was posted elsewhere on here that DA was reportedly half-asleep when she talked with Rachel that morning. Is it a certainty that Rachel stopped by her parents' house, before heading out to pick up Renee? In other words, who all actually saw Rachel that day? Sorry this was a bit lengthy...

DA could be half-asleep then, but not all the time, while living with her sister and to some extent knowing her wardrobe. Also, when Rachel asked her, she may be not ready to go yet. Not much is certain in this case.

 

[Brightchaser47]

Of course it could be inaccurate, mistakes can happen anywhere but they're very strict and it likely wouldn't be a mistake on their part. As much as they can, they're confirming their data with actual MP reports.

So basically, they're as accurate as the MP report is.
Z

 

[Brightchaser47]

So basically, they're as accurate as the MP report is.
Z

What I'm trying to say is, if the info on the MP report is accurate, then NamUs is accurate. If not,....

 

[Brightchaser47]

I guess that reason behind it may be really mondain.
Like (according to the official timeline) Renee and Julie were obviously seen by Renee's bf and his sister. Julie's mom could be absolutely sure what her daughter was wearing and bf highely likely remember what Renee was wearing as he gave her promise ring (and possibly Grandma). So they could be sure of their clothing description right away, while with Rachel not so much - some uncertaintity while filling the very first missing person's report and not engaged officer could just leave it like that.
Same with the picture. It happens. Sometimes family has just this one old picture at easy grab, or they're providing LE with, what they think is the best picture of missing person. Could happen... theoretically.

Cause practically, where is smoke, there is a fire. One or two things like that I wouldn't count as "smoke". Cause things happen. But the amount of things that are weird around Rachel's close ones is, IMO beyond a limit of random.

Once again:
DA claimed to spend whole day at T's house.
But TT claimed that DA drove him to and back from the bowling alley in the evening.
TT claimed to be at work till evening and have multiple calls with FA.
FA claimed to be at the workshop with TT.
But TT said she wasn't.
TT claimed that CA drove him to work and picked him up there to drop him at T's house.
I'm not actually that confident in what CA actually ever said about that day, but DA claimed that he hasn't left the house cause of the cancer treatment (but - according to her own statements, she couldn't actually be 100% sure of that, as she "hasn't left T's house for the whole day).

One big confusion it causes. But it looks like this:
View attachment 397254
Neighbour feels confident in CA&FA not leaving their driveway on that afternoon, but she wasn't just chilling in her front yard whole day, she was setting up a party, that was supposed to be attended by multiple people, relatively big Christmas party.

Not accusing anyone, cause lying =/= guilt, but a person can't be in two locations in the same time or leave and not leave the house in the same time, buuuut:

Assumming that DA was telling truth: TT wasn't (but her statement about CA&FA whereabouts may be false in facts, but true according to her knowledge).
Assumming that TT was telling truth: DA and FA were not.
Assumming that FA was telling truth: TT wasn't... but her claims were giving him alibi - why would he reject that?

Approaching this once again with clearer mind I want to ask: and what if claiming that she was with him at the workshop wasn't actually a lie in his favor?
But I don't know what purpose could she have in claiming aimed either at stating that she was at the workshop on that day, or that she wasn't home.

Neighbour feels confident in CA&FA not leaving their driveway on that afternoon, but she wasn't just chilling in her front yard whole day, she was setting up a party, that was supposed to be attended by multiple people, relatively big Christmas party. So I guess that she could be fooled or missed the fact that car wasn't there all the time. But unlikely that she could be mistaken about FA approaching her and chatting. So surely FA was home for at least some time. Possibly whole day.

Yet another thing that I haven't questioned before are two versions of events involving FA. One places her at the mall, going through stores and asking clerks about the girls, other at home, with phone book, calling clerks in SS's stores and asking for girls. One doesn't exclude the other, she could call first, go there second, but it's another oddity.

Maybe caused by misreporting. May be not.

I think at some point with these players, the left hand didn't know exactly what the right hand was doing, and tried to cover for them, before all the facts were in...

 

[Beekarina]

You wouldn't need to be wealthy to change clothes? Friends have long swapped. I was born in the early 70s and everyone I knew shared with friends, siblings, etc. My sisters--and their friends--were awful about "borrowing" my stuff haha. There is too much unknown/speculation. We have no way of knowing what might have been kept at the grandmother's house, how into clothes any of the girls were, where else they may have went that day, etc.

My personal feeling is she was probably wearing something non-descript, and being a little older and married, no one really took notice.

I think unless there is a photo, someone goes missing from an event, wearing a work uniform, or there is a something unique about what they're wearing, it is probably often a best guess on the part of whoever reports it (Oh, the blue sweater she often wears is missing, she probably had that on) and what ends up in NAMUS.

Personally, I find this age spread really just odd. I've never fully bought into the youngest girl tagging along as described. It is the sticking point for me. It feels a set up of some kind.

 

[beubeubeu]

My personal feeling is she was probably wearing something non-descript, and being a little older and married, no one really took notice.

I think unless there is a photo, someone goes missing from an event, wearing a work uniform, or there is a something unique about what they're wearing, it is probably often a best guess on the part of whoever reports it (Oh, the blue sweater she often wears is missing, she probably had that on) and what ends up in NAMUS.

One person is very observant and other is not. Men are often unable to tell what the person they just saw was wearing o even notice the change in hairstyle. But after seeing so many different MP reports I still find it a bit odd. As I explained before - it's not something that couldn't be easily explainable, but it is odd.
What ends up in the report after all it's the best guess that those searching for person are able to come up with. And it's not like everyone is 100% confident that no change of clothes happened, or that their memory is spot on.
That's why some descriptions are kinda vague - like "light coloured shirt, jeans and sneakers" or mention two likely possibilities - like "green or blue t-shirt, long pants".
No clothing description and old picture in public plea to spike people's memory of possible sightings in crowded mall is very unfortunate. Even if they never actually made it there.

 

[Brightchaser47]

Finally got to listen to the Gone Cold podcast series on the girls; found it  very enlightening. Something occurred to me about the letter. People have pointed out the fact that the letter was written in pen, but the envelope was in pencil. What if the author was originally planning to leave the letter (or part of it) as a "note" elsewhere, but was unable to do so (afraid of being caught, etc) so he/she."edited", decided to mail it from the mall, instead. I know, there are already a million theories/opinions about that darned letter-- just throwing another one out there...

 

[Brightchaser47]

Please forgive the redundancy, if this theory has already been proposed. There are so many posts/threads, it's easy to lose track...

 

[beubeubeu]

Finally got to listen to the Gone Cold podcast series on the girls; found it  very enlightening. Something occurred to me about the letter. People have pointed out the fact that the letter was written in pen, but the envelope was in pencil. What if the author was originally planning to leave the letter (or part of it) as a "note" elsewhere, but was unable to do so (afraid of being caught, etc) so he/she."edited", decided to mail it from the mall, instead. I know, there are already a million theories/opinions about that darned letter-- just throwing another one out there...

It is one version of the events (allegedly). That the note was seen or possibly seen (by DA?) pinned to the fridge in house at Minot, and only later got connected to the envelope.
But it's as uncertain as everything that follows their visit at the Army Navy Store.
You can really get lost in the countless rabbitholes while trying to think of anything. But it's almost 50 years of telephone game, retellings, accussations destroying lives of the family members, wierd actions from some, purposely spreading false infomations, others trying to provide anything as possibly useful tip, journalists and youtubers not making their sources clear and not doing very good job sometimes.

And about advanced rabbitholing:
I'm reading about it for years now and still don't get what people mean when they say that the card with the letter is bigger than the envelope... while on the only available copy of both it looks like it'd fit it perfectly.
How could even something like this could be a point of confusion? How this can be debatable? LE has both of these, physically. Xero copy of both and picture of the letter is available. They showed it in the early coverage about the case, from the time (early '75 I think).
But even this isn't a thing that even the most people interested in solving this case can agree. How is this even possible?

 

[Brightchaser47]

Thanks, Beubeubeu, for the reminder about the rabbitholes. This case seems impossible, but I'd give anything to see it solved.

 

[Brightchaser47]

BTW, I wasn't referring to the fridge theory about the letter, but that's ok. That horse has been beaten enough...
I think one problem with this case is that there are players involved who are determined to remember/see things/people in a certain light, and it hampers any honest attempt at finding the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. For the record, I'm not sitting in any particular camp on this, or vilifying anyone in particular. But if everyone in this story  really wanted the same thing (to see justice done), we would not be here.

 

[Ozoner]

BTW, I wasn't referring to the fridge theory about the letter, but that's ok. That horse has been beaten enough...
I think one problem with this case is that there are players involved who are determined to remember/see things/people in a certain light, and it hampers any honest attempt at finding the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. For the record, I'm not sitting in any particular camp on this, or vilifying anyone in particular. But if everyone in this story  really wanted the same thing (to see justice done), we would not be here.

I don't think that anyone connected to the house on Minot actually wants the truth to come out.

 

[beubeubeu]

BTW, I wasn't referring to the fridge theory about the letter, but that's ok. That horse has been beaten enough...

I know that you weren't referring to the fridge, I just thought about it cause it was similar enough and I can't tell if it's - as you said:
a) a theory (meaning that someone at some point thought that it could happen like this),
b) a claim (that was actually made, officially, told to police),
c) claim made without confidence (meaning it was said, but as "oh, I thought that I could saw it pinned on the fridge before, but I haven't payed that much attention then, so I may be wrong"),
d) something that was brought up long after the disappearance
or, basically, anything in between those 4.

 

[Brightchaser47]

Gotcha.

 

[Brightchaser47]

I don't think that anyone connected to the house on Minot actually wants the truth to come out.

Wow...
It's been said that Rachel and her sister were rather anxious to leave their parents' home--fearful of Dad. I wonder if Dad was the only family member they were fearful of.

 

[Brightchaser47]

So,  prevailing theories regarding motive for the girls' disappearance include: money (involves the possibility of drugs and/or trafficking), jealosy, and stranger abduction (sorry, couldn't bring myself to include aliens). Is this pretty accurate?

 

[beubeubeu]

So,  prevailing theories regarding motive for the girls' disappearance include: money (involves the possibility of drugs and/or trafficking), jealosy, and stranger abduction (sorry, couldn't bring myself to include aliens). Is this pretty accurate?

No need for aliens, nothing to imply their involvement really.
And stranger abductions... were happening there a lot, multiple offenders for sure, multiple serial killers in FW for sure, one in Dallas area with the past of kidnapping multiple young girls at once, but they were dropping bodies all over the place, not bothering much with hiding anything... unlike here.
Same with sex trafficking. It's not good for business to have multiple high risk trafficking victims who's faces are all over the media. Possible for sure, but not even close to likely, unless it'd be targetted kidnapping - with three of them being targets. All three risky. Taken together = higher interest from the public and LE. It's not how human traffickers work.

I'd include anger/rage there as well. Cause jealousy implies only TT or maybe DA.
Apparently it's just me, but I don't understand the motive behind contradicting statements about their wherabouts in the theory of them doing something or covering it up together. In such case they should have enough time to get their stories straight - and their stories are not straight.

Wow...
It's been said that Rachel and her sister were rather anxious to leave their parents' home--fearful of Dad. I wonder if Dad was the only family member they were fearful of.

Who said that? Why fearful to leave if the reason to fear was in the house? Also he had to sign documents allowing Rachel to get married so young, and got quite a bit of money "for the business" from TT.

I wonder where was the Dad on the 23rd.
Neighbour saw FA, not him.
TT claimed that he drove him to and back from work (the dad).
DA claimed that she haven't left the house on Minot for whole day... so theoretically driving TT to and back from bowling alley could possibly not be contradicting anything (cause it wasn't the day anymore, it was evening, and already dark).
DA claimed that CA couldn't drove TT anywhere cause CA had cancer treatment, at home - where they could start with it anytime, or even not do it at all. So maybe she was expressing her distrust in TT, nothing more.
It is possible that TT was abusive, possesive and so on.
But it is certain that CA was violently, physically abusive towards the girls and treating them like they were worth much less cause of their sex. RA (younger brother) recalled seeing them beaten so badly that blood was running down their legs after being beaten so severely by CA, as they were still living at home.
And nobody referred to CA as "not the brightest bulb in the shed" or anything to that accord. VI implied that about TT.
Vast majority of contradicting statements comes from A's. FA's stories were always all over the place, as victims of domestic violence tend to be confused about everything.
FA supposedly stayed at home to assist CA, but right after noon she suddenly had plenty of time to offer help with neighbour's party.

 

[T rex]

You would almost think people close to Rachel had something to hide !!

I was wondering the other day about all that RA has said and done, which is a lot. He's been all over the place but then it occured to me as far as I know he has only stated one thing as a fact regarding this case and I do not dismiss it based on his age at the time like some have. I don't know if he still stands by the statement he made about him and his mother going to the mall on the night of the 23rd but at one time he was adamant about it. His mother denied it and claims it was the next day.
I don't know but for some reason I tend to believe RA and if we assume for a minute that he's right about this then my very next question is,

Did they go in that post office?