TX TX - Julie Moseley, 9, Mary Trlica, 17, Lisa Wilson, 14, Fort Worth, 23 Dec 1974 #8

New Posts

beubeubeu said:
Sorry, at some point I'm getting lost with all the initials.
JS was claiming left and right that he's doing it for free and putting his own money up for reward (no mistake here, they were both doing or claiming to do exactly the same)
Unless its some local custom for to poblically pretend that they're working for free - if so, I'm unfamiliar with it.

If it's not a local custom though, I can see only few reasons for PI to work for free:
- to advertise their PI business and get recognition (doesn't seem to be the case),
- to help people in need - but it's only possible if there are other sources of income to pay for their living, bills and investigatigation's costs (possible)
But you know y'all what seems to be the most common motivation?
Cause it's done for a friend, friend-of-a-friend (at worst) or family member.

Any chance that Renee's dad knew JS prior to the disappearance?
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken JS was paid 500 dollars by RW.
 
Today I ended up thinking about TM & VB and my own teenage years. And since this case's coverage seems to be so notorious with blowing things out the proportion while there is likely not much there and staying enigmatic where it's seriously confusing and next to impossible to tell what was really going on.

And my theory about it is (well, it's rather a collection of my guesses but anyways).

What was VB even doing there?
I don't mean on that specific day, cause that's iffy, but in general. He wasn't like the next door neighbour.
And we have pretty good explanation on how Renee's & Rachel's friendship happened despite of significatn distance between their houses and age gap: cause Renee was vitsiting F's, who were her parent's friends and next door neighbours of A's.
Then - what's VB doing there? So he's TM's friend (which I'm not sure if it's even accurate, cause what I took from their stories was that they kinda knew each other before, but the actual friendship formed sometime AFTER the disappearance and VB's return from Cali).
But TM is the eldest sibling and he's significantly younger than VB, who doesn't seem to be their next door neighbour - while in the same time he was apparently a guest at Renee's, at Rachel's birthday party month prior to disappearance. Assumming that it was as TM said - that he was unaware of his interest in Renee, her interest in him, his interest in Rachel and that he didn't even knew Rachel that well. We also have Renee's dad being against VB, yet not so much against TM (which sounds odd under assumption that they were friends already).
Sounds like a big mess, but there is a way to make sense out of it without considering their statements as lies cause it's all possible if:
- TM and VB are not close friends YET,
- TM and Renee are not dating each other for long YET - and it's not like she was hiding anything from TM, instead more like she didn't have much of an occasion to tell him YET (and I don't mean confessing that she used to want to date him, I mean usual chatting about her days, when she may met him)
- VB is someone who Renee met through Rachel
Then it makes sense that Renee's dad, upon hearing that she went shopping with Rachel his first thought was that they must be somewhere together, with VB. Doesn't sound like he was thinking that VB could harm them, it sounded more like he got angry cause he didn't saw VB as an appropriate companion for his 14yo daughter.
Yet, in the same time it doesn't sound like VB and Rachel were good friends, neighbours or antyhing like that, also age difference still, so they weren't classmates.

Is this possible that he came into the picture and started hanging out with Rachel cause he was a friend or acquaintance of DA or ST? Seems like VB and ST were same age, and the first mention of VB places him at that unfortunate November's birthday party - if that happened after DA came to live with TT & Rachel, it's possible that they got introduced to each other not that long before the disappearance.
Even if so, there still had to be someone who introduced TM and VB... unless they met in High School few months earlier.

No one, not one person in the right mind would assume that 17yo girl takes her 14yo friend and her 9yo neighbour to ran away. This is not how reality works. It doesn't happen like that.
People having plans and acting enthusiastic about some events in the future sometimes are running away, especially teenagers who are known for not making the best decisions and being easily overtaken by emotions (so some super important and unforeseen reasons my appear, or just poor judgement, underestimating time needed to visit a place) - not that often, but it may happen. It's far from being the most likely scenario to explain their absence, but it may happen.
Running away with 9yo neighbour, randomly tagging along doesn't happen. Cops may be negligent or uninterested, but parents surely were.
What on Earth did they knew that we now don't know, what made them believe that running away was a possibility. There had to be something. They weren't dumb. What was it?

VB was Renee's dad best guess as who may be responsible for them not returning home as planned. And he was freaking right to assume that they met with him. Cause they did.
So good thinking, good awareness of what's going on with his daughter and her friend.
But then VB is still there, while girls are not. So what's his secound guess? Where they may go, with who, to visit who or what? The scenario of them running away had to be supported with some believeable theory as to why, where, whith whom. What was it?
 
beubeubeu said:
What was VB even doing there?
I don't mean on that specific day, cause that's iffy, but in general. He wasn't like the next door neighbour.
And we have pretty good explanation on how Renee's & Rachel's friendship happened despite of significatn distance between their houses and age gap: cause Renee was vitsiting F's, who were her parent's friends and next door neighbours of A's.
Then - what's VB doing there? So he's TM's friend (which I'm not sure if it's even accurate, cause what I took from their stories was that they kinda knew each other before, but the actual friendship formed sometime AFTER the disappearance and VB's return from Cali).
But TM is the eldest sibling and he's significantly younger than VB, who doesn't seem to be their next door neighbour - while in the same time he was apparently a guest at Renee's, at Rachel's birthday party month prior to disappearance. Assumming that it was as TM said - that he was unaware of his interest in Renee, her interest in him, his interest in Rachel and that he didn't even knew Rachel that well. We also have Renee's dad being against VB, yet not so much against TM (which sounds odd under assumption that they were friends already).
Sounds like a big mess, but there is a way to make sense out of it without considering their statements as lies cause it's all possible if:
- TM and VB are not close friends YET,
- TM and Renee are not dating each other for long YET - and it's not like she was hiding anything from TM, instead more like she didn't have much of an occasion to tell him YET (and I don't mean confessing that she used to want to date him, I mean usual chatting about her days, when she may met him)
- VB is someone who Renee met through Rachel
Then it makes sense that Renee's dad, upon hearing that she went shopping with Rachel his first thought was that they must be somewhere together, with VB. Doesn't sound like he was thinking that VB could harm them, it sounded more like he got angry cause he didn't saw VB as an appropriate companion for his 14yo daughter.
Yet, in the same time it doesn't sound like VB and Rachel were good friends, neighbours or antyhing like that, also age difference still, so they weren't classmates.

Is this possible that he came into the picture and started hanging out with Rachel cause he was a friend or acquaintance of DA or ST? Seems like VB and ST were same age, and the first mention of VB places him at that unfortunate November's birthday party - if that happened after DA came to live with TT & Rachel, it's possible that they got introduced to each other not that long before the disappearance.
Even if so, there still had to be someone who introduced TM and VB... unless they met in High School few months earlier.
Click to expand...
Good point. Especially since VB is such a POI in this case.
beubeubeu said:
What on Earth did they knew that we now don't know, what made them believe that running away was a possibility.
Click to expand...
I don't know that it was actual "running away", in the permanent sense, but maybe just going somewhere and  not making it back. RW alluded to that in the video clip. Rachel, Renee, and Julie  all had good reasons to be back that evening.
beubeubeu said:
There had to be something. They weren't dumb. What was it?

VB was Renee's dad best guess as who may be responsible for them not returning home as planned. And he was freaking right to assume that they met with him. Cause they did.
So good thinking, good awareness of what's going on with his daughter and her friend.
But then VB is still there, while girls are not. So what's his secound guess? Where they may go, with who, to visit who or what? The scenario of them running away had to be supported with some believeable theory as to why, where, whith whom. What was it?
Click to expand...
All good questions.
 
Brightchaser47 said:
I don't know that it was actual "running away", in the permanent sense, but maybe just going somewhere and  not making it back. RW alluded to that in the video clip. Rachel, Renee, and Julie  all had good reasons to be back that evening.
Click to expand...
Permanently or not, good reason is required. May be that good reason in teenager's eyes isn't same for adults (often it isn't) but they knew that perfectly working and relatively new car was left behind.
Why? Cause it'd be easier to track them with a car? But it was 1974 and much much harder to travel around with no car.
Not nearly enough preparation to consider them running away permanently. And if they wanted to take some personal items and clothes, they could easily pack at least small bags and not get caught while sneaking with them. Yet no mention of any bags, personal items, clothes missing from their homes.
HUGE red flag, cause even if you have a kid that runs away to check out a beach somewhere, attend a music festival, visit a friend, do pretty much ANYTHING for longer than two days, they sure as hell going to take some stuff with them and change of clothing.

And that leaves pretty much two possibilities (under assumption that we're dealing with teens who ran away for few days):
1. They're going somewhere where they are expecting to get basic supplies (like soap, toothbrush, tovel, some clothes, blankets, food etc.).
2. They're going somewhere with a person that took all the stuff they may need or will be able to provide them (buying whatever they may need).
If there was something like music festival somewhere, and plenty of other teenagers ran away presumeably to attend, ready to sleep wherever and came back as it ends then okay, that surely could be a hopeful scenario. But to my knowledge nobody ever mentioned anything like this.
 
beubeubeu said:
Permanently or not, good reason is required. May be that good reason in teenager's eyes isn't same for adults (often it isn't) but they knew that perfectly working and relatively new car was left behind.
Why? Cause it'd be easier to track them with a car? But it was 1974 and much much harder to travel around with no car.
Not nearly enough preparation to consider them running away permanently. And if they wanted to take some personal items and clothes, they could easily pack at least small bags and not get caught while sneaking with them. Yet no mention of any bags, personal items, clothes missing from their homes.
HUGE red flag, cause even if you have a kid that runs away to check out a beach somewhere, attend a music festival, visit a friend, do pretty much ANYTHING for longer than two days, they sure as hell going to take some stuff with them and change of clothing.

And that leaves pretty much two possibilities (under assumption that we're dealing with teens who ran away for few days):
1. They're going somewhere where they are expecting to get basic supplies (like soap, toothbrush, tovel, some clothes, blankets, food etc.).
2. They're going somewhere with a person that took all the stuff they may need or will be able to provide them (buying whatever they may need).
If there was something like music festival somewhere, and plenty of other teenagers ran away presumeably to attend, ready to sleep wherever and came back as it ends then okay, that surely could be a hopeful scenario. But to my knowledge nobody ever mentioned anything like this.
Click to expand...
What you said is all true, but I was thinking more along the lines of an event taking place somewhere nearby, that afternoon. Something that the girls could be persuaded to "check out" with someone they knew (like maybe a drag race, or stunt riding, or something).
 
Brightchaser47 said:
What you said is all true, but I was thinking more along the lines of an event taking place somewhere nearby, that afternoon. Something that the girls could be persuaded to "check out" with someone they knew (like maybe a drag race, or stunt riding, or something).
Click to expand...
I was still wondering about the scenario that kept parents believe that it's possible that they're away cause they ran away and will be back soon: no additional clothing taken, no bags, no money, no car, no foreseen reason for that absence.
I can see a single parent ending up so scared and stressed to hook on hope that somehow it will end up to be just stupid idea to run away and that kid will be back. But multiple close ones usually means challenging theories and ideas, which leads me to wonder what they were considering (or led to consider) as likely scenario that made them believe that they ran away (to return).
 
beubeubeu said:
I was still wondering about the scenario that kept parents believe that it's possible that they're away cause they ran away and will be back soon: no additional clothing taken, no bags, no money, no car, no foreseen reason for that absence.
I can see a single parent ending up so scared and stressed to hook on hope that somehow it will end up to be just stupid idea to run away and that kid will be back. But multiple close ones usually means challenging theories and ideas, which leads me to wonder what they were considering (or led to consider) as likely scenario that made them believe that they ran away (to return).
Click to expand...
I'm not all that sure that all the families did believe wholeheartedly they had run away. I think it was just one possible scenario, and since police dismissed it as such, the families were a bit stuck. Maybe some wanted to believe they had run away, but I don't think Mrs W thought that for a minute
 
Pricklykitty said:
I'm not all that sure that all the families did believe wholeheartedly they had run away. I think it was just one possible scenario, and since police dismissed it as such, the families were a bit stuck. Maybe some wanted to believe they had run away, but I don't think Mrs W thought that for a minute
Click to expand...
Good points. I think for some, the idea that the girls had run away (however unlikely) was preferable to them being abducted/raped/murdered. The "runaway" scenario meant they were ok and would be back.
 
beubeubeu said:
Is this possible that he came into the picture and started hanging out with Rachel cause he was a friend or acquaintance of DA or ST? Seems like VB and ST were same age,
Click to expand...
Did VB and ST live or work near each other, or could they have met at school?
beubeubeu said:
and the first mention of VB places him at that unfortunate November's birthday party - if that happened after DA came to live with TT & Rachel, it's possible that they got introduced to each other not that long before the disappearance.
Even if so, there still had to be someone who introduced TM and VB... unless they met in High School few months earlier.
Click to expand...
True.
 
Brightchaser47 said:
Did VB and ST live or work near each other, or could they have met at school?

True.
Click to expand...
VB lived in the TM neighborhood. VB lived on Townsend DR. which is directly behind Gordon where TM lived. ST did not live near that neighborhood she lived on the West Side (Carla Walker part of town). TM lived on the South Side of town. VB went to Paschal HS and ST went to Western Hills HS (Completely different sides of town).
 
FW_Froggy said:
VB lived in the TM neighborhood. VB lived on Townsend DR. which is directly behind Gordon where TM lived. ST did not live near that neighborhood she lived on the West Side (Carla Walker part of town). TM lived on the South Side of town. VB went to Paschal HS and ST went to Western Hills HS (Completely different sides of town).
Click to expand...
Thanks for explaining that. Was the West Side where TT's parents lived before moving to Minot Ave.?
 
Last edited:
jetsfanjohn said:
Yes that is my understanding, also.

Who/what made RA back off ? I wonder if it was a case where some family secret connected to the girls disappearance (that FA and DA knew about), was then told to RA to make him take a step back ?
Click to expand...
I'd hope not! That would mean keeping the secret was more important than closure for the other families. That would be pretty selfish (IMO).
jetsfanjohn said:
It then became more a case of RA searching for the girls remains as opposed to finding who was responsible ?
Click to expand...
I'd think it would be easier to know where to look for bodies, if you knew who the killer was. But I know there've been differing opinions about that posted on here...
Were those remains found at Alvord ever identified or retested?
 
FW_Froggy said:
I guess it depends on where he was coming from and if it really happened.
Click to expand...
Also why he wouldn't use his own truck, the one his 14 year old bestie remembers the make of because he was using it ( at 14) while VB was in California. Yes my eyes did roll reading that!!
 
Pricklykitty said:
Also why he wouldn't use his own truck, the one his 14 year old bestie remembers the make of because he was using it ( at 14) while VB was in California. Yes my eyes did roll reading that!!
Click to expand...
Wow. Maybe VB had lost his license?
 
I need to take a break from spa... posting here, but despite of reading about it couple times it only hit me now. Well, this afternoon actually.

Melissa, that almost-2-yo baby who got kidnapped in 1971.
Not even a kid, a baby. Little, tiny baby.
How well they were investigating abduction of a BABY and what exactly they were doing so they managed to miss that she got abducted by her babysitter who didn't even bother to get out of town?
Was FWPD considering her runaway as well?
 
beubeubeu said:
I need to take a break from spa... posting here, but despite of reading about it couple times it only hit me now. Well, this afternoon actually.

Melissa, that almost-2-yo baby who got kidnapped in 1971.
Not even a kid, a baby. Little, tiny baby.
How well they were investigating abduction of a BABY and what exactly they were doing so they managed to miss that she got abducted by her babysitter who didn't even bother to get out of town?
Was FWPD considering her runaway as well?
Click to expand...
Better yet as of today there are NOOOO charges in that case and that person is living life free as a bird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 153 more.
Total: 3,021 (members: 154, guests: 2,867)

Online statistics

Members online
154
Guests online
2,867
Total visitors
3,021
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,172
Messages
17,964,594
Members
228,712
Latest member
Lover305
Back
Top