TX TX - Julie Moseley, 9, Mary Trlica, 17, Lisa Wilson, 14, Fort Worth, 23 Dec 1974 #7

[Brightchaser47]

Some kids have it like that, especially in the older days and with young parents. With dozens of people babysiting them as someone had the time. But even that should be easy to explain, even if he had dozen different babysitters on that day.

Agreed.

 

[Brightchaser47]

It wasn't all in one building, it was several garages and buildings spread out over a good size tract of land with train tracks seperating it. There was also space for junk cars behind some of these shops. That's about the best I can make of it with the information I've been able to find and the sattelite images. I'm still back and forth over how many of these places the A's had, one or possibly two.

Sounds like there are possibilities with that location, from your description. As for how many the A's had, we've been told they were down to the one location in Arlington, by the time the girls went missing in December.

 

[Pricklykitty]

One possibility I thought of was had shawn been dropped at FA's while RT was shopping. It came into my mind because of DA saying RT went to her parents house that morning, which as we have said before doesn't really make sense. Its unlikely RT would want her mother along for the trip with her friend, but even if she did, wouldn't she just have called to ask rather than waste time going? Anyway I was wondering why DA added that - like was it to put the olds mobile there ( even if driven by someone else) incase anyone had seen it. Was it because RT, and possibly the girls, had actually gone there but for a different reason? Then I thought maybe RT went there before picking up RW and dropped Shawn off to be picked up after shopping. But then why wouldn't someone say so? Apart from the fact no one can tell the truth of course. Maybe because it puts the girls somewhere or in contact with those involved? Or maybe because it would mean the Arnolds should have raised the alarm alot earlier when RT didn't return? I don't know what I think of this 100 % but its just another thought thread I've had

 

[Brightchaser47]

One possibility I thought of was had shawn been dropped at FA's while RT was shopping. It came into my mind because of DA saying RT went to her parents house that morning, which as we have said before doesn't really make sense. Its unlikely RT would want her mother along for the trip with her friend, but even if she did, wouldn't she just have called to ask rather than waste time going? Anyway I was wondering why DA added that - like was it to put the olds mobile there ( even if driven by someone else) incase anyone had seen it. Was it because RT, and possibly the girls, had actually gone there but for a different reason? Then I thought maybe RT went there before picking up RW and dropped Shawn off to be picked up after shopping. But then why wouldn't someone say so? Apart from the fact no one can tell the truth of course. Maybe because it puts the girls somewhere or in contact with those involved? Or maybe because it would mean the Arnolds should have raised the alarm alot earlier when RT didn't return? I don't know what I think of this 100 % but its just another thought thread I've had

Some good points, there. But you'd think if either Rachel or Shawn  had made an appearance at the A home, RA would've known/ remembered it (unless  he was elsewhere). Does anyone know where  he was that morning?

 

[beubeubeu]

But if you're referring to Shawn being left on the 22nd, the only one expected to be home the next day was DA (maybe). Rachel's trip was planned on the 22nd. TT was going to be working (supposedly). If it was an "emergency drop-off", I'd think either Rachel or TT would've had to change plans, to be home, to babysit. We're told TT "left Rachel the car, so she could go shopping on the 23rd". If DA was expected to babysit, she would've had to know Shawn was there. Surely, both Rachel and TT wouldn't just up and leave for the day with "oh, well-- DA can watch him".

No, I meant changing plans on 23rd.
And I'm just trying to look at it the other way. Cause there was a lot of theories and discussions about each or some parts involved lying.
But first - with such an obvious lies they should end up as prime suspects right away.
And second - the person/s that are kinda trying to make them look suspicious are pretty suspicious themselves (I meant both of those sketchy PI's).
So maybe there is an explanation that makes all these accounts fit.

And it's just a theory, cause of course, so many uncertaintities.
But as much as I recall three basic scenarios with planned care for Shawn was:
1) for him to stay with TT & Rachel over the weekend,
2) for him to spend 25th at Minot,
3) for him to stay with Rachel & TT over the weekend and till 25th.

And then we have:
- bowling alley girl saying that she babysat Shawn in the evening hours of 23rd (but there was also that alleged fight between Rachel and TT - was that woman confident that she babysat Shawn on 23rd, not one or two days prior?),
- DA confident that Shawn wasn't at Minot on the 23rd,t
- ST confident that she picked him up right after noon on the 23rd,
- gift in the car and no (public) mentions of Shawn being present at Gordon with Rachel in the morning hours,
- some claims that TT had Shawn with him at work...
... and some more.

So I'm thinking maybe:
- as DA was aware and when she was going to sleep Shawn wasn't there,
- then maybe ST had some sort of emergency and had no choice than to show up in the early morning hours to to leave Shawn with Rachel & TT for few hours, possibly all the time till Christmas if she won't be able to deal with that emergency sooner,
(I know nothing about their style of care, some people left with a child are leaving everything else and are focusing 100% on watching the kid, some are just like okay, so I'll try to do as much as I can, just with the kid around)
- possibly some rushed arrangements were made, pretty limited possibilities thou considering that TT had no car, DA wasn't babysitting him and Rachel didn't have him with her while at Gordon and Army Navy but then had him around noon.
So what? Someone else at home babysitting him? Maybe some friend few blocks away was supposed to watch him till Rachel will be back with Renee, possibly to drop him at TT's work or ask Renee's Grandma for help... which didn't happen cause ST showed up.

It's very, very hard to say. With some people it would be unimaginably crazy behaviour to juggle that kid around, while for others completely normal.
There is not much info of how it looked like for them prior so hard to tell, but assumming that all these accounts are true there should be at least one more person watching Shawn that day - and where are they? Never came forward, never got mentioned publicly cause it'd take all the mystery out of it?

There is something wrong still, cause there is no clear explanation as to how TT got back home and how did he ended up at the bowling alley, possibly with Shawn and possibly not showing up at Minot.

It's making so little sense. Almost like someone weeded out all the crucial info to fuel the suspicion and create rabbitholes.
They can't be all significant.
Cause that would require grand, vicious scheme going on between RA, TT, ST, VB, TM, FA, CA (possibly and likely even more) - extremely sloppy and transparent, yet incredibly effective. Could be that some are real and the rest is made up distraction.

 

[beubeubeu]

Interesting. So where might that have been? Was there someplace close by that was abandoned or off the beaten path that was a local teen hangout? I know it's been suggested on here the girls might've gone somewhere to do drugs, but I don't buy that.

No idea where or if there was any location, looks like they were calling friends at first so it never sounded to me like they were suspecting something as "dark" as abandoned buildings and shady places.

IMO nobody's doing drugs right before fancy birthday party with parents and neighbours, while having 9yo tagging along. Nobody, unless they're completely addicted.
That sounds like old classic victim blaming, nothing more.
So far I haven't seen anything worse "on" them than Renee had a dark side, cause somebody recalled that oh, this one time she smoked a cigarette on some roof and wanted to date a local bad boy, but asked her dad if she can do that. And Rachel possibly being into him... while she also may be a 16yo forced into marriage for their parent's sake. Maybe Renee wasn't into CJG at all, just wanted to have an excuse to have him around and cover for Rachel who, as any other child bride, had no way to get out of it without her parents and husbands permission?
Far from bad in my book. So at worst we have occasional cigarette and maybe cheating (if she herself wanted to marry TT, cause if she was forced, that doesn't even count as cheating for me) and that goes straight into taking drugs with 9yo kid? This is beyond ridiculous.

 

[beubeubeu]

Oh, I missed that post yesterday.

But, he was generally well paid for this, if I understood correctly. He was supposedly working this particular case for free.
I'm having a hard time understanding his motive. Was he really trying to find the girls, and failing miserably? We've been asked to believe he'd followed this case virtually since the day it happened.  If he were that knowledgeable about the case, and had access to all those records, and  if he'd known and/or worked with JS on it, then DJ of all people should've had this case solved. Unless, there was a reason for it not to be. Because again, there was no known financial incentive here (for DJ). He was offering his own money (supposedly), as a reward. "A" family- broke. TT- waiting three years for his inheritance. So what was the deal?

Motive can vary.
Would you work this case for free, having enough resources to do so, skill and experience on your sleeve? I would. This or any other that I'd get invested in.
So it could be just that.
I mean sheer curiosity or need to help someone could explain no fee, reward, and heavy involvement. Does not explain half of his weird actions that followed.

Hidden motives may involve:
- his own involvement in disappearance,
- paying debt for some favours done for him by the perp,
- his close, pre-existing close relationship with A's family,
- some crazy grudge about A's family and this twisted way of revenge,
- being payed by someone with money, favors or information for turning this case into big pile of crazyness,
- fear that somehow solving this case may expose his or his and JS's schemes that could destroy his public image,
- if he had his own PI business or had ties to one, it could be a way to advertise that in order to get a lot of money (cause it's hard for a random person who just found themselves in a need for PI's service to tell who's good and worth the money, so many are going for the famous ones, even if they had results only with making noise).

 

[beubeubeu]

For a while, maybe, but not for very long-- not at age two (hungry, potty, etc). IMO

It depends on a child. Sometimes also on who are they with.
Full attention, interesting toys or plays and basic needs satisfied and kid can be pretty silent for hours. Bit unlikely in the morning, but theoretically possible, even with very energetic child.

 

[beubeubeu]

One possibility I thought of was had shawn been dropped at FA's while RT was shopping. It came into my mind because of DA saying RT went to her parents house that morning, which as we have said before doesn't really make sense. Its unlikely RT would want her mother along for the trip with her friend, but even if she did, wouldn't she just have called to ask rather than waste time going? Anyway I was wondering why DA added that - like was it to put the olds mobile there ( even if driven by someone else) incase anyone had seen it. Was it because RT, and possibly the girls, had actually gone there but for a different reason? Then I thought maybe RT went there before picking up RW and dropped Shawn off to be picked up after shopping. But then why wouldn't someone say so? Apart from the fact no one can tell the truth of course. Maybe because it puts the girls somewhere or in contact with those involved? Or maybe because it would mean the Arnolds should have raised the alarm alot earlier when RT didn't return? I don't know what I think of this 100 % but its just another thought thread I've had

Oh, I also recently learned that Renee's younger brother wasn't bit older than Shawn (no way why I got it that way) but actually older than Rachel's younger brother - making them 12 and 11.
We also have no clue where those boys were before RA was in same time helping FA with phone book while she was "calling every store in the mall" as well as at the mall, till it closed, while FA was physically running through stores and searching.
Where was RA before 4:00 PM? And where was Renee's brother? Also with Grandma? Alone at home, while 14yo Renee stayed with Grandma?

 

[beubeubeu]

Some good points, there. But you'd think if either Rachel or Shawn  had made an appearance at the A home, RA would've known/ remembered it (unless  he was elsewhere). Does anyone know where  he was that morning?

Oh yeah, that exactly. Nobody knows where RA was on that day.
Also seems like nobody knows where Renee's brother was.
Nobody knows what Julie's sister saw on that day.
Her friend has very vague recollections of it.
That makes 4 young teens.
Of course, cause of the attitude of the time and lack of experience with questioning such young people they could all end up completely shut down and ignored with whatever they had to say to the point where they genuinely got so confused and blocked from those memories that they weren't useful anymore.

But I don't know, so many girls involved. In 1974. Boys maybe not so much, but somehow none of the girls had a diary? Wasn't that VERY popular at the time for young girls to have diaries?

 

[Brightchaser47]

Nobody knows what Julie's sister saw on that day.
Her friend has very vague recollections of it.

Weren't they the ones who were supposed to meet with the trio at the mall, when chores were done? They claimed the trio never showed up, so they left. So it would be after this that their whereabouts/actions are in question?

 

[beubeubeu]

Weren't they the ones who were supposed to meet with the trio at the mall, when chores were done? They claimed the trio never showed up, so they left. So it would be after this that their whereabouts/actions are in question?

Not as much their whereabouts in question, cause that sounds pretty clear. I was thinking more about more specific plans or considerations possibly mentioned by Rachel or Renee that they may overhear but not think much about it, if Shawn was mentioned, when TM left, if and when VB showed up, if they saw someone familiar at the mall - stuff like that.

With all the shock of the disappearance and even parents convinced that they may be runaways these two girls may not be asked right questions soon enough for them to still remember most of that morning.

 

[Pricklykitty]

I do find it odd that Janet M claims to have absolutely no memories of the day. Whilst I understand trauma can do this, I don't really think that a sister being late home and then being seen as a runaway would be traumatic enough to make her block out the entire day. When you think up until late afternoon/ early evening the day would ( or should) have seemed incredibly normal, yet she states the whole day from start to finish is gone, and she now only tells the story as has been told her by others. Seems very peculiar in my opinion.
Then of course she says some memories were uncovered by hypnosis but she won't reveal them. Which is just adding fuel to the fire that the truth is being witheld.

 

[Brightchaser47]

I do find it odd that Janet M claims to have absolutely no memories of the day. Whilst I understand trauma can do this, I don't really think that a sister being late home and then being seen as a runaway would be traumatic enough to make her block out the entire day. When you think up until late afternoon/ early evening the day would ( or should) have seemed incredibly normal, yet she states the whole day from start to finish is gone, and she now only tells the story as has been told her by others. Seems very peculiar in my opinion.
Then of course she says some memories were uncovered by hypnosis but she won't reveal them. Which is just adding fuel to the fire that the truth is being witheld.

I agree, although it's interesting that she did undergo hypnosis. I'd really like to know what could  possibly have happened, that would be worth  three girls being lost to the sands of time for nearly half a century (assuming they're dead). I can only surmise that those who are reluctant to talk are either
1. Deathly afraid of someone still living
2. Trying to protect someone
3. Some crazy combination of both

 

[loveplace]

I do find it odd that Janet M claims to have absolutely no memories of the day. Whilst I understand trauma can do this, I don't really think that a sister being late home and then being seen as a runaway would be traumatic enough to make her block out the entire day. When you think up until late afternoon/ early evening the day would ( or should) have seemed incredibly normal, yet she states the whole day from start to finish is gone, and she now only tells the story as has been told her by others. Seems very peculiar in my opinion.
Then of course she says some memories were uncovered by hypnosis but she won't reveal them. Which is just adding fuel to the fire that the truth is being witheld.

I would agree if we were talking to her before the events became hugely traumatic when her sister NEVER returned. Living through that kind of trauma over time is what tends to interfere in the formation of long term memories.

People with ptsd often have memory troubles that include non traumatic periods as well because brain function has been shown to actually be altered by traumatic experiences over time.

 

[FW_Froggy]

1) Who was watching Julie on the 23rd.? 2) Was Julie living with her Dad across the street on the 23rd.? 3) Did Julie's Dad go to the Mall with his wife on the 23rd.?

 

[Esdaniel]

It's been a while since I visited this thread and I have a lot to catch up on. Just something that has stuck out to me in what I have read so far...

Can anyone confirm if the Arnold Transmission shop located on North Sylvania was indeed run by CA? I ask only because my grandfather owned a driveshaft company .6 miles from there and would have likely known each other. Let me rephrase, I am positive they would have had dealings with one another. Not trying to muddy the waters here but I have heard stories for years about some shady business that took place and I would just like to put my own mind at ease.

Thanks for all the hard work you all do! I feel confident we are closer than ever to getting answers!

 

[beubeubeu]

I do find it odd that Janet M claims to have absolutely no memories of the day. Whilst I understand trauma can do this, I don't really think that a sister being late home and then being seen as a runaway would be traumatic enough to make her block out the entire day. When you think up until late afternoon/ early evening the day would ( or should) have seemed incredibly normal, yet she states the whole day from start to finish is gone, and she now only tells the story as has been told her by others. Seems very peculiar in my opinion.
Then of course she says some memories were uncovered by hypnosis but she won't reveal them. Which is just adding fuel to the fire that the truth is being witheld.

Considering the circumstances mentioned - with parents trying to do their best shielding the younger kids from all of this to not traumatize them further, likely not discussing it with them at all after some point (or the opposite, asking a lot, hoping that they will recall something while they really don't recall any more than they said), and these creepy calls from local pranksters (possibly even murderers) taunting them, causing constant tension and new traumas, sprinkled with gossip and news about searches for the girls bodies...
I don't think that there is anything odd in her eventually remembering nothing from that day even few years later, not to mention decades.
BUT, her memories should be somewhere on paper, collected at the time.

That whole hypnosis thing always sounded crazy to me - unless she hoped that thanks to hypnosis she may recall something that she didn't realized then. Cause if she was so eager to get ANY recollections, trying to remember anything in hope that colud help in the investigation - that would imply that she wasn't questioned properly then.

 

[beubeubeu]

It's been a while since I visited this thread and I have a lot to catch up on. Just something that has stuck out to me in what I have read so far...

Can anyone confirm if the Arnold Transmission shop located on North Sylvania was indeed run by CA? I ask only because my grandfather owned a driveshaft company .6 miles from there and would have likely known each other. Let me rephrase, I am positive they would have had dealings with one another. Not trying to muddy the waters here but I have heard stories for years about some shady business that took place and I would just like to put my own mind at ease.

Thanks for all the hard work you all do! I feel confident we are closer than ever to getting answers!

Then you'd be the first person who knew someone who could confirm that those buisnesses ever existed.
By that I don't mean that there is a doubt about that, but so many posts here, so many comments about it, so many recollections from neighbours, friends, locals, those who went to same high school, visited same mall, drove Oldsmobile... yet not a single one ex customer of Arnold's businesses, not a single one ex-worker or their relative, or even their acquaintance. Which is hella weird.

It was ran by CA, there are at least two newspaper ads advertising that business as his.
Could you share something more about those stories you heard?

 

[beubeubeu]

1) Who was watching Julie on the 23rd.? 2) Was Julie living with her Dad across the street on the 23rd.? 3) Did Julie's Dad go to the Mall with his wife on the 23rd.?

Oh yeah, him. I'm fascinated with it.
He haven't (publicly) uttered a word about his missing daughter at any time, like it was none of his business, some hints here and there that he move out and lived far, far away, working even more_away_from_home for long periods of time... but it was actually right there, he was living right there and possibly even was at home on that day (I don't know, that's what that "possibly" means) - yet if someone had something bad to say about any of the parents in any of those God forsaken coverages of this case it seems to be always... Julie's mom. Cause of course.

I don't know the answers but I'm under impression that:
1. Renee's Grandma?
2. Possibly.
3. I never heard of this possibility.

I completely forgot that there was also a chance that she was staying with the dad, not in family home. So please don't rely on my answers, cause I don't know, don't remember where I saw that even, but I'd add one more question:

4. When Julie went "home" to call her mom and ask permission to go to the mall with Renee & Rachel - who's home was that:
a) Renee's Grandma?
b) her mother's,
c) her father's.